Tactical debates abound as to how we may penetrate the gauzy opium dream of our slack-jawed fellows, before they shambolically drag us into the sea while muttering “not racist.”
The direct advocacy method has been so effectively vilified by our societal sirens that its on-balance effects have probably been negative to this point. Though I wouldn’t necessarily extrapolate those results into perpetuity while we remain relatively prosperous and safe. A man doesn’t give a fleeting thought to air until the moment his head falls below the water’s surface. And suddenly–a new top priority. For Britain as an example, BNP may have been the party shouting “swim!” to a man still lazing on the beach.
In contrast, parties like UKIP are plainly attempting the logically circuitous route–that is if they are anything more than opportunistic charlatans to begin with. They are offering sunscreen and wrist floaties. Little aid in a tsunami, though perhaps it will begin to orient minds toward what is approaching.
An offshoot of this indirect approach is one I have discussed in the past and will briefly return to disparage now. And that is the notion of presuming that direct advocacy will–now and always–short the circuitry of the western psyche. And that what we must do is rather frame our positions in ways that overtly appeal to the interests of others. Something such as: Africans, Indians, and Amerinds should remain in their lands because they are most needed by their countrymen there. We must focus on what’s best for them–and incidentally good for us.
I think this is clever tactics and poor strategy.
Poor because it establishes a difficult to surmount mental premise that the interests of other people are determinant. Incidentally Republicans have deployed this same gambit for years: conservative action item sheathed in a “minority” interests capsule. We’ve all heard examples aplenty: “Affirmative action should be ended, because it’s not good for blacks to be stigmatized.” It sounds wily. It’s been disastrous.
And it’s been disastrous for two reasons: 1) Other people will always outbid us in an open auction for their best interests, 2) A sizable cohort of our own people will always forget or never have understood that the rhetoric was only camouflage. And in history’s example, they will start believing that the actual function of conservatism is to worship MLK, advance non-white interests, and die for “freedom” in the middle east.
A likely reprise would occur upon premising our opposition to being colonized on what’s in the best interests of the colonists.
We will see if UKIP can gain power and then gracefully pivot into a position of state/nation alignment. Though at some point, our people must be offered the platform upon which we expect them to stand.