By Max Musson:
It amuses me when someone begins to leave a comment following one of our articles, and ends up writing a veritable treatise. It is also undoubtedly flattering, because it shows that the person in question was impressed by the content of our article and feels passionately about some aspect of it.
John Londen is a well respected commentator on racial nationalist politics and he makes some very important points in a mammoth response to my recent article entitled, ‘I’ll do anything, … but I won’t do that!’ and so I take this opportunity of making his comments the subject of another full blown article:
John Londen: The tenor of the article seems to be that without effective fund-raising and a pool of capital, Nationalism is doomed to fail. I will not nit-pick the arguments in detail, as that could be seen as churlish, but I can see a general flaw here. The point about money is well-made, but money is a tool that is only effective in the right hands, with the right strategy, clear goals and aims and with some understanding of the tactics needed to get there. In the wrong hands, money is poison and can actually be detrimental.
Max Musson: I agree that money in the wrong hands can be ‘poison’, we only have to see the effects that have resulted from money in the hands of our racial enemies, but we do not propose placing the money we raise in the hands of either evil people or idiots and so this has no bearing upon our plans.
John Londen: What is most lacking is not money but expertise. Money tends to follow the right people with the right plan and the will to put it into effect, but I would dispute its criticality as presented here. For instance, let’s say you want to build a white conscious community. Having the capital to invest in houses and other facilities can help, yes, but what’s more important than even that is having an understanding of how to gain influence and control in a community. Given the choice, I would prefer the latter over the former. Having money, but not much upstairs in terms of how to achieve the objectives, is only going to get you so far. A lack of money, on the other hand, does not preclude you from building a white conscious community. Money can be found, and in any case, it is not needed if you have the necessary skills and ingenuity to operate with subtly.
Max Musson: Again John, we are not proposing to place money in the hands of people who ‘do not have much upstairs’, we intend to place it in the hands of people who do have “an understanding of how to gain influence and control in a community”, and such a person with adequate money at their disposal will, all other things being equal, produce better results than someone with little or no money.
John Londen: What is not being acknowledged by any (or very few) pro-white activists (and, with respect, this includes Western Spring) is that Nationalism has already failed. This is for a number of reasons too numerous to exhaust here, but the most striking reality facing us is that the traditional aim to re-capturing Britain is out-of-reach.
Tribalism has to replace Nationalism. Frankly it should have done from the start. The truth is that when National Socialist Germany was finally defeated in May 1945, that also signalled the defeat for national-socialist (i.e. white) Britain, as it did for every other European country. It also represented an ominous sign for generic national-socialism everywhere, or at least everywhere that the Jews have interests to protect or advance. The only hold-outs left are found in East Asia – China, Japan and North Korea – which are still thoroughly national-socialist, but even in those countries, Jews are visibly on the rise and miscegenation is being encouraged. Jewish capitalism is, for now, victorious and the era of the ethno-nation state is coming to an end. This reality necessitates not just new strategies, but new geopolitical goals – something that, unfortunately, a lot of nationalists, who are steeped in conservative mores and habits, cannot grasp, or if they do, cannot and will not accept.
Max Musson: In essence the ‘post-nationalist’ position that WIN have adopted is correct, in so far as it goes, and we have featured on this website both articles and podcasts by Nick Grifford of WIN. However, whether one’s outlook is ‘nationalist’ or ‘post-nationalist’ or ‘neo-nationalist’; whether it is ‘nationalist’, ‘racialist’ or ‘tribalist’, very much depends upon one’s system of taxonomy. Furthermore, and this is a tactical issue, it would be wrong to attempt pigeon-hole every organisation based merely upon the variety of styles adopted in addressing disparate audiences and it would be tactically foolish for a movement that is attempting to extend its influence to alienate a large swathe of White racialist opinion simply in order to appear ideologically avant garde.
In the minds of most of our target audience, the distinctions you draw here are semantic or at best, academic.
John Londen: The true battle is racial, and embraces psychological, economic, social, biological and technological fronts as well as political activity. In other words, this is total racial warfare: and really, always has been. It’s just that the pro-white side has not officially woken up to this and still believes in Jewish party games [Surrrprise…!!!] and other delusions.
The term ‘race war’ does not, and need not, embrace violence or terrorism (though unofficially, a high intensity street war of a pseudo-military kind is being waged against us already). The opportunity we have is to pursue peaceful methods, albeit of a highly-disruptive nature, however we should always be willing to adopt violence if this is thought to be tactically efficacious and appropriate. There is no room for moral and ethical queasiness.
The traditional reactionary thesis that the counter-culture can be rolled-back by a ‘counter-counter culture’ is, I believe, mistaken. The Gramscian tactics were invented for neo-Marxists and leftists. They don’t apply to our predicament, and won’t work for us. This is because of a simple socio-biological reality: non-whites (whether pure or mixed) won’t support us, for obvious reasons; nor do we want to be polluted by their support, and as their numbers grow (we are talking millions now), the country will become Balkanised and any political programme based on notions of forcible repatriation will start to look impractical even to the most obstinate conservative.
Max Musson: Tribalism will work in terms of creating consciously White communities, but the creation of a scattering of such communities across a limited part of the British Isles holds no future for the White race unless our aims are to some extent revanchist, and if they are, then the distinction between ‘Tribalism’ and ‘nationalism’ become as I have already stated, academic.
To have communities like the Amish, that are seen as anachronistic both by the outside world and by the brightest and most adventurous of their youth, would be a mistake that would cause us to ‘bleed’ the best elements of our race back into the rump of humanity. Our ultimate aims must after a period of consolidation be to expand and reconquer if the White race is to achieve our full potential and be more that a ‘living museum’.
Building consciously White communities is one thing, providing them with the wherewithal to expand in a hostile world will be expensive and therefore the existence of a funding programme in which large numbers of people from the White diaspora donate funds to help us develop our ‘White Zion’ will be a tremendous advantage.
John Londen: What needs to be remembered is that multi-racialism and multi-culturalism mean mixed-racialism: race-mixing. That’s the real objective of our enemies, which, once achieved, de-couples race from culture, subverts the once indigenous population and turns society into rootless, compliant, consumerist mass. The conservatives and reactionaries are of no use to us. The flaws in their arguments can be easily identified by looking at the more naive utterances of their supporters: “Just one more push and we’re there!”, “The system will collapse, then people will rally to us”, “Vote UKIP”, “If UKIP don’t get anywhere this time round, then I’ll look at alternatives like Western Spring. I will, I promise!” and even (yes I’ve read words to the effect somewhere on Stormfront): “The Conservatives are doing something about immigration now. Voting for UKIP seems to be working.” Those who adopt such positions will either have to change and accept new realities, or mix with the herd and leave their white identity behind. That’s the brutal reality.
Max Musson: This is true and we at Western Spring have consistently made this argument.
John Londen: We must recognise we are not just a minority, but a ‘minority of a minority’, and, in this phase of the struggle, our numbers will contract still further as the mainstream population mixes genetically, spiritually and culturally with the Third Worlders.
Max Musson: Our potential audience will contract dependent upon the degree of race mixing that takes place within the wider population, but the number of White racialists need not contract, especially if we can lead enough of them into consciously White communities and imbue both them and their children with the will to remain exclusively White.
John Londen: Against this background, new parallel institutions and organisations need to be invented that will appeal to those among the herd who might support us. These should be designed to capitalise on new opportunities as the number of disaffected whites grows larger and these people start to react and look around for novel solutions.
Max Musson: Again I cannot disagree with what you say here, except to point out that the creation of “new parallel institutions and organisations” will be so much easier if we have a plentiful supply of money.
It would be hard to attract people to our parallel society unless it is perceptibly superior to that which is offered elsewhere.
John Londen: Electoral politics and appealing for votes cannot be discounted entirely and should not be dismissed. It forms part of the overall equation, but the algebra needs to change: it’s now just one strategy among several, and it should be directed towards establishing a moral case for racial separation, rather than this deluded revanchism of trying to take back a country that is already lost. I am not saying Western Spring is the worst offender in this respect. In fact, I think your approach to things is sufficiently flexible that it could be adapted over time as the reality of our situation sinks in.
Instead, I will pick on the National Front. The current political strategy of groups like the National Front ignores reality, and worse, necessitates the flawed approach of appealing to the lowest common denominator among the populace, which is useless. In the case of the NF, this means screaming at asylum seekers or standing in town centres shouting about paedos, as well as distributing crude, amateurish and unappealing propaganda that (even without the spelling errors) leaves the stupefied herd feeling wised-up for once. They have been conditioned to ‘see through it’.
What should we do instead? I call the electoral strategy we need ‘maximisation': maximising support among whites who might agree with us and making our message as appealing as possible to that small group, as opposed to mainstreaming the message, which involves jumping on populist bandwagons and trying to appeal to everbody. The former uses our resources wisely. The latter is based on the delusion that you can ‘convince’ people, when most people aren’t rational and in fact base their political choices on emotion. That’s why it just wastes everyone’s time and demotivates those involved.
Max Musson: In this you are again preaching to the already converted, with exception of course of our version of revanchism, which as I have already indicated, accepts that through force of circumstances, the mechanism through which it will be fulfilled will most likely not be primarily electoral.
John Londen: The fundamental emotional, irrational nature of human beings needs to be recognised. This doesn’t apply to all evenly. I tend to be more rational than emotional, but I also note that at times I can fall for emotional narratives just like everybody else. This is a human quality that is almost universal.
That’s why you have to start with presentation and work backwards. A fresh image is needed. Take a stroll to the National Front website and see what the problem is. The impression given: angry, aggressive, predominantly male, violent, ignorant, thuggish, uppity, and worst of all, out-of-date. This may or may not reflect the reality. I’m talking here about the impression made on the ordinary herd mind, if they bother looking ‘us’ up at all.
If you want to raise an army and invade Belgium, then yes, you need an organisation that is, among other things, angry, aggressive, predominantly male, violent, ignorant (about politics), and preferably, thuggish. But if you want to appeal to ordinary folk in elections and convince them you are competent enough to run the local parish council, these qualities – or a widely-held perception that you possess them – might not be such an asset. Wrong? Unfair? It’s both those things and more. The public have been brainwashed by a lie machine designed for fools. Alas, I am not in a position to stuff the ballot boxes with votes for a White Nationalist party, so the public’s wildly wrong and unfair perceptions will have to do – especially if, unlike me, you aspire to somehow win over masses of people.
Let’s suppose enough of us had some understanding of conditioning (like New Labour did, and as most modern politicians and Westminster types do). We would then concentrate on removing or neutralising the negatives, or at least minimising them.
How? Instead of angry, aggressive, predominantly male, violent, ignorant, thuggish and uppity, we would create political parties, institutions and organisations that emphasise things like safety, community, family, loyalty, solidarity, and above all else, relevancy. We would also seek to live these values by undertaking a campaign of social and moral resistance in our local areas, while also planning and building a white stronghold in a specific target area, with the intention that this initiative would expand outwards and also be duplicated and copied elsewhere by others.
This is not about compromising our dearly-held principles. Quite the opposite. It’s actually about ‘going back to basics’.
Who are we? White people.
What are we doing? Preserving the white race.
Will we do this by waving Union Flags, giving off the British Bulldog image, like some kind of working class version of Dads’ Army, trying to persuade every passing idiot at the local shopping centre to ‘save Britain’? I think that’s doubtful. I’m not saying the traditional sort of patriotism doesn’t matter at all, just that there is a time and a place for it and a way of putting it across that doesn’t get people’s backs up or make us look irrelevant. Most white British people still value their British identity and are, in that sense, patriotic – I live in an area that hangs Union Jack bunting and flags in the streets – but they want their patriotism (which is a little bit guilty and dirty nowadays) to reflect back at them in a positive way. It’s a bit like shopping – you use the local pound shop if you’re cheap and don’t care who knows it. You go to M&S to keep up appearances.
Max Musson: Again John, we already agree with you completely on these points and this is why this website doesn’t look like traditional nationalist websites do and why the content and our message is significantly different.
I note that you ultimately wish to see White strongholds “expanding outwards” in a ‘revanchist’ kind of way. That will be expensive and require a funding programme.
John Londen: That’s not to say I have a low opinion of the public. It’s just to accept that most people are herd-like in their mentality and, in the case of whites, also social. Asians have the concept of Face, which is a bit different but has similarities. One of the reasons the Pakistani community aided in the cover-up of the rape scandal was in an effort to maintain a front – a kind of collective projection of the Face concept. Whites want to be seen to support things that reflect back well on them, and even when they are doing things in secret – like voting – they want to feel good about it. Some link this attribute to that famous altruistic streak we whites are said to have, which (being a cynic) I think is really just a type of narcissism: wanting to make yourself look better/more important in the eyes of others.
That’s not ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ or ‘better’ or ‘worse’ than those of us who are not so herd-like. It’s just the way people are. It’s why our society is as it is – both the good and the bad. People want to support things that reflect well on them. A bunch of angry, screaming men, blood up, protesting ‘paedos’ is all well and good, and it keeps the police in double-pay, but does it win us any credibility or support? When Joe and Jennifer Bloggs see the NF out on these demonstrations, do they imagine that they too would like to join in and shout at asylum seekers, or do they just clock at some sub-conscious level that this is just a bunch of idiots? I suspect the latter. Wrong? Unfair? Yes, but again, this is how people are. Do you want to ‘fight the ‘good fight’, which in reality is a fight against our own people, screaming and shouting like a bag lady? Or do you want to understand people in an effort to get on side those who are emotionally inclined to support us?
What if, instead of the usual futility, we had a political party and a wider movement that showed its concern about Pakistani Muslim child rape by providing safe environments for white children, writing research papers on the problem, and generally doing constructive, practical things to tackle the root of it, while always pointing to the problem of non-white immigration as a catalysing factor that must be excised? What if this new movement presented itself not as a raving mob going after paedos and unsympathetic authority figures, but as promoting white families, with women at the forefront of its publicity and public image? What if we had ‘white nationalist mothers’ (not mother fuckers, actual mothers) on radio talk shows and giving interviews about the problem, explaining how we need ‘safe’ areas (code for white areas) and pointing to real projects and initiatives that put this into practice for working class whites?
Max Musson: Again John, I cannot disagree with anything you have stated here, although I would point out that you are again preaching to the converted and also that finding a radio station that will broadcast the message of White mothers and creating a variety of initiatives to support working class Whites will again be difficult in the absence of a funding programme.
John Londen: How could this sort of thing be encapsulated visually? An example is found on the WIN website, and to an extent, on the Western Spring website as well. I suggest people spend time studying the WIN website in particular, not because I think it is perfect, but because it provides an exemplar and a starting point. It’s an example of how a ‘clean’ image can be put across to that small section of the ordinary public who will lean in our direction if we ‘say the right things in the right way’.
This is not about giving up our dearly-held principles. Rather, it is about relevancy. Issues such as asylum seekers and paedos, etc., are relevant to us and I cannot argue with the point of the demonstrations, but are they relevant to the ordinary public in the same way we think they are? Do the actions of nationalists speak to relevancy? You might hope so and wish so, but that does not make it so. What the public want is leadership, credbility and solutions. They want to support people that can be trusted. Has the National Front, or any other nationalist-like organisation, shown that it would stop another ‘Rotherham’? Sorry, but people see through this stuff. It’s unconvincing.
The web offers an incomparable experimental tool and is therefore useful as a starting point, both to create appealing political messages and also to create virtual resistance structures that our opponents will find difficult, if not impossible, to infiltrate and compromise. I see no benefit at this stage in handing over my personal details to a nationalist organisation. To do so makes me ‘glow in the dark’, leaves me vulnerable to the authorities. I am far more dangerous to multi-racial Britain as an anonymous figure. I could be anyone, and in a sense, I am anyone. The trick, I believe, is to find a way to channel the efforts of millions of us so that we are all working toward the same goal, alone or in small cell-like groups, under the cover of legitimate front organisations pursuing goals that are, in some cases, explicitly pro-white, but in a way that is lawful, or if not lawful, difficult-to-trace. In short, our tactics need to suit the battlefield, but also the other way round, in that we also need to select the right battleground for the tactics that are within our capabilities.
Max Musson: I agree with many of your final points and you will no doubt have noticed that I have taken the opportunity to promote WIN on a number of occasions, both on this website and on Stormfront. I don’t see WIN as a rival but as a potential ally in our struggle.
You are wrong to dismiss Western Spring as a mere ‘nationalist’ organisation and you are wrong to suggest that passing your details to us will make you “glow in the dark”. Very few of our members have any kind of public profile at all, and this has been a deliberate tactic on our part, to retain for them the advantages of anonymity.
In essence the main difference between our positions is that the WIN approach has been to avoid the ‘thorny issue’ of addressing the need for members and supporters to make contributions into a funding programme, which is fair enough if one envisages the period of revanchism until White primacy is re-established on these islands, taking many decades if not centuries or even millennia.
Western Spring however offer our members and supporters and our target audience a vista to that time when we will again be masters of our own land that is based upon a dramatically shorter timescale and to make this possible we have developed a funding programme and the concept of the Six Prerequisites. This is the correct approach because the longer the future survival of the White race depends upon small numbers of our people existing in small isolated communities surrounded by a ‘sea’ of brown, the greater is the potential and the greater are the dangers that those communities will fail for one reason or another and that the White race will be lost forever.
Our intention at the outset must therefore be to minimise this time and that can only be done by acquiring the financial wherewithal needed for rapid expansion once the embryonic communities are established.
Within living memory there is only one example of an enduring ethno-state being successfully established in the face of widespread hostility and that is the creation of the state of Israel. We therefore have in Israel a ‘blue-print’ to follow, and the state of Israel would not exist today had it not been for the financial support of Zionist Jews in the diaspora regularly remitting their money (and in many cases other peoples’ money), in order provide the initially miniscule Zionist communities in what was originally Palestine, with the means to effect their rapid expansion.
Where would those Zionist communities be today if they had from the very beginning to rely solely on their own resources? The Arab nations would have crushed them for sure!
Our responsibility to the future as yet unborn generations of the White race is very onerous and the chances of our success are small enough without attempting to achieve salvation without being honest with people and without addressing the ‘thorny issues’.
I am glad to offer space to representatives of WIN on this forum, but let us not attempt to score points off each other when we have so much in common. I will continue to promote WIN as an ally and I would like to think that representatives of WIN will offer us that same compliment in return.
By Max Musson © 2014
# # # #