By Max Musson:
This weekend the media have been reporting a massive step forward for the Front National in the French municipal elections. According to reports, Marine Le Pen’s party have taken control of 14 municipalities, a significant advance on their previous record of just three, causing many commentators to declare that the country had been washed by a wave of “bleu Marine” (a play on the FN leader’s name and the colour navy blue) and Le Monde described the Front’s gains as a “political earthquake”.
For many years British nationalists have looked across the Channel and wished that a nationalist political party in the UK could emulate the performance of the Front National, and while I would not want to denigrate the achievements of Marine le Pen and her party, we need to view them in context.
Many thought the British National Party was on the verge of an electoral breakthrough in 2009, at a time when the party had two candidates elected to the European Parliament, had the previous year won a seat in the Greater London Authority, and had fifty-five county council and borough councilors. In reality however, having just two of the seventy-eight British MEPs, having just one of the twenty-five GLA members and having just fifty-five of the 22,401 local and county councilors, meant that the BNP was still a political minnow, light years from power, despite all that Nick Griffin and the mass media might suggest to the contrary.
Similarly, the Front National have won control of just fourteen of the 36,000 French municipalities and so while we might wish to celebrate their recent advances, the results achieved should not fool any nationalists into thinking that we might be able to win elections here in the UK anytime soon, simply by adopting the same electoral strategy employed by the Front National. Marine Le Pen is to be congratulated, but she is still light years from power, just as the BNP was in 2009.
To win power electorally, a nationalist political party will need the support of a significant section of the mass media. In fact electorally based political parties are almost totally dependent upon the extent to which the mass media give them publicity and the kind of publicity afforded them. At present the mass media throughout the Western World has the power to make or break any political party and is largely owned or controlled by organized Jewry, who are implacably opposed to all forms of White or European nationalism.
Therefore, while nationalist political parties have been allowed to exist on the political margins, no truly revolutionary nationalist political party will be allowed to win significant political power until we have massively greater social and cultural influence – in fact, until we have acquired the Six Prerequisites that I so often write and talk about. Our focus therefore must remain firmly on acquiring those six prerequisites and we must not allow ourselves to be distracted into futile electioneering, which time and time again has been shown to be a complete and utter waste of time and money in the current cultural, social and political environment.
By Max Musson © 2014
# # # #
Dykeward
- Edit
“Need the support of a significant section of the mass media”
Of course, unlikely. But are these things not incremental, rather than delivered fully formed?
Hardcopy media is almost out of the question, at least for the foreseeable: overheads, advertising, talent resources, access to sellers and finally correct pitching: general news or ideologically driven news? If the latter it may be better to create a political version of ‘The War Cry’ (or The Big Issue) and sell house to house, pub to pub. Christopher Blocher tried and failed. Units.
Websites? There is a mushrooming of these over which a thin readership spreads itself.
The FN supposedly took advantage of social media to grow its base: https://socialmediatoday.com/laurentfrancois/2285446/how-french-far-right-front-national-party-winning-social-media
A more interesting idea, for me, is television.
This time last year, 13% of the population owned a Smart TV. As you know these TVs can access online content and stream it for the viewer. Of this ownership only half had their televisions connected to the internet. They are though a growing percentage of the population overall. Owners are also demographically differentiated from the general population, with higher earnings, higher levels of education and, depending on how you think about intelligence, more responsive to rational argument.
As you will also be aware, media like RT and increasingly more mainstream media, conducts interviews with participants via Skype and other video and audio conferencing software. https://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/05/21/lack-conscious-desire-holds-back-smart-tv-use/ Russia Today gets well over 2m British viewers.
So an online hub that sources its content from YouTube (for instance) could be up and running almost immediately. Weekly politics show. Music etc.
I’d be interested in educated views on the psychological factors. Does information received via television persuade, does it bolster views already held? Does one source of information need to be supported by additional unrelated sources of information in the wider Zeitgeist to have an effect?
Finally, would a ‘nationalist’ media outreach be the best practical step, or should it be submerged with broader ‘traditionalist’ concerns to reach the widest audience without alienating many?
Max Musson
- Edit
We will concurrently operate a project aimed at creating our own nationalist media with the widest possible outreach, while at the same time we aim to buy blocks of shares in an existing commercial media company, with existing broadcasting rights, with intention of influencing it’s output.
vic
- Edit
Great idea and I will gladly contribute to such a scheme
Max Musson
- Edit
Hi Vic, that’s great. Please email me at [email protected].
Kenny Bryant
- Edit
“while at the same time we aim to buy blocks of shares in an existing commercial media company, with existing broadcasting rights, with intention of influencing it’s output.”
The enemy will not let us achieve anything lawful. Are they not making ‘laws’ for the likes of you and I in the same fashion that man makes laws for his dog?
Avenues of this nature are akin to the ballot box in that the enemy owns and controls the output.
Max Musson
- Edit
I understand why you might think that, but if we buy a sufficient proportion of the shares, then we can take over a company.
Valhalla Valkyrie
- Edit
“while at the same time we aim to buy blocks of shares in an existing commercial media company, with existing broadcasting rights, with intention of influencing it’s output.”
The headline: “Nazi’s take over media company”. Considering those involved in traditional media are left wing there would be an exodus of staff who are the ones that make the complicated content. I know you will say then we will hire are own but a block of shares is not a controlling share to hire who we want unless you have a lot of money. A media firm is worth as much as the talent it has within. They also rely on advertisers and not many of them are going to stick around when the channel/broadcaster gets ousted as being undesirable.
Broadcasting rights can be taken away just as easily as it is given. You could influence content by perhaps getting them to show some pro-white shows but people can also just watch them on youtube. People are rejecting television and turning to computers for their entertainment.
I believe we need to get people away from the television as on the internet people can find their own answers while television just gives them the answers and indoctrinates them further. Traditional media is inevitably expensive. I would purpose any new media should not be focused on fighting with the big boys with TV time but a media website similar to the design you have on this website. Clean white background, lower cost and upkeep than a channel, range of subjects, intellectually simulating, an escape from other content about which is normally about the latest grooming gang, white murder victim and offer pro-white entertainment which is escapist.
On youtube there are many old BBC documentaries from say the 1970’s and 1980’s which are excellent to watch but have the potential to be very cost effective. You have an historian/expert/presenters describing history, politics and culture in an interesting and educating way with a backdrop in a museum or at a historical ruins like an old cathedral. For example a 40 minute program about famous people from before the 19th century, inventions, battles and so on. While modern documentaries are made into over dramatic entertainment programs where the presenter ‘discovers’ the past with the viewer watching these are focused around a respective figure who controls the program. They educate the viewer rather than go on artificial adventure quests and historical costumes fancy dress.
I have ‘clashed swords’ with yourself over the past but I appreciate the content and format of Western Spring articles. It is harder to write good quality content than it looks and having 2-3 new, interesting and stimulating articles with an interesting and civil comments section below per week is appreciated.
Max Musson
- Edit
I didn’t say it would be easy and without problems that we will need to overcome.
.
Obviously we are not going to take over a media company openly, accompanied by a fanfare and press statements declaring that we are nationalists. The boardroom coup will still need to be accomplished with great stealth and the transformation in the style of broadcasting will need to be very gradual. But it can be done.
Kenny Bryant
- Edit
It’s all about time, Max. We don’t have enough of it.
Max Musson
- Edit
Time is short, but there is time enough!
Valhalla Valkyrie
- Edit
I still believe that TV is a declining medium and not a good investment. It is better to use that money to invest in your own production equipment, an online platform, software and financial assistance to help those out and about doing the filming (a hotel room here or there). You might not have top quality people but you will have the means to support 7 or more people for 4 days in a holiday to make some content . Media enthusiasts are far better than a media employee that is seeking their paycheck.
After all what is the value of a media company? (I am assuming you are referring to a TV channel than a pure content producer). There value lies in a) the brand b) the series’ they have ownership of and c) the skills of their employees.
Firstly a brand is hollow and if anything does get exposed the value for which it was before will be lost. If the ‘brand’ inflates the share price by 20% then you’ve just lost 20% of your investment.
Secondly the shows that they produce currently will more often than not be of no relevance to the message that you are trying to get across. Shareholders with stakes really only have power in the commercial direction than control of the subtleties within media content that project an image one way or another as that is done by production staff and the directors. When the ‘suits’ interfere with the ‘creatives’ they leave and so your pool of content producers.
Thirdly, alluding to the second point the effective ‘creative’ types in these companies (and not the interns) move companies often as they want to pursue new challenges. With the high turnover you need to attract these people just to keep the staffing levels stable but if your projects do not introduce these types or there is the whiff that something is up (after all the intentions have been declared) then these types are not going to want to align themselves to ‘Nazi TV’.
A lot of the investment then is being spent on areas which have no relevance to what is trying to be achieved.
The people that seek alternative entertainment have stopped watching the ZOG box and have gone online where they can find an ever increasing library of content that fit’s their interests and provides alternative views. You have a far greater audience online than you would on UK TV. Americans, Canadians, Australians, Kiwi’s, South Africans and the White Europeans can watch your content while with TV only those in the country can watch it. You could say you could show the content online but then when people can watch it online then their won’t be viewers watching the TV adverts so revenue will fall. Broadcasting licenses, salaries and building premises are a financial burden that all needs to get paid. Online frees you from these shackles and means you do not have to produce crypto-white content but free to be as open as you like. We are British, we film programs on the British people, culture, history, achievements and nature. No holds barred.
Max Musson
- Edit
You are quite right to raise the concerns that you do, VV, and you can rest assured that in addition to seeking control of a TV broadcasting company we will also be developing an Internet TV capability.
.
Taking control of an existing broadcaster will give us instant broadcasting licences and all of the infrastructure that we will need. Whether these advantages have a tendency to melt away once we take control, will very much depend upon how subtle we are in making our move and how well we camouflage our aims. No one is saying it will be easy and problem free, just that it MUST be done.
.
More people are turning to online sources of news and entertainment, but poorer people and less well educated people will still use television as their medium of choice. There are far more poor and less well educated people than there are wealthy and highly perceptive people and therefore if we wish to influence the masses, we will need a conventional television station that has a ready made mass audience.
.
The changes in the content of the television channels that we will make will be as small as possible and the speed of change will be almost imperceptible. There will not be a morning upon which viewers tune in to suddenly be confronted by a White Power logo in the corner of the screen and endless repeats of programs depicting triumphal marching bands of yesteryear. What will happen is that very slowly, some of the characters in Coronation Street or the like, will adopt a slightly different attitude regarding certain issues, and children’s TV programmes will have a slightly different emphasis, but as much as possible, the output will ostensibly appear unaltered so that as far as possible, viewers and advertising sponsors remain loyal.
Valhalla Valkyrie
- Edit
I add that ‘Nazi TV’ is not a name I advocate calling it and I did not say it to ridicule a channel with pro-white influences but the name that the media will slander it with
frederickdixon
- Edit
Wise words. Focus on building something new which will begin to influence the cultural, and thence the political, agenda. Buying up dying dinosaurs like the existing media companies would be a waste of vast resources which we don’t have – don’t have 1% of what would be needed.
vic
- Edit
There used to be a nationalist radio station years ago which opened and closed with the military tune ‘Sunset’. I forget its name but I have it somewhere on my old pc.
vic
- Edit
The radio station I mentioned was Radio Enoch which can be found on the Sterling Times web page, dating back to 1978 I think. Bedfordshire former BNP members also started an internet radio station which broadcast on a Sunday evening a few years ago but I think that ceased to exist
Dykeward
- Edit
I don’t wish to be critical regarding the terrestrial (now digital) TV element, so I won’t.
As regarding online TV, it’s worth remembering that quite a few shows started out on online platforms, like YouTube. One of the better known is The YoungTurks in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Young_Turks
The poor are online too and therefore a weekly or evening show, providing it is entertaining, would still attract an audience. Additionally, Smart TV is in the early stages now, but will become the norm in a small number of years. Early adopters are likely therefore to reap some of the benefits.
Additionally, print and local media. Local community media sources are being scaled back dramatically with a concentration on larger constituencies and generic content. Whereas previously there would be a main newspaper for a broad area and many tweaks for more localised news content, now those jobs have been lost and the focus is solely on the wider area, frequently also sourcing features and filler from agencies like the Press Association. The economics are tight, though some employees and others have run with it to create local content, usually free to receive and largely supported by advertising. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-23194789 The local media was the training ground for the nationals and so a lower wage was the expectation. It might be worth crunching the numbers. There are also other online local news sources, like the notorious https://www.real-whitby.co.uk/
Dykeward
- Edit
^ and in a less professional way, https://rotherhampolitics.wordpress.com/
katana
- Edit
By Max Musson:
Therefore, while nationalist political parties have been allowed to exist on the political margins, no truly revolutionary nationalist political party will be allowed to win significant political power until we have massively greater social and cultural influence – in fact, until we have acquired the Six Prerequisites that I so often write and talk about.
———————–
.
In other words no truly revolutionary nationalist political party will be allowed to win significant political power until it has been transformed into a normal political party. Until present day “revolutionary ideas” has been transformed into “normal, acceptable ideas”.
.
That has happened to me, going from believing that Hitler was a maniac and that the National Socialists, the Germans, were obsessed about killing YKW, to believing the opposite. That Hitler was a genius and that YKW were obsessed about killing National Socialists, the Germans. We know, at least some of us, the outcome. Untold Germans were slaughtered during and after the war whilst millions of YKW ended up spread across the globe.
.
And that the same people who destroyed the Germans in WWI & WWII are the very same people now in the process of destroying all White countries around the world.
.
How did I transform my beliefs? Through being exposed over the last few years to coherent alternate explanations of past and current history that made far more sense than what I’ve been exposed to for my entire life. All through the internet.
.
I think a short route to transforming the beliefs of others is to give the truth up front through a process of exposure to the whole and each bit of it. Break it down and tell it like it is in bite-size parts. What we need is some sort of “Nationalist University” that has a whole curriculum of courses that takes beginners and teach in short order the basics of how, why and by whom their countries are being destroyed and what they can do about it.
.
So, I think the most cost effective thing we can do about our situation at this point is to concentrate our resources on getting the word out to as many people as possible in order to accomplish what Max calls the Six Prerequisites. And that means primarily through the internet.
.
Max Musson
- Edit
And through person to person contact and networking in the real world, don’t forget!
heechee
- Edit
I still disagree about the electioneering Mr Musson. Having a party allows Nationalists to canvas even, between elections, It is harder to persecute people distributing political leaflets than non-attached individual’s. However I believe that for the moment we abandon General Elections and “concentrate” on Local and European. and having fewer constituencies is a cheaper option also requiring fewer able bodied candidates. Much more manageable.
Local elections can be won by the “militant street activists”. Golden Dawn have long realised the potential in targeted “good work” within local communities and only selecting areas with good potential. That is also a benefit of those local groups working within our towns and cities. Their feedback is invaluable..
Every avenue available should be used to draw in more supporters.
Kenny Bryant
- Edit
We all agree, I’ll wager, that on a level playing field nationalists would have no problems given the current circumstances of causing a sizable political earthquake – hence why the enemy needs to employ thuggery.
As well as there being time for your plans, believe it or not, there is also time for the ballot box – in fact, there is time for anything when you have control of the streets. Getting that control is the easy part… getting nationalists to absorb this is freaking difficult.
.
PharmaPhil
- Edit
Maybe a political party presence has a useful publicity aspect to it, even if it gets nowhere in the present skewed system, it might help to show the public how fake democracy actually is & how little choice they really have.
BritishActivism
- Edit
People on this article seem to be talking about having our own stations and/or making inroads into existing ones. I thought I would comment on that.
.
Both are ideas I would in theory support, however, I cannot help but ask myself the question of (if we were somehow to be hand delivered a platform) – what exactly would we fill the airwaves with?
.
I’m not wishing to be negative, but it is easy to get carried away with ideals of how things ought to be instead of what is likely to be.
.
It is good to have big ambitions and big dreams, but at the same time, if they cannot realistically materialise or if we simply haven’t the thrust and the capacities (or indeed the time) to mirror the mainstream outlets in the same kinds of output, then we will be in for another disappointment. Particularly if the aim is to reach a wider audience than ourselves.
.
In my view, the wider public are not really going to listen to wall to wall “London Forum” meetings, revisionist documentaries (which would soon become ‘well worn’ on the schedules after the main thrusts of the concepts have been made), nor will they sit and listen boring statistical information being droned out of the television or computer.
.
Most nationalist material is doom laden, depressive, worrying – not entertaining and something people turn to for enjoyment. Why would people choose to be worried, depressed, filled with doom and complexities that seem to have no solutions? People are going to want to enjoy it, get a buzz of it, or they will switch back off to comfy land.
.
Myself, I happen to like the London Forum videos, just as I can sit and watch Amren conferences, NPI conferences and so on from time to time.
.
I used to love watching shorter clips of Jonathan Bowden at work – and I had the patience and interest to watch longer documentaries like “A Conversation about Race” by Craig Bodeker, like “Original Intent”, and “Grinding America Down”. I was even getting into that “Greatest Story Never Told” series – but I lost the staying power after the first three or so episodes and never caught up with the rest.
.
For existing nationalists and semi-converts it is all fine, as we have the ‘interest’ in things already there for us to want to watch them – and we therefore find the contents interesting. However, how that kind of content would suit the wider public is something I would not like to commit a view upon! Even successful YouTube sensations like RamZPaul may be a hard sell outside of our own circles – and be at risk of being over-done if they were aired all the time.
.
The mainstream media uses all sorts of things to continue their themes in society – comedy, stand up, panel shows, soaps, dramas, investigative journalism, the news, documentaries, celebrity chit-chat and so on, which all overlap and give a blanket 24/7 spectrum that bobs and weaves as a whole.
.
But where are the nationalist play, drama or sitcom scriptwriter’s of any worth? Do we know any great (and clean) comedians with a “conservative” or “right-wing” bent to their comedy? Do we have capable investigative journalists on our side that can command their field and provide serious and well respected output? What would be put on our news – and how would it be sold softly enough to plant into people’s minds as subtly as the BBC do?.
.
Have we any nationalist fiction books that could be dramatised? (I can only think of one or two off the top of my head), and how professional could they be made on a shoestring budget. (“Dead Mans Shoes”, the film, was very well made for example, but still quite a layout and it involved trained people and good actors, not to mention good acclaim/promotion from the MSM).
.
I am sure that with a mix of things we could fill a station schedule, perhaps like RT news has both news, documentary, and educational/information programs shown throughout the day, along with interviews with dominant people of the day.
.
However, if a nationalist was to say “Sorry lads, I cannot come to the meeting or rally this weekend because I am trying to write a book/ create some poetry/ do a painting/ write a screenplay” or whatever, they would be looked at as being completely mad and a bit of a ponce.
.
I would be the same, for we can all talk about “our culture” but very rarely do we seem to provide it. Nor can I say I am all that interested in it either, for more important weights are on our mind and it makes it all seem trivial.
.
We have a country going down the pan, as we see it, and we talk about ‘the arts’ and culture wars? We just don’t seem to have the time, and we recognise that the opposition completely dominate it.
.
Of course, it is an endless cycle. Opposition stations and producers, backers, audiences, are virtually all wedded into the “leftist” narrative and would only produce and go to see programmes which suit their own opinions.
.
Because this is the case, it is hard for non-liberals to be seen. Because they are not seen, the public are locked into what they always know and come to expect.
.
The other month, I challenged somebody as to whether they could name a single drama, sitcom, comedy show, comedian, documentary, artist, poet, blockbuster film or minor production film in the last 25 years that was truly “Conservative” or “right-wing” in the concepts/themes they were advancing.
.
Many here may well think of some suggestions – but I could not think of a single one that was recognisable and known that way, in any field, for the last 25 years and beyond. Even the last 50 years. This is how dominant things are around us.
.
Even the ones people usually suggest like “Till Death Do Us Part” were actually attacks on our people. They were propaganda and used ridicule of us – they were not something to be remembered with nostalgia about the good old days when you could call somebody a name in good jest.
.
The idea of having our own media station is a good one though and it has been talked about for decades. With advances in internet technology and it being more commonplace in the home than it used to be, where people have “media centers” and not just tower computers in a spare room, maybe there are things that could be done. (Things that build into a transition to the “bigger time” which we have all around us in the shape of our opposition. Rome was not built in a day, as they say).
.
However, what we would actually do with such a tool – and how we would command and hold a “market share” of the wider audience? I really don’t know.
.
We would need content, we would probably need to pull our resources from around the world to fill schedules with quality and original material – things that are also of interest to everybody and not just those people who are already interested and aware of what we are saying.
.
As for Smart TV’s – if you had heard about what has been going on with them, well, it should put you off getting one. I thought they were a great idea too, until the revelations came out about what was really going on with them. Maybe they will sort all that out in the future.
.
Technology can be our friend though. We ought to keep an eye on the future trends because things are moving so fast these days – and we do not want to risk a lot of money and effort by backing a model that may well go extinct by the time we are in a position to take advantage of it.
.
Besides, maybe we should look around a bit more at what is already out there, play around with creating more sophisticated chanels that immitate a broadcast network, and try out content in preparation for creating the real deal in the future. It is all practice.
Max Musson
- Edit
Hi BA, the answer to your question is that we would initially continue to produce exactly the same programmes that are produced at present. Then gradually and at an imperceptible rate, we would begin to make changes. Subtle changes at first which would enable most of the existing writers etc., to carry on as they are today.
.
If we made sudden and dramatic changes then both the public and the production crews would recognise our propaganda for what it is and we would experience continuity problems. Instead we would introduce personal assistants for all of the key people involved in writing and production who would shadow the existing staff and learn how to do their jobs. Then gradually over time we would make the subtle changes I have already mentioned and replace key people as and when necessary, once our ‘personal assistants’ have learned the ropes.
katana
- Edit
Max Musson, April 4, 2014 at 12:08 am
“Hi BA, the answer to your question is that we would initially continue to produce exactly the same programmes that are produced at present. Then gradually and at an imperceptible rate, we would begin to make changes. Subtle changes at first which would enable most of the existing writers etc., to carry on as they are today.”
———————–
.
These imperceptible changes though would become perceptible changes at some point, resulting in the indoctrinated leftist hyenas smelling blood and reporting back to their masters.
.
“If we made sudden and dramatic changes then both the public and the production crews would recognise our propaganda for what it is and we would experience continuity problems. Instead we would introduce personal assistants for all of the key people involved in writing and production who would shadow the existing staff and learn how to do their jobs. Then gradually over time we would make the subtle changes I have already mentioned and replace key people as and when necessary, once our ‘personal assistants’ have learned the ropes.”
——————–
.
I really can’t see how you would be able to keep the propaganda intention secret within the media production industry as gossip would soon spread the word. Once you start to not include the required number of “protected species” in your media, alarms would start to ring. At the consumer level once it started to say anything outside the PC viewpoint it would be drawing attention from the thought police.
.
In other words a surreptitious approach will be quickly exposed if it starts to make a noticeable difference.
.
On the other hand if it remained below the radar as a kind of sleeper media outlet waiting for the time to get more open then that could work. But then we get back to, how cost effective such an approach would be.
.
So, I’m with the naysayers in thinking that this kind of project is premature.
.
Shouldn’t one central goal be to go after the thinking members of our societies through the mechanism of ideas? Through the development of a coherent belief system that can be used to convince them and eventually the masses? Look at the great work that Prof. Kevin McDonald has produced in telling the truth about the predatory nature of YKW.
.
Surely there are tens of thousands of professors throughout the West that are on the cusp of waking up to the looming White racial destruction by the ruling psychopaths?
.
Surely there are hundreds of thousands, millions, of real thinkers of all backgrounds throughout the West that are on the cusp of waking up to the looming White racial destruction by the ruling psychopaths?
.
And an essential part of all this is naming the ruling psychopaths. To know our enemy.
Max Musson
- Edit
One would think there are tens of thousands of professors teetering on the brink of rebellion against the regime we live under. However decades after people first began to speculate about such things, we are still waiting for the professors to speak up, let alone take decisive action.
.
When you refer to the imperceptible changes eventually becoming perceptible, you appear not to appreciate the parable of the ‘Slowly Boiled Frog’. If the ‘Slowly Boiled Frog’ factor can work against us, and we know that it can, then it can also work in reverse against our enemies.
Steven
- Edit
One Tory twit said on Andrew Neil’s politics programme that Marine Le Pen and her party are ‘national socialists’ as they favour protectionism and are not massive fans of complete international free trade. If the idiot had bothered to research his own party’s history he would know that in the 1930’s and before Tory leaders were not averse to being in favour of a mild degree of protectionism in order to protect British industry. Of course, that was when the Tories were the party of BRITISH capitalism and not as they are today the party of INTERNATIONAL capitalism.