The British People – Which Way Now?

by Max Musson

SINCE THE late 1800s, when the British Empire was at its height and we British had our greatest influence over the world, and following two successfully won World Wars the after-effects of which have been devastating for our nation, we British now seem to have reached our lowest ebb and at a time when there would appear to be no clear leader to follow and seemingly, no clear ideological path forward either.

This is not to say that there is no choice of organisation to join or choice of ideological trajectory to follow, and no aspiring leaders calling for us to follow them, because there has never been a greater choice. The problem is that hitherto none of the plethora of voices calling to us appears to offer anything that is fresh or invigorating — which shows a clear path out of the mire in which me now find ourselves — and therefore many of our people find themselves standing at a crossroads.

Politicians of the main establishment parties tell us the problems facing Britain and the British people are international in nature and therefore require us to act in concert with our ‘international partners’ to find international solutions to those international problems, but to most of us with our feet still on the ground it is evident that it is these ‘international partners’; the European Union, the United Nations, the World Bank and others that are hindering us in our efforts to resolve our problems, and if anything they are simply making our problems worse.

Many of us have identified nationalism as the logical answer and the means by which we can as a nation protect ourselves against harmful international influences.

Nationalism has traditionally been a popular force emanating from among the most patriotic elements within a nation, who perceive a specific threat to the well-being and integrity of their nation and who react defensively to that threat. In this sense, nationalism has often been described as ‘reactionary’ in character.

Furthermore, as there have historically been only limited population movements, nationalism has until recently not needed to be concerned with matters of race or even culture, and the patriotisms that have flourished in the past have been expressions of loyalty to tribal groups and the bloodlines of noble dynastic families or monarchs or to Christian religious denominations, and herein lies the roots of local or regional rivalries that have historically existed, dividing our ‘United’ Kingdom, between Yorkshireman and Lancastrian, between the Welsh and the English, between the Scots and the English, and between Orangemen and Republicans in Ireland. Herein lies one of the traditional characteristics, which have to many people made nationalism seem divisive, petty and backward looking.

In recent times however, the arrival of millions of non-White immigrants from the Third World has relegated these old rivalries to a position of virtual insignificance in the minds of most thinking people, and in the eyes of most people nationalism is now seen as an ideology within which a strong racial or at least firm cultural basis is essential.

Nationalism has often been a force emanating from the most patriotic elements of an embryonic or putative nation who have temporarily or hitherto been deprived of any formal recognition of their nationhood, and who have striven to assert that nationhood through the establishment of a nation-state within which they can enjoy primacy of place and exercise self-determination. In this sense, nationalism can been regarded as ‘radical’ in character and nationalism can also be regarded as radical in nature if it effects a social transformation in which there are extensive and fundamental changes to the structure and functioning of the state in terms of the manner in which it serves the future needs and development of our people.

Throughout most of the 20th Century, Britain has been a nation in decline, but a nation that probably until the 1980s still retained core values and at least some semblance of real nationhood, despite the increasingly obvious signs of decay and the vigorous undermining of that nationhood by anti-national forces. Throughout that period, nationalism could still credibly make patriotic appeals to the remaining traditionalist elements of our nation and attempt to save our nation and the historic nation-state that had served us so well over the centuries. Up until that point it was not too late to effect ‘repairs’ to the ‘good ship Britannia’ and restore her to her former glory.

Increasingly, since the 1980s however, and particularly over the last two decades, decay resulting from globalisation, multiculturalism and multiracialism has advanced to a point at which the ‘main structural timbers’ of our nation state are now rotten to their very core and have been rendered beyond repair. So bad is the rot in fact that our nation, the indigenous British, are now in a state of shock and confusion such that many have now almost completely lost any sense of spiritual, moral or social compass and are well on the way to becoming a seething mass of atomised individuals, devoid of traditional values and driven by materialism — ripe for exploitation and vulnerable to eventual racial and cultural obliteration.

Clearly, if we are to successfully bring about the eventual salvation of our people, the brand of nationalism that we must expound cannot be of the reactionary variety, because the rot is now too extensive and has now taken too great a hold.

Appeals for ‘Queen and Country’ patriotism have been rendered redundant, as have notions of fighting to preserve ‘Christendom’, because all of the great institutions of state have been permeated by decay. They are no longer bulwarks against decadence and corruption and are now totally immersed in it. The ‘United Kingdom’ is now almost fully integrated into the European Union and barely exists as a separate political entity. In this respect, the campaigns of organisations like Britain First are exposed as appeals to loyalties that are now meaningless anachronisms.

The main ‘structural timbers’ of our nation now need to be cut out and replaced. In fact, worse than that, the ‘body’ of our nation is more like that of a dying man riddled with a cancer that has metastasised and spread to every organ and every limb and if we are to have a healthy ‘body’ again, if we are to have a healthy nation, we must rebuild it almost in its entirety.

Furthermore, during the period from now until we have been able to build that new nation, we must adopt the mindset that we are the few remaining White corpuscles of a body in an advanced state of decay and our mission must be to create new healthy ‘cells’ within which to preserve and multiply our DNA thereby creating new healthy ‘tissue’, a new healthy ‘body’ — a new healthy nation that will one day have the strength to burst free from and sweep away, the putrid remnants of the old.

This is radical nationalism par exellence! It is a self-regenerating, bottom-up, revolutionary, racial nationalism of a vigorous people who will fashion and command the loyalty of new elites that will issue organically from us and will initiate for our people a new epoch of health and vigour, of glory and achievement as yet undreamed of.

Until that time however, we as a people must survive and proliferate in an environment of cultural and political putrifaction, an environment that is corrosive and hostile to our very existence, and we must focus our minds and our energies not upon the ‘macrocosm’ of the current dying edifice within which we barely survive, but upon the ‘microcosm’ of our local communities, the ‘cells’ from which our new nation will be built, the racially conscious White enclaves within which we will thrive.

In short, we must begin rebuilding our nation starting with units that are the smallest constituent building blocks of a nation. We must begin with clusters of racially conscious White individuals and White families and find ways to attract more White families and more racially conscious White individuals who can swell our ranks and in turn produce lots of racially conscious White children. Our racially awakened members must live in localised communities where we will exist in such dense concentrations that we can dominate and thereby determine the character of those communities, and so that we can insulate ourselves against the corrosive effect of the decadent society that surrounds us.

For the foreseeable future we must not allow ourselves to be over-concerned by the continued decline and deterioration of the ‘old nation’, that nation is dying and nothing we can do at present will prevent it. We must instead focus our attention on the creation of a new nation and as our forebears did hundreds of years ago, we must begin with family groups, then extended family groups and then larger tribal groups, until we have the numbers and occupy sufficiently large territories, such that we can merge them to establish our new nation, the new vigorous, healthy, racially conscious White nation that we all long for.

During this period of rebuilding, we White racial nationalists will be living as a minority, in our ancestral homeland. Not a racial minority of course because we will be of the same race as the wider White population and our ethnicity in terms of cultural traditions will be the same also, but we White nationalists are and will continue to be for some time, a ‘minority group’ like any other and if we are to survive and proliferate, then we must adopt a different mind-set to that of the wider White population who are yet to be ‘awakened’.

While we will continue to draw newly racially awakened members from the wider White community, those of us who are already awake must regard ourselves as a different and better sub-set of the White race — a different and better sub-set of the British people compared with those who remain wilfully ignorant. To use the terminology of WIN (White Independent Nation) we must regard ourselves as a ‘New Tribe’ — still White, still British, but members of a new racially conscious ethnicity, practicing a new racially conscious culture which must if we are to succeed in bringing about the salvation of our people, eventually prevail over the old.

This must not be seen however as a negation of the common bond that links us to the wider White-British community, nor as a turning away from nationalism, because the ‘Tribal’ mentality should not be regarded as an end in itself. It should only be envisioned as a temporary survival strategy, necessary for the period of rebuilding, during which we will be competing head on with other ethnic/racial minorities and if we are to maximise our effectiveness, like them, we too must organise ourselves and adopt an in-group/out-group approach so necessary if we are to compete successfully and enjoy the benefits of Organised Minority Advantage (OMA).

This process of rebuilding may turn out to be a long process and take longer than many of us would like, possibly much longer, but it is the only way that we will be able to achieve our goal without falling into the trap of making our progress dependent upon the capricious support of a largely disillusioned and disoriented electorate under the sway and influence of a hostile and decadent media and a corrupt and malign political establishment.

I am sure I don’t need to explain that the longer it takes until we are able to achieve power, the less likely it is that we will succeed. The demographic window of opportunity currently available within which we might achieve a straightforward electoral victory at a future general election is very short indeed and while this has in the past served as a spur to those nationalist parties who have so far employed a strategy based solely around electioneering, so much time has been wasted and so near is the point at which that window of opportunity will close, that all but a very small minority of nationalists have now given up hope of ever achieving a solely electoral based victory. By the same token however, there are similar dangers inherent within our strategy of establishing White enclaves.

For the same demographic reasons, the longer it takes for us to establish White enclaves, the greater is the probability that we will fail and the slimmer are our chances of success. Furthermore, the longer it takes from when community building begins until we achieve sufficient land and people to challenge for sovereign political power in Britain, then so too is the probability that we will fail greater, and the probability that we will succeed, smaller. Ideally, we need to be in a position to challenge for sovereign political power within the next ten years, and within the next twenty years at the very most.

We need to press on with the building of our enclaves, but we also need to have a means of accelerating their development and this can only be achieved and we can only hope to be in a position to challenge for political power at a point early enough to succeed if we simultaneously set about acquiring all six of the Six Prerequisites and most importantly, implement the ‘funding programme’ needed to accumulate a massive ‘war-chest’ – a massive fund of money from which it will be possible to finance the projects that will make our dreams come true. It is for this reason that while we broadly commend the strategies pursued by WIN, we note that they fall short in terms of providing a financially leveraged acceleration of those strategies so necessary if we are to challenge for sovereign political power within the lifetime of anyone alive today.

From the foregoing, it should be unnecessary for me to explain why electioneering is currently a futile endeavour as far as we nationalists are concerned and why we should desist in our efforts to get overtly nationalist candidates elected to public office. Electioneering of any sort must be ‘put on the back-burner’ until we have established our first enclaves to such an extent that our numbers in those locations are such that we can get people elected, and even then, they should not stand as candidates for overt nationalist political parties, but as candidates of the establishment parties.

Our candidates if elected should of course only pay lip-service to the policies of the establishment parties they nominally represent, and they will need to conduct themselves in such a way as benefits our enclaves and the wider White community. From within the establishment parties they will have the opportunity to exercise political power that will greatly benefit our enclave populations; that will facilitate the expansion of the enclaves; and undermine the ability of any hostile or potentially hostile groups in their attempts to impede our progress.

Not until we are in a position where we have extensive tracts of the British Isles under our control and membership running to several millions, and have acquired the other five of the Six Prerequisites should we attempt to flaunt our electoral potential by openly standing our candidates as nationalist candidates in future elections.

In summary therefore, the way forward for nationalism in Britain in the 21st Century is by acting as ‘nation-builders’ and pioneers rather than politicians. Ours must be an organic and social movement for the foreseeable future and not a primarily political movement. Nationalist electioneers, political campaigners and street demonstrators must turn instead to community activism, and direct their efforts towards the establishment and building of enclaves; towards bringing racially conscious White families together to form racially conscious communities; and eventually mould these into the new nation that is the object of all our dreams. A new independent nation — capable of self-determination — strong, proud and united in the task of forging a new and better future, for our children and the generations yet to come.

* * *

Source: Western Spring

Previous post

A Few Words about "The Deep State"

Next post

The Mythopoeic Power of the Hero

Notify of
Inline Feedback
View all comments