Jack Sen interview, part 1.
There’s much of interest. We see a description of the disgraceful episode in which a predominantly White English audience berated Griffin for championing their own rights; the typical “lower than omega” behavior often described here. More important is this description, by Sen, of what the UKIP is really about (emphasis added):
Much like the Labour Party, UKIP relies upon societal discord to peddle its policies and candidates. Although people on the ground, with a genuine love of country, are buying into the ‘Take Back Britain’ message UKIP is peddling, I am not convinced the people running the party care one bit about this country.
If UKIP were to come to power, they’d push a domestic agenda similar to Margaret Thatcher’s, highlighted by deregulation, privatisation, crony capitalism, and the implementation of policies that for all intents and purposes prey upon the disenfranchised, albeit nostalgically portrayed working man. I recognized that quite early on and it’s part of why I started to have issues with the party.
UKIP’s intentions to privatize the National Health Service, frack our beloved English countryside, sell us out to their cronies in the City (equivalent of Wall Street), cut taxes for the wealthiest Britons, kill ‘mansion’ and inheritance taxes while reducing public sector expenditure, never sat right with me. This is even before I recognised how cosy with Jewish organisations UKIP were.
I suppose a fair comparison would be to your Republican party, who appeal to working class Whites to get elected but systematically oppose their interests once in office.
The comparison with the GOP is key. Just as “appealing to the center” and attachment to Big Business Interests destroyed the Republican Party as a vehicle for genuine conservatism, so is “mainstreaming” destroying nationalism as a vehicle for promoting the racial interests of the indigenous population. We see the same fraud, the same dishonesty, the same instrumental use of sociocultural issues to attract middle-class and working-class Whites to support predatory capitalism, and we see the same cynical leaders who could care less about race and civilization. And, finally, the infiltration of Jewish interests, to finish it all off.
All of this is not a “bug” of mainstreaming; it is instead a key feature. What mainstreaming does is break down the barrier between tactics and ideology, between means and ends. If you portray yourselves as aracial conservatives, peddling some sort of watered down cultural and constitutional patriotism, then you will not only attract “moderate” mainstream voters, but you will also attract “moderate” leaders and political candidates. You will attract big money supporters who want to make the “facade of moderation” become actualized as core party ideology. In summary, instead of tricking more moderate voters to support a radical party, you end up tricking more radical voters to support a moderate party. Sen’s experience is that the core UKIP voters seem farther to the “right” on race and immigration than is UKIP leadership. Sound familiar? Thus, GOP voters oppose amnesty and mass immigration, while the leading GOP candidates and the party machine embrace immigrants, legal and illegal alike.
When you mainstream, means become ends, and the original ends are lost; the leadership forget, or pretend to forget, what those original ends actually were. In America, we end up with Hispanic Jeb and his illegals who invade “out of love,” in the UK, we end up with “far-Right nationalists” who think that brown and black “commonwealth immigrants” are A-OK. It’s a big joke and the joke’s on us.
Will the UKIP under perform?
Someone at The Occidental Observer thinks so
, and some of the reasons why reflect that party’s mainstream conservatism, free trade fetish, and protestations about not being “racist” (*). Thus, another “fail” for mainstreaming, more time wasted, more diversion of effort and resources. Eventually, mainstreaming will be recognized as a failure; unfortunately, by the time that happens, we will all be several steps closer to our collective racial doom.
*On the other hand, the author cites the fear of being “racist” a reason for folks not voting for the UKIP. Then the author critiques the UKIP for being weak on non-White immigration. At first glance, those two assertions seem contradictory – voters won’t support a non-racialist UKIP and at the same time they won’t support the UKIP for fear of being deemed “racist.” However, things are more complicated than that. First, there are different groups of voters. There are some who, at the current time, would never vote for a “far-Right” (labeled by the media) party, regardless of how mainstream; these are those voters scared by the “racist” label. Then, you have a second group, folks who could be core supporters of UKIP, who don’t care about the “racist” label, but these folks will get disgusted by the UKIP because that party is, in reality, not “racist” at all. So, the UKIP falls in between two stools – it loses the faint of heart because of media labels, and it loses the stout of heart because of their actual policies. Then we have a group of voters who are, at the individual level, of two minds – these same people are at once afraid of “racism” but tired of immigration and they could in theory be persuaded to vote for “racists” if they thought it could end the personal suffering they experience from mass immigration. But why go through the trouble of supporting the UKIP if that party accepts “high-IQ” Asians and others? When you have a party with an incoherent ideology (typical for mainstreaming), then you can expect incoherent responses from voters.
The real immigration insanity.
The insanity of our immigration rules means that a second-generation Briton wanting to bring granny over for a wedding—still less if they want to get married to someone from abroad themselves—will face huge difficulties, yet they will see an open door to immigration to anyone from the European Union. [Applause.]
Now does anyone, left or right, genuinely support an immigration system where we turn away the best and brightest from our Commonwealth, people with links and family here, in order to make room for unskilled immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe. [Applause.]
Now, certainly, Southern and Eastern Europeans (who are, as we know, always “unskilled”) do not belong in Britain, the homeland of the indigenous British peoples. Any Euro-Federation must include internal, as well as external, migration barriers. But – guess what! “Second-generation Britons (sic)” and their “grannies” don’t belong in Britain either, and the idea that “skilled” Commonwealth Asians and Africans (sic) should get immigration preferences over Europeans (if one is forced to make a choice) is madness. The UKIP is merely a cogelite kosher conservative operation, apparently favoring South Asians and Nigerians over the wops and hunkies.
Say it loud and say it proud: anyone who supports “mainstreaming” is the enemy of the White race. And the UKIP are a bunch of anti-EGI colored-loving lunatics.