Most nationalists are wondering quite what to make of the recent Eastleigh by-election, as UKIP the party that has been demonised by the leadership of the most nationalist micro-parties as an establishment sponsored ‘safety valve’ party, seems to be the primary beneficiary of the public’s resentment at our disenfranchisement by the establishment political parties.
So what should we make of the Eastleigh result?
Should we be cheering the fact that UKIP have sent the Conservatives into a panic?
Should we be concerned that UKIP’s ascendancy will quite probably result in a Labour victory at the next general election?
Or should we perhaps respond in an entirely different way?
Certainly, UKIP is not a racial or ethno-nationalist party, it is in effect what used to be the right-wing of the Conservative Party, composed of people who have become increasingly aghast at the leftward drift of that party, and who have chosen to detach themselves and fight independently, on their own terms.
As such, while UKIP may appear to the electorate as largely indistinguishable from a genuine nationalist party, they remain conservatives and with the exception of withdrawal from the EU, their fundamentally conservative outlook means that they will in all other respects seek to ‘conserve’ the current status quo rather than reverse current trends.
The danger is that at the hustings the public will not appreciate the difference between a genuine nationalist party pledged to restoring the health and racial integrity of our nation, and a party like UKIP that merely aims to curb the worst excesses of recent governments with regards to immigration and our loss of sovereignty to the EU, and which will at best merely ‘wallpaper over the cracks’.
Reducing immigration to a few thousands per year will not prevent the eventual adulteration of our gene pool through race mixing and therefore an inevitable and irreversible change in the character of our people. Under UKIP as it stands, the genocide of our race, and the replacement of the indigenous British by a mulatto population may take longer, but it will not be averted.
Similarly, our withdrawal from the EU will mean very little if we continue to pursue economic policies that leave us vulnerable to economic and financial rape by international banks and multinational corporations under international trade agreements and treaties.
Furthermore, while many of the people driving UKIP forward may be completely genuine in their intentions and while their leader Nigel Farage may not be as many suggest, a ‘bought’ man, it is clear that our political enemies and their friends in the mass media do not regard either UKIP or Farage as a mortal threat in the same way they would regard a genuine nationalist party.
UKIP are treated by our mass media as a legitimate political party, and Nigel Farage is permitted regular appearances on Question Time, during which he is accorded a polite reception and respect for his point of view. This of course, can mean only one thing, that somehow, through some subtle form of leverage, our political enemies are confident that they can exercise sufficient influence to keep UKIP in check and under their control.
Many spokespeople for the nationalist micro-parties have argued that our nation’s current parlous political situation has presented nationalism with our greatest opportunity ever to engage with the public and advance our cause. However, while this may ostensibly be true, the presence of UKIP at the hustings must be likened to an establishment approved pseudo-nationalist ‘cuckoo in the nest’.
While UKIP remains, and continues to receive the approval of the mass media, they stand in the way, blocking the growth of any genuine nationalist parties, and this has of course traditionally always been the role of the Monday Club, the right-wing of the Conservative Party.
In the past, the Conservative party has traditionally been sufficiently credible as a right-wing party, such that it managed to contain those nationalistically minded Conservatives, who might otherwise have been inclined to break-away to form or join genuine nationalist parties.
In recent years however, with the liberal/left-wing drift of the Conservative Party, such that it is now almost indistinguishable from Labour or the LibDems, the trickle of people leaving the Conservative Party has grown and threatens now to become a flood, and so our political establishment have needed to ‘manage’ the situation by placing a barrier between the liberal Conservatives who retain control of the existing party machine, and any genuine nationalist parties who may have provided a more potent home for disaffected Tories.
In the guise of UKIP therefore, the right-wing of the Conservative Party has effectively detached itself and in the same way that the Monday Club once served to lead nationalistically minded conservatives down a tactical ‘blind alley’, so UKIP now exists as a ‘road block’ preventing those nationalistically minded Tories from drifting too far to the right.
Whether Nigel Farage and the leadership of UKIP have made a formal and explicit pact with our political establishment to deliberately act as such a ‘road block’, or whether they are simply political opportunists occupying a ‘niche’ that they short-sightedly perceive to be a valid political position, we may never know for sure, but UKIP’s current policy of not allowing former BNP members to joining its ranks provides a useful pointer.
While a ‘semi-permeable membrane’ exists between UKIP and the Conservative Party, such that members may drift from one party back and forth between the two, the ban on former BNP members effectively prevents UKIP from ideologically moving beyond former Monday Club territory.
With the destruction of the BNP due to corruption and ineptitude on the part of current leaders, genuine nationalists would appear to have been effectively disenfranchised and have nowhere to go politically.
Hindered in our attempts to create a genuine racial nationalist or ethno-nationalist party by the existence of the BNP ‘cuckoo in the nest’, we are now prevented from establishing a ‘sanitised’ but still genuinely nationalist alternative, by the existence of UKIP.
Furthermore, any chance of influencing the progress of UKIP and drawing it away from mere right-wing conservatism and into the realms of genuine nationalism are hindered if not completely frustrated by the ban on former BNP members.
At present UKIP have few political activists that are willing to participate in leafleting and doorstep canvassing and are dependant upon the patronage of the mass media in order to maintain their ascendant political fortunes. If they were to admit former BNP members, it would massively increase their supply of potential activists and in the light of their performance during the Eastleigh by-election, a flood of ex-BNP members with nowhere else to go politically could potentially increase the membership of UKIP by approximately 50%.
So why would Nigel Farage not want to welcome ex-BNP members into his party?
Ostensibly, the reason given for this is that it would taint his party in the eyes of the public with the perception that it’s members are racist. However, Farage must know that as far as the public are concerned they can see little difference between UKIP and the BNP and most seem bemused that two apparently ‘identical’ parties receive such different treatment by the mass media. They vote for UKIP, not because it is perceived to be non-racist, but because it is presented as respectable by the media and they can therefore talk to their friends about their support for the party.
Farage is therefore trapped in a ‘Catch 22’ situation, in which he will lose media patronage upon which his party currently depends if he attempts to access the reservoir of Ex-BNP members and activists that are needed in order for his party to truly break the mould of the British two/three party system. Furthermore as long as UKIP continue to rely on media patronage for their electoral success, they will remain a pawn of our political establishment and therefore be unable to effect real change, their ‘success’ able to be turned ‘off’ or ‘on’ by media moguls at the ‘flick of a switch’.
Similarly, we nationalists seem ‘caught between a rock and a hard place’; in which any openly racial nationalist or ethno-nationalist party will face state persecution, media driven opprobrium and will find its path blocked by the BNP ‘cuckoo in the nest’; in which any ‘sanitised’ ethno-nationalist or civic nationalist party aspiring to respectability will find its path blocked by the UKIP ‘cuckoo in the nest’; and in which we are prevented from drawing UKIP into genuine nationalist territory through entryism, by their membership ban on former BNP members.
So, what should we nationalists do?
Firstly, we must recognise that attempts at electioneering in which we ‘nail our colours to the mast’ and campaign openly as nationalist party candidates are currently a futile waste of time.
We have already formed a dozen or so nationalist micro-parties and they have singularly failed to achieve any lasting progress in the face of a withering campaign of media smears and denigration.
Our political enemies have over many decades successfully rested control from us of all of our establishment political parties, not openly and honestly in such a way that our people could see what has been happening, but through ‘stealth’, and the only way that we are going to break out of the trap in which we find ourselves and turn the tables back in our favour is by similarly employing stealth.
We need to organise, not as nationalist political parties, but as a movement composed of political ‘societies’, and not just as one political society, but as a nexus of seemingly separate, but interconnected political societies, all working in unison towards a single goal, that of securing the existence of our people and a future for White children.
Our activists must form local ‘societies’ that work to raise racial consciousness and social cohesion among our people. These societies must operate in much the same way as existing Masonic groups operate and have operated over many centuries. Existing Masonic groups are largely corrupt however, and should not be allowed to spread their corruption into our new organisations. Our organisations will not exist merely to further the selfish aims of profit motivated businessmen, nor to spread an appreciation of Cabalistic mysticism, our organisations will exist primarily for the betterment of White people and for the fulfilment of the fourteen words.
Rather than campaign in elections as nationalist party candidates, we should where we can gain UKIP membership and through entryism gain as much covert influence for our members as possible within that party. We should also do the same with the other establishment parties, such that if we live in an area that always elects a Labour candidate, our members gain entry into the local Labour Party concerned and work to get one of our members adopted as the official Labour candidate.
By working covertly and emplying stealth, we may find ourselves before long with councils composed of a variety of ostensibly, local establishment party councillors, a sizeable bloc of which will be our people. In such a situation the nominally Conservative MoNS councillors can vote together with the nominally Labour MoNS councillors and the nominally LibDem and UKIP MoNS councillors. Everyone else may wonder what is going on , but we will be guiding council decisions in such a way as to benefit our people for a change and it will be very difficult for the establishment to do anything to stop us.
After all, isn’t this what ethnic minority groups have been doing so successfully for decades, for the benefit of their people and not ours?
Do you want to learn more?
Then email: [email protected]
By Max Musson © 2013
# # # #
Steve
- Edit
I think UKIP are a garden path party, designed to implode at the correct moment like the BNP did.
That has the effect of being a safety valve at first & then dissipating the opposition second.
People who are unhappy about what is going on are given the illusion of choice & democracy when in reality there is none & probably hasn’t been any going back to WW2.
We need to bring democracy to this country & others will do the same in Europe.
Simon Lote
- Edit
There is somthing to be said for this. I beleive that any political movement has a pyramid of activists. At the peak of the pyramid there is the absoutely commited minority who would continue the fight in the face of fierce state persecution which is a given in nationalist circles. Today these people form the rump of the BNP or BDP.
However, there is also the base of the pyramid composed of activists who lack the commitment of those at the top and would be/are scared away from activism in the face of fierce hostility.
In my opinion the anti-white has succesfully cut the base away from the pyramid when it comes to a nationalist political party and we must therefore find ways to mobolise this base.
Steven
- Edit
UKIP are nothing more than the EU-hating, Atlantacist, Thatcherite globalist wing of the Tory Party in exile. I don’t think they will grow more than they have done especially if the favourable media coverage is suddenly ‘switched-off’ as it probably will be just before the next election.
Nationalists such as the BNP haven’t attacked UKIP on their greatest flaw which is their economic stance. Simply put, UKIP stand for ruinous economic globalism which apart from amongst a small subsection of Tory voters has no real electoral support.
The BNP lost a massive opportunity here. As a result of this failing, UKIP has gained an undeserved image of being a ‘respectable’ nationalist party when it has no nationalist stances (apart from the anti-EU one)
The new BDP party MUST attack UKIP for its crazy economic stance as that will prove to be the most potent way of combating it.
Steve
- Edit
I would be surprised if if the BDP get anywhere much less attack UKIP.
I think you’re generally right about UKIP itself but what of the leadership?
My betting is for a few surprises to come there such as defections to the mainstream parties if they start getting elected to anything.
Steve
- Edit
The fact that UKIP are treated fairly seriously as a mainstream party should be cause for suspicion & I think you are right that the public probably can’t tell the difference between this & a true Nationalist party but do we have a true Nationalist party?
Possibly the NF but the public don’t want to know.
I think you’re suggesting your own version of a long march through the institutions & we also ought to network as well.
If Nationalist members of the public became politically active there should be enough of them to penetrate most organisations & try to exercise influence or report back how these organisations are being subverted to the hidden agenda.
Such as Common Purpose, who is going on these courses, what positions they occupy & the decisions they are making.
Or how moslems do things that favour their communities such as get on the planning committees, allow mosques or halal shops but block tearooms & the like.
It seems everyone networks apart from us.
Steed
- Edit
“The fact that UKIP are treated fairly seriously as a mainstream party should be cause for suspicion”
Yes! Anyone who understands the true machinations of Western power must realise that all sanctioned opposition is controlled-opposition. Alex Jones and the EDL are prime examples, and I believe UKIP can be added to that list. The American Neo-Con phenomena, as well as the Republicans, is seen as the guardian of American liberty and Constiution, but they are unanimously pro-Israel and pro-Capitalism. UKIP is the British equivalent, quite simply.
Personally I don’t believe we have the time or inclination for a ‘long march through the institutions’. It’s not in our nature to work in such an underhanded manner. The white race is honest by nature and few are able to work whole-heartedly in a stealth-like or dishonest manner. I know that I would personally not be able to maintain the necessary enthusiasm to work long-term as part of an organisation that I fundamentally despise.
There are still lawful ways which we can detach from the system and withdraw fundings and consent. Indeed, this economic decline will have the beneficial effect of causing many ignorant ‘Brits’ to instinctively tighten their belts and focus again on the simple things in life. The hard part is going to be for people to resist taking out loans and credit cards in order to prolong their excessive consumer lifestyles.
Max Musson
- Edit
Hi Steed,
Unlike the agents of Marxism, we don’t have 100 years for a ‘long march through the institutions’, but we will not need that length of time. As I have previously stated, Marxist ideology was completely alien to the peoples of Europe and this is why Marxist moles had to take as long as they did in order to achieve results. Nationalism on the other hand is the natural ideology of our people and they will far more readily respond to us than they did the Marxists.
If a ‘long march through the institutions’ was the only strategy that we advocate, your point would have been more valid. However, such a strategy is only one of several strategies that we will be pursuing concurrently and while it will not suit everyone’s personality type, there will be many who will and in some cases are already employing it.
Furthermore, I have not stated that ‘stealth’ needs to be practiced by everyone, everywhere, at all times and in all situations, and nor does employing ‘stealth’ necessarily mean becoming an undercover mole. It is a tactic that we do need to employ however, when it is advantageous to us, just as soldiers on the battlefield wear camouflage and no longer march into battle wearing red and white tunics behind a pipe and drum band, so we must prepare for the battles ahead, out of sight of the enemy.
Steed
- Edit
Noted Max. But please note my intention was not to directly criticise your proposed strategy but rather to dissuade too many of our kinsmen from placing hope in UKIP.
Max Musson
- Edit
Hi Steed, Sorry if I’ve overreacted.
Steve
- Edit
The thing is that there has been a long march through the institutions & that needs to be dealt with.
Otherwise they will sabotage & block you at every turn.
Look how Common Purpose has rotted things away, a 1,000 deaths at Stafford hospital?
For that alone somebody should be hung.
Steve
- Edit
I think post democracy, MP’s should not belong to political parties, no party whip, should be completely transparent, paid based on the average wage, strict limits on expenses & second homes (use hostels), no previous MP to be allowed in public office again.
Use of binding referendums.
No foreign lobbying or pressure.
Strict limits on minority religious groups in this country.
A constitution that states this is a White country & which preserves that.
I’d keep religion out of politics altogether.
That’s for starters.
Steve
- Edit
I don’t think the Conservatives were ever credible as Nationalists or anything close when you examine their record of achievements since WW2.
They talked a good talk but that’s about it.
Look what they did with Enoch Powell.
Steve
- Edit
My bet about Nigel Farage is that there will be a WTF moment at some point & his star will wane.
frederickdixon
- Edit
Not sure about UKIP. Of course it isn’t what we want, but it’s closer than anything credible on offer at the moment. It may be that its real importance will turn out not to lie in itself, but in what it represents. It is becoming increasingly clear that to the politically aware public (and being brutal about it ,the politically unaware don’t matter), leftist, politically correct, ideas have almost entirely lost their hold – it is hardly necessary any more to argue against them, in any public forum they are regarded with detestation. Someone once remarked that when the seachange in public sentiment occurs we may not notice it at first; perhaps political historians of the 2050s will point to the Eastleigh by-election as the first straw in a steadily strengthening wind. It is unlikely that UKIP will for long be able to satisfy the growing public appetite for something radically different from the Liblabcon, and then things will start to get interesting.
As for Max Musson’s ideas, I agree with almost everything. My only quibble is over small local groups acting covertly – I see the point, but I think we still need a noisy, highly visible, body which will certainly attract flak but will also let people know that the ideal of racial nationalism is still alive, and will thus attract the dedicated and committed.
Max Musson
- Edit
Hi Frederick, My thanks for your support and you are are of course correct, that we need in addition a large, militant and vociferous corps of street activists who we can call upon to lead highly visible demonstrations of mass civil disobedience against the regime. This was fifth on my list of prerequisites detailed in my earlier article ‘The Great White Hope?’
Steve
- Edit
Also zero net immigration is misleading too as an objective, if you have a million White people leaving and a million non-Whites entering, then that will not preserve this nation as White European in character.
Especially as the non-Whites here seem to have a high birthrate which is not discouraged.
Steve
- Edit
If we have our way, what would it be, a post democratic or a true democratic age?
s.ducain
- Edit
I doubt if Farrage is in any way worried about the ”reservoir ” of BNP and ex-BNP
who could be part of UKIP. In the first place this so-called reservoir is more like a small
pond, totally irrelevant. He would be horrified if UKIP became contaminated by more
race-based BNPers as that would destroy his media acceptability. We are all nationalists
of one shade or another and to make any progress in this difficult ”market” we need to
co-operate with each other, not work against each other. Also, as all other politicians are
consummate liars, I see no harm in nationalists employing our own brand of taqquiya.
Telling the pure truth to the Electorate will be more likely to turn them away from
nationalism. The pure truth is too challenging, we need to water it down a bit and get away from any BNP baggage which is totally politically toxic.
frederickdixon
- Edit
Sadly I think that you are probably right when you say that “the pure truth is too challenging” for electoral purposes. But the pure truth must be available outside of electoral politics for those who think as we do, linked by nationalist websites and local organisations. Such nationalists can then play their part in electoral politics within mainstream parties, including UKIP, all the time “employing our own brand of taqquiya”.
Steve
- Edit
I think this tells you all you need to know about Farage.
“UKIP leader Nigel Farage dines with Rupert Murdoch”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21710739
s.ducain
- Edit
Exactly Steve, if he wasn’t bought before, he’s definitely in the market and soon to be bought. These big-money jews like Murdoch only understand that everyone has a price, if they meet an Enoch they would be flummoxed. Unfortunately there is no evidence as yet
that Farage isn’t above a little offer. He talks a good game but still retains the image of a
dinner-party nationalist.
Steve
- Edit
I have to admit he’s getting close to that WTF moment I predicted above!
MashedUK
- Edit
Do we necessarily have to sign up to a party? Would it not be better to stand as Independents and proceed via parish, town, district and county before, in time, gaining respectability for a push on Westminster?
I totally agree that, at present, the Nationalist movement, although still active, has lost it’s cohesion.
I believe that they can be drawn together by one organisation. However, what and how that, is achieved is subject to further debates. For now we have been exiled to the wilderness.
But as Enoch himself stated after being exiled by mainstream Conservatism,”wildernesses are good places I notice….for voices? They tend to get a reverberation which is often lost in the more crowded places”
Steve
- Edit
Independent candidates could well be attractive to voters who are fed up with the mainstream ones.