With the European Parliamentary elections imminent, talk of UKIP’s chances of a major breakthrough has reached fever pitch in the mainstream media, with some lauding them as a potential saviour to the British people and their way of life. As is often the case, however, TOO readers have seen several would-be advocates of our culture and heritage succumbing to the all-too-familiar practice of toning down rhetoric, in an ultimately forlorn hope that it will garner wider credibility. Therefore a much more critical appraisal of the party is needed, for amidst the frenzy (which has seen reactions range from enthusiastic praise, to mild approval and in some quarters, outright scathing), a crucial element of critical thought has been largely omitted; many have jumped on their bandwagon and nodded approvingly at what they stand against, but paradoxically, insufficient scrutiny is given to what they actually stand for.
Firstly, it is important to understand why they have risen to prominence, to become acknowledged as England’s third most popular political party, following the capitulation of the Liberal Democrats due to their ill-fated coalition with David Cameron’s “Conservative” party in 2010. While the treachery of New Labour during their 13-year reign of terror has already been comprehensively documented at TOO, it is no co-incidence that it was with the collapse of the BNP that Nigel Farage has taken UKIP from a party perceived merely (but not without merit) as a single-issue, breakaway group of disgruntled, Euro-sceptic conservatives, who bemoan that party’s move to a decidedly more pro-EU centre ground following the internal coup which ousted Margaret Thatcher in 1990.
The BNP were never a serious option for the masses, but under Nick Griffin’s tutelage they made frequent, incremental overtures toward Britain’s Jewish diaspora, in a desperate attempt at credibility, going from being an openly anti-Semitic party in the 1980’s and 90’s, to accepting — and even electing, on one occasion — Jewish candidates, before altering their stance on Zionism from that of hostile, to neutral, then ultimately endorsing and praising Israel’s catastrophic actions in Gaza half a decade ago, in front of a live TV audience of millions. The common thread throughout these gradual shifts was their overwhelming reliance on an anti-Islam platform, with no such criticism of the Jewish lobbyist groups who brought them to the UK’s shores in the first place and who have been overwhelmingly complicit in the country’s continuing descent into a multicultural hellhole ever since. What stands out, though, is that despite numerous appeasements of Jewry, the Party — and indeed anyone considered right of centre in the UK — did not win a single ounce of reprieve and, if anything, only saw the media smear campaigns intensify as their (albeit modest) electoral success increased. With this, they have collapsed at the polls and their other elected European MEP Andrew Brons has since split from their ranks and formed a new party, with a manifesto barely distinguishable from their former paymasters.
With the only other notable right-leaning movement emerging in their wake being the EDL, who have also been outed as a Zionist front whose leader has recently “turned,” UKIP have effectively filled a void and gathered momentum at an intriguing rate, in the process staking a claim to be the acceptable voice of dissent and widely tipped to make huge gains in the Euro elections. Indeed, it is only the antiquated (and arguably undemocratic) closed shop nature of the “first past the post” London parliament that has thus far prevented them from securing any of the 600+ seats at Westminster, although they are odds-on to break this mould in the 2015 General Election. While this very system is unlikely to yield them any more than a handful of seats next year, more farsighted political analysts are predicting a possible scenario after the 2020 Election, in which they could act as Kingmakers in the event of another hung parliament a la 2010 and go on to form a Conservative/UKIP coalition. As things stand, they have clearly got the ruling elites looking over their shoulders, culminating in decidedly tougher rhetoric from both Labour and the Conservatives on issues such as welfare, immigration and the EU. (Prime Minister David Cameron has promised a Referendum in 2017 on continuing EU membership, although how genuine this overture is, one can only speculate at this stage.) It is clear that UKIP have been effective in communicating the disenchantment felt by of much of the population and so more and more are turning to the Party in the hope that they will break the mould. However, it goes without saying that getting into bed with any of the three main parties to tip the balance of power would render them a part of the very establishment they claim to so vehemently oppose, from which there would be no turning back.
A pivotal moment arrived last year upon the death of perhaps Britain’s most divisive (and possibly second only to Tony Blair as the most despised) leader of all time, Margaret Thatcher, when Farage loudly and proudly proclaimed her as his “inspiration.” It is therefore little surprise that despite their surge in popularity with so-called Middle England, they remain a non-entity in the UK’s three other constituent states, namely Scotland (where they haven’t even retained their deposit in elections), Wales, and Northern Ireland. Perceived historical divisions aside, it is with good reason that said regions (and the decimated industrial north of England) would be, at best, lukewarm to them, for their policies maintain an affection for the free market, London-centric, false economy and class-based system that divided the land so ruinously in the 1980’s. They are also prone to making public statements which range from the outlandish side of theological (here), eccentric and PC-baiting (here) and most recently, downright distasteful in making derogatory remarks to a disabled young student in a public debate (here). The need to maintain a high tone in all manner of correspondences is self-explanatory, but it is telling that Farage has issued a public admission of his Party’s lacking in this department.
Crucially, what many regular readers of TOO will pick up on, is that like those who have walked the right hand path before them, there is no attempt to address the all-too-crucial Jewish Question and the ramifications of which Kevin MacDonald warned in his “Culture of Critique” masterpiece. On the contrary, they — like their rivals in the Lib-Lab-Con ruling elite — have a vocal Friends of Israel group and friends in high (kosher) places. While Griffin’s recent attacks on them for their “Zionist leanings” seem ill-conceived, given his own party’s actions, they are not without merit. It is also noteworthy that they have received overtures from uber-zionist Geert Wilders with a view to joining his new, much-vaunted European Parliament anti-EU Alliance (note: many TOO readers will of course be familiar with Wilders’ love affair with Israel and his almost exclusively anti-Islam agenda. It does not require much thought to see where his endgame lies with courting European nationalists to this new in-group). This approach was rebuffed however, as Farage denounced Wilders’ allies, the French National Front, for their “anti-semitic stance.” All in all, it is beyond dispute that UKIP are very much toeing the Social Marxist party line in all matters pertaining to Jewry’s continuing role in Western politics. Inarguably, it is this refusal to acknowledge, in any discernible way, what stands as perhaps the biggest crisis facing the future of Western civilisation as we know it that will ultimately render their long-term impact useless.
While many may see merit in the argument that they can be a temporary solution in the quest to forge a breakthrough for a pan-European advocacy movement, UKIP have merely succeeded in bringing to the fore many key issues which resonate with ordinary British citizens and firm advocates of Western culture alike. It is their socially regressive domestic policies, love for international free markets, penchant for intellectual faux pas and refusal to address the Jewish Question in any way, shape or form which mean that, rather than being the saviours of Britain they purport to be, they are controlled opposition and, however unwittingly (or otherwise, as the case may be), a part of the very establishment which has proved so ruinous to its people and are thus, whether inadvertently or not, part of the problem.