Essays

A Place at the Table for the Indigenous White Majority?

by Max Musson

MOST PEOPLE don’t think very far beyond their own immediate needs and wants and those of their close families. As long as they have enough money to provide the warmth, food, light, shelter, and clothing they need, and a few modest luxuries, most people do not consider the distant consequences of their actions, nor the actions of those around them or their government.

Most people accept that there are flaws in the system and that there will always be some degree of petty corruption within government, but as long as they are able to provide for themselves and their loved ones, the basics and a few luxuries as I have said, they don’t concern themselves with the machinations of those in power or the system of government they live under.

Most people assume that the government is composed of people like them, who are basically well intentioned and who, despite their flaws, believe in fair play and have the best interests of the nation at heart.

It comes as something of a shock therefore to most people, who perhaps somewhat later in life take up our nation’s cause, when they realise the disparity that exists between their old perceptions of those in authority compared with reality.

Many who have been law abiding all of their lives: those raised on a diet of ‘Queen and Country’ patriotism and the belief that we live in a free country; and who were raised to believe that our government is elected to promote our interests and to safeguard our people, are shocked to find that rather than promoting our interests and safeguarding our people, our government behaves iniquitously and in a way which all too often places the interests of others ahead of the interests of our people.

I have written before about the way in which mass immigration is promoted and facilitated by government, both nationally and across the European Union, on the basis that it is ‘good for the economy’. This is because it increases the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of our economy, and the ‘naïve’ assumption is that an increased GDP is automatically good for our nation.

In practice, increases in GDP rarely have any direct beneficial impact on the lives and living standards of the vast majority our people. An increased GDP usually causes an increase in profits for big businesses and major employers, however when the increase has been achieved solely by increasing the size of the population through mass immigration, all that happens is that any benefit that might otherwise trickle down to the man in the street is lost through being shared by a larger number of people. The slightly larger ‘cake’ is divided between rather more people and most people end up with a smaller ‘slice’ than before.

Mass immigration does however lead to greater profits for large employers as a result of the depression of wages through increased competition for a finite number of jobs. This is why the employers association, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) regularly expresses approval of government open door immigration policy.

What we find when we examine the workings of government and the interaction of government with its subjects, is that government responds most keenly to vested interest groups that lobby government ministers and who attract the attention of key politicians by offering them ‘inducements’.

When most people picture the system of government that exists in this country they will have in mind a model similar to that shown in Fig.1.

According to this model, the mass of the British people determine those who govern us through the electoral system, by voting every five years. The naïve assumption here is that our government is answerable to the people and is therefore obliged to govern in our best interests, and in an ideal world, with all other things being equal that would indeed be the case.

In reality however, powerful vested interest groups have grown up and these lobby government, gaining influence over the work of ministers and lessor politicians, by offering them attractive inducements to modify legislation in a way that profits those powerful vested interest groups.

The inducements could range from non-executive directorships on fat salaries, to lucrative speaking fees, all expenses paid ‘business conventions’ in exotic holiday destinations, or in some case, discreet payments of cold, hard, cash — for so called ‘consultancy’ work.

Obviously, when we look at Fig. 2, it becomes obvious how government policy can be impacted in ways that do not benefit the vast majority of our people but which make business leaders rich. Lobbying of this sort not only increases the influence of big business, it reduces the influence over politicians exercised by the public by making the electoral system less effective.

The groups competing for the attention and favour of government are not always commercial or business groups however, they are frequently charitable bodies, most of which are involved in endeavours that will ultimately benefit disadvantaged people from all sections of society, but an increasing number of which work to advance the specific interests of ethnic minorities. Furthermore, when the scope of ‘charitable work’ is expanded to not just address the needs of the genuinely disadvantaged, but also encompasses work aimed at enhancing the economic interests of minority ethnic groups, we can see that there will not be a level ‘playing field’ where social and economic competition between ethnic minorities on the one hand, and the indigenous British people on the other are concerned.

Also, ethnic minority groups competing for the attention and favour of government are not restricted to purely charitable bodies. In 1760, during the reign of George III, the Board of Deputies of British Jews was formed to lobby government in the interests of Jews living in the UK and elsewhere, and for more than two centuries they were the only ethnic minority representative body lobbying the British government. In recent decades however, other ethnic minority groups have copied the tactics of organised Jewry and have created their own representative bodies, which have similarly sought to bypass the electoral system as shown in Fig.3, gaining direct access to government through direct meetings with Home Office staff and in many cases the Home Secretary herself.

As can be appreciated from Fig. 3, the existence of Black and minority ethnic (BAME) lobbying groups has further reduced any democratic influence that might be exercised over government through the electoral system. We British, the indigenous White people of the British Isles, have suffered a massive loss of influence as a result of the lobbying activities of powerful vested interest groups and this issue is in danger of invalidating our entire democratic system to such an extent that many people are now beginning to question whether our system of government any longer has legitimacy.

This latter point is particularly significant when one considers the impediments that have already been put in place by government and non-governmental organisations to frustrate attempts to gain democratic representation and to intimidate and terrorise those legitimately seeking to provide advocacy in the specific ethnic interests of the indigenous White majority population of Britain:

  1. Legislation having been introduced defining much forthright advocacy on behalf of the specific ethnic interests of the indigenous White majority as ‘hate speech’. This especially so when describing the adverse impact of uncontrolled mass immigration in emotive terms.
  2. The application of Draconian ‘catch-all’ provisions within the Terrorism Act 2000 in order to spuriously designate as ‘terrorist’ and thereby unnecessarily criminalise, groups practicing forthright advocacy of the specific ethnic interests of the indigenous White majority;
  3. The failure on the part of the Home Office to apply even-handedly the provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000 in respect of left-wing groups such as Antifa who openly employ violence and terrorist tactics against advocates campaigning in the ethnic interests of the indigenous White majority;
  4. The granting of privileged charitable status to groups such as ‘Hope Not Hate’ who collect, record and maliciously publish information about White advocacy practitioners of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism;
  5. The Home Office designation of forthright advocacy on behalf of the specific ethnic interests of the indigenous White majority as ‘extremism’ and the introduction of extra-statutory control orders and disruption orders intended to hamper the efforts of those practicing such advocacy.
  6. The denial of access to the main stream media for advocates campaigning in the ethnic interests of the indigenous White majority, that media being largely owned and/or controlled by hostile individuals from among the ethnic minorities; and
  7. The sloppy administration of elections such that massive potential exists for widespread electoral fraud and no-one representing a radical or controversial cause can have confidence that elections are conducted honestly or fairly.

There is a suspicion on the part of those in authority, in the current hostile climate they have created, in which continued uncontrolled mass immigration now presents an existential threat to the survival of the indigenous White people of Britain, that young and determined activists in our people’s cause may turn to violence and terrorism. This has prompted a wave of fruitless arrests and trumped-up charges that are unlikely to succeed and which are more likely to prove a self-fulfilling prophecy rather than act as a deterrent to those inclined to extremism.

The repetitious arrests on spurious charges, followed by release on bail, followed by control orders with the eventual dropping of charges with no further action, only for this process to be repeated again and again is more likely to create a substantial body of disaffected young men with an utter contempt for those in authority, than to result in anything positive. A more fertile recruiting ground for potential terrorists one would be hard put to imagine and one sometimes wonders whether it is the intention of those in authority to goad young patriots into committing acts of terrorism, so short-sighted is this policy.

The mistake those in authority make is that having made the electoral process a futile field of endeavour for those advocating in the specific ethnic interests of the indigenous White majority, they assume that recourse to terrorism is the only option available, and through their short-sighted policy of Draconian policing they perhaps inadvertently encourage this view among White advocacy practitioners as I have already explained. In reality there are two further options, as yet largely unexplored:

  1. Local community activism and the building of militant consciously White communities, as advocated by Western Spring for a number of years now; and
  2. The creation of a representative body to advocate on behalf of the indigenous White majority, lobbying government through direct meetings between this body and the Home Office under the same protocols pioneered by the Board of Deputies of British Jews and currently practiced by other ethnic minority representative groups.

It is therefore the intention of Western Spring to explore the possibility of entering into direct discussions with the current Home Secretary with a view to the formation of a representative body representing the specific ethnic interests of the indigenous White majority within the population of the UK.

In making representations to the Home Office, our requests will carry more weight if we are able to demonstrate that the vast majority of White advocacy groups in the UK are willing to participate in this scheme and elect delegates to the representative body we create. I shall therefore be writing shortly to the leaders of all of the White advocacy groups and political parties asking for their co-operation in nominating and electing delegates.

I shall also create a petition that we can use to collect as many signatures from the wider indigenous White majority population as possible supporting the idea of creating the proposed representative body. If we are to succeed and command the attention of the Home Secretary it will be essential that everyone makes a massive effort to collect as many signatures as possible from the British public. We do not need to collect signatures from the majority of our people, we simply need to collect enough to put us on the same footing as the Board of Deputies of British Jews, who can only claim to represent about 275,000 people, the entire Jewish population of Britain.

Once we have established this direct access to the Home Office, effectively bypassing the now largely defunct electoral process, we will be able to press the government to make reforms and introduce legislation to protect and further the interests of our people. Furthermore, if we make a success of this, gaining some government co-operation in the fulfilment of our aims, this will prompt more of our people to support us and we could through this initiative win the financial support of the 300,000 people we need to fill our ‘war chest’ and give us the wherewithal to exercise real political influence and bring about the salvation of our people.

* * *

Source: Western Spring

Previous post

New Audio Book: The American Mercury on Leo Frank - Dorsey's Closing Arguments, part 1

Next post

The Jewish Hand in the World Wars, Part 1

No Comments Yet

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Slander, crude language, incivility, off-topic drift, or remarks that might harm National Vanguard or its users may be edited or deleted, even if unintentional. Comments may be edited for clarity or usage.