By Max Musson:
Yesterday saw the second of the much vaunted debates between our lack lustre deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and the new, ‘naughty boy’ of British politics, Nigel Farage, and as was widely expected, Farage gave Clegg another good ‘spanking’.
Whereas post debate opinion polls after the first of their televised debates placed Farage ahead of Clegg with the approval of 57% of viewers as opposed to just 36% for Clegg, post debate polls last night put Forage much more emphatically ahead, by 69% compared to Clegg’s 31%. These figure confirming what nationalists have stated all along that if nationalist policies are presented in a favourable or neutral environment, that roughly eight out of ten of the British people would vote for them.
Should we nationalists be pleased by the rising popularity of Farage and UKIP? I think we should, because despite anything else that anyone might say, among those parties that have a chance of making substantial electoral gains, UKIP is the closest thing we have to a genuine nationalist party and if they can pull the political debate further in our direction, it can only be for the good.
However, if we ask whether we should place all of our hopes in UKIP turning out to be the saviours of our nation, the answer has to be a much more circumspect, ‘probably not’.
UKIP policies do concur with the policies of the BNP and the BDP in certain key respects, but there are also significant differences, and we must be cognisant of the fact that the values and ideological underpinnings of BNP/BDP policy are poles apart from those represented in UKIP. Indeed, traditional nationalist policies, as presented to the public are by their very nature, modified somewhat and packaged and presented in order to appeal to the widest possible audience, and as such tend to represent the minimum that we would find acceptable, whereas the policies presented by UKIP probably represent the maximum extent to which an establishment political party would want to move in our direction regarding the policies that we would regard as key.
For example, both UKIP and traditional British nationalism wish to see Britain withdraw from the European Union (EU), but mere withdrawal from the EU is not enough. An independent Britain would still be subject to a whole host of international trade agreements and treaties all of which bind us to a policy of progressive economic globalism and mere withdrawal from the EU would simply mean that the UK would be a small, isolated political entity, still ‘swimming’ in a globalist commercial ‘sea’, instead of being part of a larger political entity in that same ‘sea’.
In order for an independent Britain to thrive post withdrawal from the EU, we would need to pursue a policy of economic autarky, i.e. we would need in short order, to make Britain as economically self-sufficient as possible, and this is something that UKIP do not even consider. UKIP are still wedded to the idea of international free trade and a UKIP government would still take us on a journey of subservience to New World Order (NWO) globalist hegemony, just a different route to the one we would take if we remain within the EU.
Similarly, UKIP are opposed to the current governmental policy of uncontrolled mass immigration into the UK, but for merely economic and social reasons based on numbers, not for the racial and cultural reasons that would be of primary importance to racial nationalists and which one suspects are also of primary importance to the majority of ordinary Britons.
UKIP is not only open to membership by ethnic minorities, UKIP is keen to have them and to promote them as candidates and Nigel Farage takes a hard-line stance against anyone from within his party who professes feelings of racial preference for we indigenous British and/or who has ever been a member of a racial nationalist political party in the past. Nigel Farage has also been keen to ape the leaders of the main establishment parties by pandering to the Jewish vote, speaking at exclusively Jewish meetings and reassuring Jewish voters than anyone expounding views critical of Jewry will not be tolerated within UKIP.
Jeremy Zeid a Jewish former Conservative councilor and now chairman of UKIP’s Harrow branch in London, reportedly said in the Jewish Chronicle that he had been surprised by the “considerable” Jewish support within UKIP when he joined the party last year and claimed another Jewish member was a “major financial contributor” to UKIP and had direct access to leader Nigel Farage.
Mr Zeid reportedly said: “At last year’s conference I was amazed at how many Jewish members, many religious, were in attendance. There is quite high Jewish membership in Newcastle, Manchester and Birmingham.”
UKIP has recently had a significant influx of Jewish members, to such an extent that there has now been formed within the party, a UKIP Friends of Israel group.
Some people hope that UKIP are secretly composed of people who are really racial nationalists and who once in power will implement policies, or at least create a political climate, that will allow racial nationalist ideas to flourish. However this is a dangerous mistake, as UKIP’s current bourgeoning political success is directly related to, and completely dependent upon, the favourable treatment they receive from the mass media.
Some people claim that the media have attacked UKIP and it is true, they have in certain instances, but to nothing like the extent and with nothing like the ferocity and regularity that the media attacked the BNP during the period that the BNP’s star was in the ascendant.
One only has to watch the many episodes of BBC’s Question Time in which Nigel Farage and other UKIP representatives have appeared, and in which they have been treated civilly and with respect, and to contrast these with the one-off Question Time appearance that Nick Griffin was afforded in 2009, in which he was ambushed and ferociously harangued by a hand picked studio audience.
One only has to contrast the way in which David Dimbleby very often sided with Nigel Farage, during the debates with Nick Clegg, and compare this with the way in which he sided with the other guests in attacking Nick Griffin during Griffin’s Question Time appearance. Clearly, UKIP benefits from a political environment that is at the very least neutral towards it and many would say is positively accepting of it, and as stated earlier, the experience of most nationalists of long-standing is that c. 80% of the British public would vote for a party espousing ‘nationalist’ policies in a neutral or favourable political environment. This is the key to UKIP’s success, but therein also lies the seed of it’s vulnerability, should the media moguls be displeased at some future date and decide upon an abrupt change of attitude towards the party.
If we think back to the glory days of Maggie Thatcher’s reign as Prime Minister, we cannot help but notice the firm support she always had from the mass media, particularly in the early days. She was the member for the largely Jewish borough of Finchley, she had courted Jewish mentors, Jewish friends and had promoted Jewish politicians within her administration, and yet, the moment she made it clear that she would not countenance any further erosion of British sovereignty by the EU, in her famous ‘Bruges speech’ in 1988, the media turned against her and virtually nothing she did thereafter was depicted positively by the mass media.
Thatcher had survived the upheavals of the miners strike and the Falklands conflict, but in the end these counted for naught, and just over two years following that fateful speech she was hounded from office.
In the light of these lessons regarding the power of the media to make or break politicians and to dramatically affect the public perception of them, we begin to see how precarious and in some ways capricious are UKIP’s political fortunes, and not just UKIP’s political fortunes, but the fortunes of any political movement that relies on electioneering as its sole path to power.
While we nationalists can feel some satisfaction at the rising electoral success of UKIP, and while we might vote for them and wish them well, we should not allow ourselves to be seduced into believing that through UKIP will come the eventual salvation of our people.
The current political and cultural status quo, combined with our appreciation of the power of the media to raise and topple governments, tells us that the current plight of Britain and the parlous state of our people is precisely what the media moguls want. We British will therefore never by free and will never enjoy self-determination until the nationalist movement acquires the means to take political power irrespective of the support of the mass media, and as it will almost certainly be in the end, in spite of the implacable and ferocious opposition of the media.
In short, until we acquire the Six Prerequisites, all else in politics is simply a mirage.
By Max Musson © 2014.
# # # #
TIM DAWES
- Edit
Max, great article,voting for UKIP at the moment is all we have,it will be a wasted vote supporting BNP.until Nick Griffin stands down.
Kenny Bryant
- Edit
In comparison to whites, blacks buy virtually no newspapers – a tube train is a splendid arena to observe this – so when the word goes out, and it will, for whites to stop buying enemy propaganda the press becomes defunct.
Once again, owning the streets makes it possible.
Steven
- Edit
The BNP is beyond saving I would say. It’s last chance with the electorate was in 2011 when Nick survived the leadership challenge of Andrew Brons. Even it it had a brilliant and charismatic leader at the helm now, it would be in severe difficulties as the damage has been done. Sadly, this party had a lot of potential promise but Nick and others conspired to ensure it was not to be and it now amounts to little more than a ‘zombie’ party compared to an effective moderate nationalist party like Marine Le Pen’s Front National.
I am pretty reluctant to vote UKIP for many reasons and many of them have been outlined here. The media’s support of UKIP should make any nationalist and/or politically-aware member of the electorate to wonder why that is. I may vote for them in the Euro elections though as it will be an election that is focused on the EU issue.
Valhalla Valkyrie
- Edit
I think the problem is that there is too much focus on the leader. I’m not an expert on how Golden Dawn present themselves but it appears to be very much the party first while the BNP appears Griffin first. The party is stronger than the leader and at this stage the leader should be taking a step back and directing/organising.
If they were to flat out reject cooperating with the mainstream media then the establishment’s weapon of reporting slip ups, divisions and so on would be removed and the media would lose credibility in the eyes of the public as for the media to be valid it has to appear that it has the support of both sides.
Valhalla Valkyri
- Edit
I would say first and foremost that ‘poll’ results are a lie. In Greece public ‘polls’ put the support for Golden Dawn at 10% when the support is much higher. They do so to demoralise and divide activists so they think they are not getting anywhere, would be activists are made to think that it is not worth the bother and for voters to make them move their support so they instead vote tactically for the least worst option. Considering the Lib Dems are getting so few support and the distaste towards the established political parties 36% of the viewers are definitely not supporting them.
This ties into my point about the media as I think Nationalism should reject controlled mainstream media just like Golden Dawn has done in Greece. To giving support to media ‘facts’ like polling results to behaving in a reactionary fashion to them will generally not work as by working with the media you are giving the impression that they are showing both sides. Spending hours rehearsing for an interview piece biased against you which will be preceded by biased journalism to make the reader/viewer hostile to you is wasted time and energy. The media are also there to drive a wedge.
As an example I believe I heard once that when pressured Griffin said to an Indian TV presenter “you can stay” when she asked if she could remain. That was not BNP policy at the time and rather than laying the blame on Nick when you are trying very hard to appear good to the media they can get you to say things that will anger and divide your supporters. When on the spot even the best can say the wrong thing, then add the pressures of being on a tightrope then slip ups are common and are used to make Nationalists appear inconsistent.
For the media to have credibility it needs to have the support of all corners. If say the BNP said in 2008 that they completely reject the mainstream media and that everything it shows is designed to damage it then it would be better than trying to react to media pressures such as the ‘BNP wives’ and the other ‘inside’ BNP documentary. If there are occasions like the 2009 BNP Question Time then you will need a performer: someone who openly declares it’s ‘their own show trial’, that the BBC audience is hand picked for physiological purposes as if a view is outside what the establishment has deemed unacceptable it gets heavy boo’s so the viewers at home don’t want to stand out from the crowd. In general show it for the mockery that it is and have your best performer on.
Investing energy in trying to make the media present you in a good light is a waste. By rejecting the MSM you are sending a message to the electorate that the media is not to be trusted and if they want to find out about you they should look at your own media.
Crazy Englishman
- Edit
I hear so many say that if only Nick Griffin would step down, the BNP would have a better chance at climbing the ladders to victory, my question is if so then why hasn’t there been such a person/group achieving this without the BNP trademark.
I realize that it is a household brand name but Shirley a great leader would achieve ones precedence through ones own great thinking.
The realization that the ladders are rotten and ascending them could mean personal harm, if courageous or foolish enough to risk climbing the steps once they near the top run their voice would be drowned out, preaching only to the deaf ears of the squawking political puppets.
Forgetting the bottom of the ladders now not being footed by the common folk and would eventually slip away, left hanging by the tips off their fingers waiting for liblabcon to give them a final stamp.
I don’t believe it matters that NG stays, better that than have another fail, lets wait until we have a strong hand before playing with the devil.
I believe voting for the likes of BNP and UKIP is all important to give support to the fellow dormant nationalist voter, we all know they are not the final solution but just serves the function of a pacemaker keeping the movement alive in the mainstream.
frederickdixon
- Edit
Good article Max. I do, though, take issue with one thing – your proposal that we should adopt a policy of autarky. North Korea is about the only country in the modern world which tries to practice autarky, and look where it’s got them! Huge countries with all necessary resources within their own borders (USA, Russia) could do it if they wished but choose not to because international trade makes them much richer. The British Empire made a few stumbling moves towards autarky (anyone remember Imperial Preference?) but far too late and it was overtaken by the Empire’s demise.
As for us, grossly overcrowded with a population of 64,000,000, importing 40% of our food and having to pay for our imports by selling exports (and running a massive trade deficit in doing so) it simply isn’t remotely possible. Some degree of protectionism might work and some degree of import substitution, but in general, no.
We should trade freely with anyone willing to trade with us and, in particular, we must secure our food supplies. That is going to become more and more difficult in a world with a rapidly increasing population an ever larger part of which wants, and can afford, a life style like ours. So, long term, there is only one real solution which will make us more secure – a reduction in the population by 40%, compared with a forecast increase of ten million over the next 25 years; still, never mind, as we white Brits have failed to adequately reproduce ourselves over the past forty odd years its quite clear where the reduction is going to come from as the baby boomer generation dies off.
Max Musson
- Edit
In the early 1900s it was estimated by Lord Lauderdale that an acre of arable land in Britain can on average sustain 4 people, and that on this basis it would be possible to feed 200 million people on the British Isles, which I assume included Eire at that time. Arable yields have improved considerably since that time and therefore, despite the loss of Eire, which we one day may be able to reverse, and the loss of greenfield sites for house building, it must still be possible for us to feed ourselves if we have the will to do it.
Dicey
- Edit
‘despite the loss of Eire, which we one day may be able to reverse’
Really??? Has it escaped your attention that Eire belongs to the Irish, we occupied that land and they fought for hundreds of years to kick us out as they wanted their country back and the right to decide their own future, just like we want ours back today, suffering a different type of invasion but an invasion none the less. Maybe I’ve misinterpreted you comment, perhaps you can explain?
Max Musson
- Edit
Yes, Dicey, perhaps at a future date we will be able to show the citizens of Eire that despite history, they will in future be better off as part of a new ‘Greater Britain’ than as subjects of the European Union. If we can, they may vote for a re-union and the Peoples of the British Isles will be united once more.
Steven
- Edit
The Republic of Ireland has virtually lost all the real independence it once had by joining the Common Market, then the EU and finally joining the Euro. Being in the Euro in particular with consequently no control over vital economic levers like interest rates has damaged their economy severely and ensured they have found it very difficult to recover from the worldwide economic crisis which started in 2008.
I personally believe the only way the island will cease to be partitioned will be if if the British Isles also reunify. Of course, a great deal has to happen first. One of the problems in Ireland has been that Sinn Fein/IRA propagated an exclusionary vision of Irishness that only really accepted people who were Roman Catholic and Gaelic in their culture being true Irish people and thus alienating those in NI who are Protestants. However, the blame can be attributed to both sides. Pre-Partition Protestants in what is now NI were proud of their Irishness and didn’t largely reject it as they do now. There needs to be a more open and inclusive definition of Irishness from both sides of the divide.
https://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/articles/uk1.html
After the largely very successful visit of our Queen to the Republic in 2011, an invitation was accorded to the Irish President to visit us and he will be arriving next week on a full state visit which has never happened before. Hopefully, he will be given a warm reception.
It might be a good idea if the Republic rejoined the Commonwealth. I am sure this would strengthen the more friendly ties between the Republic and the United Kingdom which have developed in recent years.
Max Musson
- Edit
The mistake that Scots, Irish and Welsh nationalists invariably make is to assume that the corrupt regime based at Westminster is ‘English’ and ruled/rules the United Kingdom in such a way as to exploit the Welsh, Scots and Irish for the benefit of the English. This is of course a false view.
.
The English have been as abused, exploited and betrayed as ever were the Irish, the Welsh or the Scots, and just as they want to be free of rule by the corrupt regime at Westminster, so do we.
.
A future re-united Britain, joining all four of the peoples of our British Isles under one government, should have it’s capital situated somewhere more central to the British isles than London. Others who share the desire to see our ‘nation’ re-united has proposed Douglas on the Isle of Man, but I think that the capital should still be situated on the mainland, and I would propose Liverpool.
.
A new seat of government should be created in Liverpool, to which MPs from all over the British Isles would go to legislate, and London, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Dublin and Belfast could be retained as regional capitals.
meh
- Edit
On a mostly plant-based diet. We need to get back to the old days when people ate 80-90% plant-based, it uses much less land.
Valhalla Valkyrie
- Edit
A policy of rebuilding agriculture would be an extremely healthy step. The policies and market conditions that have been enacted for agriculture in this country is truly Agenda21 stuff. The dairy industry has declined a lot and the EU in fact gives farmers grants not to use their fields for farming to encourage wildlife. Then Labours policy of creating natural flood plains https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/10625663/Flooding-Somerset-Levels-disaster-is-being-driven-by-EU-policy.html
While not all land can grow crops there is still much potential for food to be grown domestically and the technology to do it well if the investment is there.
If we were able to repatriate non-whites then in the long term we can achieve a stable population level or let it naturally decline a bit through how much assistance you give to families the more children they have.
PharmaPhil
- Edit
Yes Farage is already compromised but is at least is putting some alternative views into the mainstream & might persuade some to carry on further in finding an alternative.
Ian
- Edit
The mainstream media still have a lot of power. When it comes to key issues they pump it up like what they have just done with Russia “invading” the Crimea. Even individual’s who we regard as alternative media fall for the propaganda, as this excellent article shows;
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/03/05/propaganda-rules-news-paul-craig-roberts/
Dispater
- Edit
I was very encouraged to hear Farage use the phrase “the white working class” and have seen no backlash against it.
Must be the first instance of white racial awareness to have been promoted on the mainstream media in decades. People will be able to associate themselves with the title of WHITE working class and be able to announce the fact with the knowledge that it can’t possibly be racist.
Get the white middle classes aboard and we’re in business.
It’s a small step, but it shows that UKIP can be useful to us in ways that their secret backers didn’t envisage. Useful fools.
Valhalla Valkyrie
- Edit
I was going to say this:
“Give a dog a bone and it will be loyal for life?”
But on reflection it is true that perhaps those in power have given the public more of a bit to chew on. While the media can turn anything into a controversy I believe that a stronger white racial awareness is forming among more people but then falling with others. Two extremes are forming and there is quite a bit of potential for a slogging match now.
To weather the storm and come out on top Nationalism has to be less about individual leaders and more a strong party vehicle sticking together and not being reactionary to the media. Plan for a slog.
PharmaPhil
- Edit
Well loyal until it gets hungry again, then if someone else comes along with a nice steak I think that loyalty will solely tested.
Maybe our people need be hungry first, to work out where their loyalty really lies?
It definitely will be a slog.
Mike Newland
- Edit
Lenin sat in Moscow bewailing the fact that so many communists in the countries where revolution really mattered – like Germany – regarded supporting any political approach which was not perfectly in tune with communist dogma as betrayal. So endless opportunities were missed to chip away at the system.
The same mentality infests British nationalism. Either a political movement has to be the pure stuff of its strict ideology or it’s to be rejected entirely as sullying the purity of the cause. You end as up as what Trotsky termed ‘mere babblers’.
Lenin wrote a little book about it titled ‘Left-wing communism – an infantile disorder’. We could well do with a counterpart titled ‘Right-wing nationalism – an infantile disorder’.
You’d think UKIP was a huge step backwards to listen to some people.
Valhalla Valkyrie
- Edit
I can agree with the desire for purity can be detrimental. However, we must differentiate the extent to which different parties have different goals.
Social Democratic parties are just Socialists taking a step to the right; and they are not the racial nationalist kind. Rather than revolution they reach their goal through a gradual process.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy Copied from Wikipedia because it was well written:
Following the split between reformists and revolutionary socialists in the Second International, Social democrats have advocated for a peaceful and evolutionary transition of the economy to socialism through progressive social reform of capitalism.[4][5] Social democracy asserts that the only acceptable constitutional form of government is representative democracy under the rule of law.[6] It promotes extending democratic decision-making beyond political democracy to include economic democracy to guarantee employees and other economic stakeholders sufficient rights of co-determination.
For Lenin German democratic socialism in the Weimar Republic paved the way for communism, socialism or whatever derivative of Marxism is the flavour of the month. Cultural Marxism is the most explicit tool as it divides a nations population into different groups. The struggle of the Workers against the Middle Class, the struggle of Women against Men, the ‘struggle’ of homosexuals, the ‘struggle’ of the youth against the old and their greatest present vehicle the ‘struggle’ of non-whites. Democratic socialism supports these struggles just like any Trotskyist. With it a divided, artificial society ripe for control by the Zionist masters. For us Racial Nationalists they have the same goal so we can quite rightly see them as being the same.
However with UKIP they are not Nationalist-lite. For example the BNP is more along the lines of National Socialists while UKIP is pro international capitalism, free trade and most importantly does not recognise race as part of a countries identity. While Nationalists focus on rebuilding the country’s industry, agriculture, identity and workers living standards UKIP are more focused on society being the man and his dog, home is my castle, having a fag in the pub, materialism and a ‘I’m alright Jack’ attitude to others problems and ignoring racial identity except for some sound bites. From a Racial Nationalist viewpoint then they are not one of the sane
katana
- Edit
Max wrote in his post:
UKIP has recently had a significant influx of Jewish members, to such an extent that there has now been formed within the party, a UKIP Friends of Israel group.
Some people hope that UKIP are secretly composed of people who are really racial nationalists and who once in power will implement policies, or at least create a political climate, that will allow racial nationalist ideas to flourish. However this is a dangerous mistake, as UKIP’s current bourgeoning political success is directly related to, and completely dependent upon, the favourable treatment they receive from the mass media.
————————–
Your whole article makes many good points, but the above, and especially the last sentence, gets to the dark heart of it.
.
That video of Farage being interviewed by The Jewish Chronicle looks like a rehearsed, staged affair where Farage has prepared answers to not only the interviewer’s questions but also to the one “amusing” trick softball audience question shown.
.
His whole demeanor comes across as someone who is relaxed in the knowledge that the questions, answers and delivery have all been rehearsed and all he needs to add is a bit of off the cuff liveliness to it.
.
Notice how he pleases the Jewish establishment with such responses as this:
.
———-
[Time 4:19]
Stephen Pollard – Editor, The JC (JC): The JC conducted a poll in March of this year. One of the statistics leapt out of us, which is that 71% of UKIP supporters are opposed to religious slaughter, and to circumcision.
.
Farage: That is not the same thing as saying to your community that you should not be allowed to do it. Whatever our views, whatever our disputes, whatever our dislikes, we are, fundamentally a strong libertarian party that says, you may peruse, what you wish to peruse, providing it doesn’t hurt or affect me. That particular piece of evidence doesn’t convince me of anything!
.
JC: So you are unambiguous in your support, for the freedom, for religious slaughter.
.
Farage: (interrupting) But why would Stuart Agnew actually take the trouble to go and visit [a] Jewish slaughter house, and to look a it, and to conclude. I repeat. That compared to the mass killing factories that have become the general abattoirs of this country, he thought the standards were incredibly high. … Stephen, if it wasn’t true, I wouldn’t say it.
.
JC: I’m here to elicit information.
.
Farage: I’m here to fight with you! [laughter all round]
.
—————
.
Perhaps I’m being overly picky here, but the phrase, “mass killing factories” comes across as a deliberate “button pushing” action that Farage was likely instructed to insert in order to trigger a pavlovian listener reaction to what many of us know was in reality a non-event. The WWII propaganda machine rolls on relentlessly.
.
As an unkind aside, Farage, what with his mannerisms, demeanor, looks, etc., also comes across as a mannequin controlled by a ventriloquist.
PharmaPhil
- Edit
I’m hoping these people have opened a Pandora’s box that they won’t be able to get the lid back on.
heechee
- Edit
Katana wrote;”As an unkind aside, Farage, what with his mannerisms, demeanor, looks, etc., also comes across as a mannequin controlled by a ventriloquist.”
That he may be, but he is helping people move away from the acceptance of EUSSR Marxist control. He is, wittingly or not, helping promote a small sense of Britishness. when he fails the people, as he will, we must be there to pick up the lost souls.
Even a small step is still a step in the right direction.
May i ask the readers what is to be lost by giving UKIP a vote in this year’s EU elections?
Unlike the others he raises the arguments about EU membership and immigration. Surely that suits our objectives to a degree and we can’t deny he has been very good at getting the rabid Marxists of the EU to bare their teeth..
Valhalla Valkyrie
- Edit
It’s one thing voting for them in the Euro’s but another voting for them in the generals (except if there are no racial nationalist candidates standing). None of this is to say of course that things can change.
If they don’t try and beat down UKIP (they would not destroy it but keep it on in a weaker state) then I would see them forming a Pact/Coalition with the tories. As in this Parliament the tories promised a referendum but purposefully only made a move 3 years later then they say “oh no, the Lords blocked it, we ‘cast iron’ promise one in 2017…”
One of the potential problems with UKIP is that rather than a stepping stone it is a barrier to genuine racial nationalism as apart from the ‘anti-racist’ mouthpieces (who need to keep the strength of their ‘anti-racist’ organisations going) UKIP can then become the respectable anti-immigration party. It then splits the Nationalist vote as those who are or aspire to be middle class go with UKIP while the working class goes with Racial Nationalist parties. What might be good in the present can be a barrier in the future.
heechee
- Edit
But UKIP can only fail, they cannot, nor want to deliver, what the growing swell of our people desire. As Max has stated and many others we are nowhere near readiness so we need time. UKIP may also give us some breathing space, with the LibLabCon we can only expect acceleration of the plan.
Put simply of the options we have now they are the only chance we have of slowing the destruction. It isn’t guaranteed I admit but the other alternative, give the LibLabcon a free hand, is disastrous or us.
Four years have passed since the demise of the BNP a we have yet to make the first step, so what have we to lose, honestly.
Now consider a Labour or libLab coalition? Can we hope to have a chance after 5 years of their merciless mass immigration and EU integration policies?
In a military action UKIP would be the sacrifice we would be forced to make to save the main body of our forces being over run.
Steven
- Edit
Some good points. UKIP may appear to have some use in making people more aware of immigration and to think about it more deeply and act as a ‘gateway’ to the issue but it can also act like a ‘sponge’ so that people don’t take a more principled stand against it. Personally, I think they have more use in Euro elections as those elections are centered on the EU issue above all else and a vote for them in that election can do more good. That is ‘their’ issue so to speak rather than the immigration one.
meh
- Edit
Norway and Switzerland are full of immigrants, including Europeans, but they aren’t part of the EU. If we left the EU they’d just find some other excuse to continue the third world deluge. The EU is being used as a scapegoat.
Why does the EU have so much mainstream support? Farage is portrayed as a bad boy who we are supposed to think is cool, because he smokes pointedly in public like a 12 year old, and boasts of visiting strip clubs. I want to know why the media and powers that be are so determined for him to succeed.
Perhaps they’re trying to get this little snag of rising nationalism out of our system, by providing us with a false hope. Perhaps they are going to make our lives so bad under UKIP that the public will never want to be involved in “nationalism” (or what is portrayed as nationalism) again. Maybe, if UKIP are elected and we leave the EU, the powers that be will allow us some temporary relief from the race-replacement agenda, but destroy us economically, blaming both on leaving the EU. So people think that we *have* to be in the EU so survive financially, but this means accepting mass immigration. When really, as Norway and Switzerland prove, the EU has nothing much to do with it and no white country escapes the agenda.