I am often asked, both online and in person, for my opinion on a certain group that has emerged in the last couple of years, namely Western Spring. There are assuredly plenty of online rumours and conspiracy theories (nothing changes on the “far right”) with regards to the group and those associated with it, so a while ago I decided to meet with a few involved in order to reach my own conclusions.
On a personal level I have no real issue with the principle people at Western Spring; I get on quite well with them in fact and have arranged to meet with or bumped into them at meetings, etc., on numerous occasions. I cannot help but feel that, at face value at least, these people are genuinely concerned about the future of our genetic inheritance and the present, dire state of our nation.
In terms of the objectives of Western Spring and its ‘prerequisites’ I must admit to being skeptical, although I would not extend this to a sense of incredulity or complete mistrust. I view the Western Spring ‘every man’ approach as a means to fill a void in racial nationalism that existed during even the height of the British National Party’s popularity. I suspect that Western Spring’s core operatives were not aware of this at the time, but it is something a handful of us have realised for many years. Politics is dead to us; even our nation, as it presents itself contemporarily, is a failed model of existence convulsing in anguish within the belly of a dying civilisation.
The strategic scatter gun approach of Western Spring therefore makes sense in light of this post-BNP era—an epoch better described with reference to a fabled general election that pre-dates the existence of the BNP—which has become known, at least in my circles, as Britain’s post-nationalist age. Western Spring has acknowledged that political manoeuvres alone will not ensure the survival of our kind. The general character of the six prerequisites must, as such, be widely recognised as being an honest appraisal of our time.
The details of the prerequisites are less easy to praise, although I am tempted to view them as a precursory offering rather than a concrete manifesto. To corroborate this instinct, the tenets have of late been astutely remodelled. I do not consider this gesture to be an example of back-peddling or a cynical act of redaction, I view it as a necessary development given a more thorough understanding of not only our plight, but also of the new and extant groups and individuals involved in our nebulous movement. It is essential to get the message right as well as the policy itself.
I am not entirely convinced by the prerequisites because I am perhaps far less optimistic in relation to our ethnic position here in the United Kingdom. For several years now, I have embraced the Zarathustraian idea of the New Tribe primarily due to our dire predicament on these shores. I also view this evolutionary process as essential and ineluctable. Thus I cannot condone notions that are somehow akin to a national ‘salvation.’ Our salvation will be demonstrated in the flames of this dead age and our New Tribe will rise from it as did the legendary sun bird of yore. All effort must be directed towards the creation of a new nation and not the desperate underpinning of the old.
With this in mind, it is with the second Western Spring prerequisite that I would agree most whole-heartedly, although it has been altered following a recent article by ‘Max Musson,’ viz:
Original (Feb’ 2013): “Second, we will need a community power-base within each constituency upon which each one of our prospective MPs can rely for bedrock support.”
Revision (Apr’ 2015): “We need to have a network of nationalist enclaves spread across Britain to act as strongholds.”
This is, of course, a most welcome emendation and reflects more closely my own thoughts and the position of White Independent Nation.
Furthermore, it appears that the Western Spring approach is now thrusting in the direction of a popular rebellion against the prevailing order rather than suggesting the dramatic remodelling of the status quo. This is to be praised as an indispensable adjustment to or present environment. However—and here we reach the crux of the controversy—the final prerequisite remains largely intact:
Original (Feb’ 2013): “Finally, we will need enough money to fund all of this and to outspend our political opponents in a general election campaign, something like £100 million.”
Revision (Apr ‘2015): “We need a ‘war chest’ of in excess of £100 million to buy the ‘influence’ we will need.”
Putting to one side the issue of funding (which I will address shortly) the sixth prerequisite haunts the ‘salvation’ ideal of the nationalist age. As I have already expressed, all thought and action must be focused on, obsessed with even, the creation of a new order, and not with the rampant hallucination that somehow things are going to get better or the spurious certainty that there is something worth saving in Britain above its people and the land per se. I suspect that the slower reformation of the sixth prerequisite has more to do with acclimatising activists and potential supporters to the magnitude of our quandary than a fresh or revised approach. But, again, the distance generated from the “general election campaign” rhetoric is gladly received.
The fifth prerequisite has also been subtly adjusted to suit our real world condition:
Original (Feb’ 2013): “Fifth, we will need a large body of political activists, prepared to demonstrate in the streets, and prepared to square up to any violent leftist/Islamic mobs they may encounter in so doing.”
Revision (Apr’ 2015): “We need a disciplined body of street activists to act as Pravy Sektor acted in securing control of key buildings and key locations during a period of crisis.”
We should not condone militant insurrection—not because we cringe before the ‘terrorist’ epithet, a denomination which is an inevitability in my opinion—it is a battle we simply cannot win given our present position. That being said, it is once again heartening to witness the progressive shift from political thought to a sense of general rebellion against a hostile occupation and the regimentation of our younger adherents will increasingly be accepted as a crucial feature in the fabrication of a new social order.
The subject of funding has become a sore topic ever since nationalists were gripped with the creeping conviction that their cash (not to underplay their blood, sweat, and tears) had been squandered by the British National Party’s chairman, Nick Griffin, and his aids, confidants, and advisors. And, although there may be some truth in the allegations of fraudulent, incompetent, and unscrupulous behaviour, I suspect the main reason for the consumption of vast financial assets is the extortionate nature of electioneering and the costly coordination of professional political organisms. Additionally, it is ridiculous to pay for the correct and ‘approved’ accreditation (i.e., the electoral commission rubber stamping a group as possessing “democratic” credentials) and lavish resources on advertising and propaganda when another tentacle of the hostile occupation, the controlled mass media, will naturally attempt to sabotage the image of said party at every conceivable opportunity.
Because nationalists were ransomed by the parliamentary system, they are now incredibly suspicious of brand new requests for their every-shrinking monetary resources – which is completely understandable. But if anything is to happen—for good or for ill—then cash does need to change hands. This is the case in relation to hiring venues for meetings as it is with White community building and standing in elections. Sadly, there are very few millionaires in nationalist circles and it usually falls to the rank and file to support any initiative. But we should be careful not to deploy a lack of funding as an excuse for inaction. In fact, action attracts investment and only rarely does this occur to the contrary. It may well be that a charismatic individual with a sparkling sales pitch can captivate an audience and induce them into opening their wallets, but eventually this marketing strategy grows stale if there is nothing tangible to show off. It is thus the case that deed follows theory, at least in terms of trading in ideas.
Where Western Spring has been brave is in broaching the subject of capital, something which is no doubt due to the professional heritage of one of its leading figures. But Western Spring must be careful not to laud ready cash as its cynosure—its principle reason for being—unless that is its true purpose of course, a fund raising operation, in which case it must be honest with its contributors, both existing and potential. If Western Spring is indeed the manifestation of one of its own prerequisites then its entire USP begins to seem more realistic and makes a lot more sense, although it then begs the question of exactly which groups embody the remaining prerequisites and are they adapting themselves to those credos, or vice versa?
In all, the emergence of Western Spring is a reflection of our post-nationalist habitat; it is practically the unavoidable consequence of the fall of our political system and, to read even deeper into our broad crisis, the failing of egalitarian democracy as a system of governance at every imaginable level. The enterprising effort to create a one-stop-shop for racial nationalists is both inspiring and unpredictable in equal measures. It is an attempt, in my opinion, to draw attention to intrinsic problems that a political body is just not capable of doing, while the gradual but definitive move away from political posturing is important and desirable. Whether Western Spring can achieve its objectives depends, in many respects, on the sharpening of its goals, its essential principles, and the company it keeps. As far as I am concerned, however, we appear to be singing increasingly from the same hymn sheet.