By Max Musson:
As the Conservative Party vainly attempted yesterday to draw a line under the row over whether or not party co-chairman Lord Feldman had made remarks at a Westminster restaurant last week, labelling Conservative Party activists “swivel-eyed loons”, Conservative backbencher Brian Binley has criticised the “coterie” around David Cameron for damaging the Conservative Party.
At a time when there is clearly a gaping chasm between the generally patriotic and right-wing majority of grass-roots Conservative Party activists, members and supporters and the liberal / internationalist clique surrounding David Cameron, it was certainly extremely unwise for any of that inner circle to use such an offensive term. However this careless insult simply confirms, and forces many Conservatives to confront, what they have known in their hearts for many years now, that the party was long ago high-jacked at the top by people who are not really conservative and who have an agenda all of their own.
What was until recently a steady trickle of disgruntled ex-Conservatives leaving their party and joining UKIP, has now turned into a flood, and not before time!
If we were to analyse the typical traditional Conservative supporter, we would find them to be; at least nominally Christian; of White, indigenous British ethnicity; fundamentally patriotic and strong supporters of traditional Western culture; opposed to mass immigration; opposed to Britain’s membership of the EU; supporters of small family owned businesses; pro-private ownership but opposed to monopoly capitalism; strong supporters of law and order, and of harsh punishments to deter offenders; supporters of the NHS; and supporters of traditional education methods.
If however, we were to analyse those individuals within the upper echelons of the Conservative Party, we would find people who differ in a number of fundamental respects.
Interestingly, this problem of a gulf between the grass-roots activists and the upper echelons of the party is a problem that is not unique to the Conservative party, as largely the same situation exists within the Labour Party.
If we were to analyse the typical traditional Labour supporter, we would find them to be; at least nominally Christian; of White, indigenous British ethnicity; fundamentally patriotic and strong supporters of traditional Western culture; opposed to mass immigration; opposed to Britain’s membership of the EU; supporters of small family owned businesses; pro-private ownership but opposed to monopoly capitalism; strong supporters of law and order, and of harsh punishments to deter offenders; supporters of the NHS; and supporters of traditional education methods. In short, not very different from the typical, traditional Conservative.
The upper echelons of both the Conservative and Labour Parties tend to be largely composed of career politicians and career party apparatchiks, i.e. people who are not primarily involved in politics because of their strong political convictions and in order to serve a cause, but who are primarily involved in politics as a ‘career’, in order to earn a living, advance their social position and enrich themselves. It is not surprising therefore that so many of these people are so easily corrupted
Many of these people are recruited straight from university, one difference being that the Conservatives tend to recruit a significantly larger proportion of ex-public school, ‘rich, toffs’, like David Cameron, from privileged backgrounds, whereas the Labour Party is somewhat more egalitarian in this respect.
Generally speaking, these career politicians and career party apparatchiks have never done an ordinary days work in their lives, moving straight from university into the party ‘machines’ or into think-tanks and ‘lobby’ organisations that are peripheral and feed into the parties themselves. They have therefore little understanding of the needs or aspirations of the vast majority of supporters of their party or of the needs and aspirations of the average voter.
The upper echelons of both main parties are also comprised of a significant number of the ‘money men’, people who either have significant wealth in their own right, or like Lord Levy for the Labour Party and Lords Feldman and Fink for the Conservative Party, are skilled in persuading other wealthy people to support their party financially, and herein lies the rub.
There is an old saying, that “he who pays the piper, calls the tune”, and this saying is as true today as it was in times gone by.
In times gone by however, the ‘Sugar Daddies’ of politics tended to be wealthy people of British descent, and so while they may have been somewhat out of touch with the needs and aspirations of the common people from a financial perspective, they did at least share the same ethnicity and patriotism as the ordinary people. This patriotism was demonstrated quite clearly, when in their charitable undertakings, they gave their time and donated money for the benefit of the poor and the disadvantaged of their own kind, i.e. people of indigenous British ethnicity.
As a consequence of the above, the ‘tune’ called by the political donors of old, tended to be one that served the interests of the indigenous British people and which served to advance the power and influence of our nation.
Nowadays, the situation is significantly different, with a disproportionate number of the large political donors to both Labour and the Conservatives coming from the ethnic minorities, particularly the Jewish community, and it is the involvement of such a large number of people many of which have loyalties that are understandably skewed towards their own particular ethnic group, that has created the gulf between the needs and aspirations of the electorate and of traditional party supporters on the one hand, and the policies pursued by the political elites and the parties once in power.
Much is said these days about the need for government, for the police, for the civil service etc., to reflect the character of the people they serve, and there has been the assertion that in order for these institutions to do this properly, we must have greater representation from women, from disabled people, from sexual minorities and from the ethnic minorities.
While as a society we have made only modest progress in this respect with regard to women and the disabled, government and the institutions and organisations supporting it are now awash with a wholly disproportionate number of homosexuals and people of ethnic minority origin, to such an extent that government is now completely out of touch with the ethnic majority and is pursuing aims and objectives that have nothing to do with the interests of the majority of voters or the majority of grass-roots party activists.
If we the indigenous British people are to regain control of our own destiny, then it is essential that government should at the very least, reflect our overwhelming numbers among the British electorate and we need to start voting in accordance with our own ethnic interests for candidates whose backgrounds reflect our own and who have a determination to pursue our ethnic interests once in power.
By Max Musson © 2013
# # # #
Steve
- Edit
“Lord Feldman had made remarks…”
The name in itself tells you a lot about the ruling elite & the disconnect to the ruled.
Steve
- Edit
I see in some interviews on the news that some reference was made to the young who would be the new supporters of the party & the need to modernise!
They seem to think the next generation of voters are interested in gay marriage & the like but as you, I think it’s the people behind the scenes who want this for the purposes of dismantling our society & culture.
A lot of the new voters are immigrants or are children of the same & probably aren’t that keen on homosexuality.
frederickdixon
- Edit
I don’t know about “nominally Christian”, Max. According to the 2011 census fewer than half of white Brits under 25 now call themselves Christian. On the other hand one in ten under 25s are Moslem.
Max Musson
- Edit
That may be so, but under 25s are relatively new to voting, they do not have a ‘tradition’ of voting for either of the main parties.
.
I think the majority of people old enough to have an established track record where voting is concerned will still qualify as ‘nominally’ Christian.
Franklin Ryckaert
- Edit
Most people of European descent are at least “culturally Christian” i.e. they accept the cultural heritage of Christianity as part of their ethnic identity and they would be appalled if it were replaced by say an Islamic one. For white identity politics that is enough.
frederickdixon
- Edit
I agree Franklin. I think I can hear an article approaching.
Franklin Ryckaert
- Edit
To summarize this article : politics has been hi-jacked by certain rich Jews (“moneymen”), who employ white traitors (“career politicians”), who are already alienated from their own people by class and education, in order to dominate and exploit the white majority, using as auxiliaries to this effect, groups such as homosexuals and ethnic minorities.
The white majority, that only wants its reasonable ethnic interests be served, is fundamentally betrayed in this way.
Max Musson
- Edit
That is broadly correct Franklin, with the exception that not all of the ‘moneymen’ are rich Jews.
.
Jews feature more prominently in these matters, not because there is anything particularly special about them, but simply by virtue of the fact that Jews are the longest established ethnic minority in Britain and generally throughout the West, have therefore had more time to make progress, and are therefore at present, the most deeply entrenched and highly organised minority group.
Franklin Ryckaert
- Edit
The difference is that within other minorities there is often a deeply felt hostility towards Europeans, that doesn’t exist among say Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist minorities. (about Muslims I’m not so sure).
The American professor Kevin MacDonald calls organised Jewry a “hostile elite” and rightly so, I think.
Max Musson
- Edit
In multicultural societies, all organised minority groups tend to impact negatively upon the wellbeing of the majority community. As soon a members of an ethnic minority begin to organise for their own particular advantage, which they inevitably do, the impact is negative and is so, regardless of intent, hostile or otherwise.
Steve
- Edit
I think a bit untrenching or detrenching is called for!
Whatever the opposite of entrenched is.
Pip
- Edit
Fill in the trench and build a White homeland on it.