A soft option = a short-cut to irrelevance

In time this tendency to look for the political soft option acquired a name.  It was its own exponents who referred to it as 'populism', and the term caught on.  These self-styled geniuses in political strategy discovered a truth that it would seem had never occurred to the rest of us: that it should be the wish and aim of our movement to be 'popular'!  If we were not popular, it was simply because we did not put ourselves over as 'nice' enough.  And how should we appear 'nice'?  Why, by eliminating all the people, tendencies and ideas from our party that the enemy media attacked.  Then, presumably, those who were today lambasting us with the vitriol of their reporting would tomorrow cast upon us the friendly smile of their approval.  This, largely, was the leitmotif of those who staged the rebellion in the NF in 1974-75, to which I have referred earlier.  After its unsuccessful conclusion they left us and set up a rival political organisation.  The very brief career of that rival organisation was, I think, ample testimony to the theories upon which it was founded.

This tendency to mutiny under fire provided, of course, an ideal opportunity to those who saw our movement primarily as a vehicle for their own egos and personal political ambitions.

John Tyndall, The Eleventh Hour, Third Edition, 1998, Welling: Albion Press, pp 205-6

So there we have it.  Join a party which takes a soft line on the race-replacement of our people, a party which courts obscurity and irrelevance through aping the policies of the parties of the failed Establishment and at least you won't be called unpleasant names by the 'mainstream' media.

Of course, no-one will vote for you either but at least you can delude yourself that you are a nicer person than those 'racists' who choose to stay with the British National Party.