Many of the nationalist groups in Britain, who recognise the futility of electioneering, have instead embarked upon a campaign of street protests in the hope that by this means they will be able to effect political change. These groups hope that by organising demonstrations in which they encourage members of the public to join them in their vocal protests, they will eventually be able to sway government policy or cause our corrupt government to resign or collapse.
When these groups organise their demonstrations the turnout in terms of numbers is usually quite small, but the groups involved hope that if they can make their demonstrations as loud and controversial as possible and thereby attract as much media attention as possible, the widespread publicity will attract the support of uncommitted members of the public. They hope that if they can eventually attract very large numbers of people to their demonstrations the government will begin to doubt their ability to continue governing, and that through such fear the government will be induced to take notice of public opinion and modify their behaviour accordingly.
The reality of our current situation however, makes such a successful outcome extremely unlikely.
Most local authorities throughout Britain have under the Equality Act 2010 a legal obligation to take positive action to combat racism and discrimination against minority groups, and one of the ways they demonstrate they are fulfilling this obligation is to fund quangos, often called ‘Racial Equality Councils’, whose responsibility is to uncover and combat racism and other forms of discrimination against minorities within the local community.
This means that in every county across our land there are political activists effectively employed by the state, whose job it is to identify people who are considered by them to be ‘racist’ and to take action to negate and confound anything those ‘racists’ might be attempting to achieve. It should come as no surprise to us to learn that there is a substantial overlap between the membership of the various ‘Racial Equality Councils’ and the Antifa, the so-called anti-fascist groups that exist to intimidate and persecute nationalists.
As we all know, ‘anti-racist’ is a code-word for ‘anti-White’, and these county based anti-White campaign groups are in addition to the Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) that exist to ‘combat racism and discrimination’ nationally, organisations such as Searchlight and Hope-Not-Hate. Furthermore, they are in addition to groups formed by the organised minorities, such as the Jewish Community Security Trust (CST) and the Muslim group Tell Mama; they are in addition to anarchist and extreme left-wing groups such as the Socialist Workers Party and the Communist Party; and they are in addition to the police formations (SO15) ostensibly created to combat terrorism, but increasingly used by the state simply for the purposes of disrupting nationalist organisations and persecuting individual nationalists.
Some years ago prior to the amalgamation of Special Branch (SO12) with the Anti-Terrorist Branch (SO13) to form SO15, the police Counter Terrorism Command, I was informed by a Special Branch officer that anyone who stands up for the interests of White people is automatically regarded a racist by the police, and that racism is equated with criminality. Therefore, anyone who stands up for the interests of White people is automatically considered to be a criminal by the police.
Taking all of the above into consideration it is not surprising that wherever in the country nationalist groups may choose to stage demonstrations, there will always be a strong contingent of people, composed of a mixture of the organisations I have listed who will turn out to counter-demonstrate. Furthermore, with the complicity of the undercover police units involved, it is easy to see why it is that the counter-demonstrators often seem able to employ much violence without incurring robust opposition from the uniformed officers in attendance.
All of this means that nationalist demonstrations, if they have been publicised beforehand or organised with the co-operation of the police, will almost always be attended by counter-demonstrations and therefore become potentially violent events that nationalist demonstrators attend at some considerable risk to their personal safety.
A consequence of this potential for violence is that women and children and the elderly as a rule do not to attend, thereby reducing the turnout by in all probability as much as sixty percent. For obvious reasons, nationalist demonstrations are with the odd exceptions, usually only attended by men of military age.
This potential for violence is a direct consequence of government policy in which the actions of quangos, NGOs, immigrant rights groups, left-wing extremists and police forces have been co-ordinated in an effort to deny the indigenous people of Britain any effective voice in this period during which we are being deliberately dispossessed and race replaced – i.e. genocided in order to further the Globalist agenda.
This potential for violence provides police forces with a pretext to be difficult and uncooperative with the organisers of nationalist demonstrations, as does the perception that the people they are catering for are racists and therefore criminal. The police feel justified therefore and evidently win plaudits from their political masters when they contrive situations in which the nationalist demonstrators are split into small groups and exposed to attack by much larger groups of counter-demonstrators, and when they kettle the nationalist demonstrators and force them to hold their demonstrations in out-of-the-way places where they will not be visible or heard by the general public. Police policy is to make nationalist demonstrations as frustrating, unenjoyable, uncomfortable and dangerous as possible, and as ineffective as possible. From their viewpoint, preventing the spread of White activism, equates to preventing the spread of criminality.
Given all of the issues highlighted so far, one might conclude that if few people are going to see or hear a nationalist demonstration, and even when they do all they will see is a relatively small group of nationalist demonstrators hemmed in by the police and being abused and assaulted by often a much larger contingent of counter-demonstrators, there seems to be little point holding such demonstrations and little potential for them to grow in size to the point they could be regarded as impressive or a threat to government.
When one considers that in 2003 the ‘Stop the War’ demonstration in London designed to dissuade the government from invading Iraq attracted more than 750,000 demonstrators, and even then the government of the day ignored that demonstration and went ahead regardless, there does seem little point and little hope of success for nationalist groups employing street demonstrations in the hope of unseating the government or at least changing government policy.
We should ask therefore, whether nationalists should cease organising street demonstration altogether?
My answer to this question is that street demonstrations should continue, and are a potentially valuable tool, but we must recognise that they cannot be an end in themselves, that they must be used judiciously, and as part of a wider strategy aimed at achieving our ends. We must recognise that demonstrations as we have come to know them, on their own simply do not have the impact necessary to bring about significant, lasting, change — they do not have the potential to bring about a political revolution.
In a recent article I analysed what was widely regarded as a highly successful nationalist demonstration, applying a military perspective and in doing so showed the folly of expending large amounts of time and effort in occupying previously ‘enemy held’ territory, only to almost immediately relinquish control of that hard won ground and retire to the nearest pub. I pointed out that just one day after that demonstration life had returned to normal and the invasion of our homeland had resumed unabated. From a military perspective that demonstration was a nonsense and it would have been better if everyone concerned had done an additional day’s overtime and had donated the additional money earned and the money saved by not attending the demonstration to their respective nationalist organisations.
Demonstrations like the one in Dover do however serve a different purpose, in providing a near battlefield experience to a large number of young men who may need such experience and the learned ability to keep their nerve under pressure at some time in the future.
It provided the various leaders with an opportunity to practice controlling their men in a chaotic and potentially dangerous situation and it provided an environment in which facing and overcoming shared danger built trust and comraderie between the various participants.
We should for these reasons periodically continue to hold confrontational demonstrations, but we should also recognise that in every other respect such demonstrations are likely to be counterproductive and a complete and utter waste of time.
Demonstrations of this sort should bring together nationalist groups that should start to regard themselves, not as the competitors of the other groups involved, but as sister regiments of men in the same ‘army’. Each regiment with its own regimental command composed of men with the personality and interpersonal skills needed to work hand in glove with the leaders of the other groups, so that when the groups come together they form a unified force and not a rabble of disorganised street gangs.
In 2003 when more than 750,000 people demonstrated against the war with Iraq, they occupied central London for a few hours and then went home like good little boys and girls, but if they had been supported by a revolutionary infrastructure capable to providing temporary shelters, portaloos, and food and drink to sustain them; had there been a communications system and command centre established with perhaps 10,000 well-drilled and disciplined young men all organised in regiments and capable to repelling all comers, that crowd of 750,000 could have stayed in central London and refused to move until parliament was dissolved and a new interim government of our choosing installed pending new elections. That would have been a revolution — that would have been an effective demonstration of people power at its best, and that is ultimately what we must aim for!
In the meantime, we must as I have said periodically hone our organisational skills in demonstrations that repeat what was achieved in Dover, and in addition we must hold demonstrations of a different kind aimed at attracting the support of the public.
We need to hold flash demonstrations of the kind held by National Action in Newcastle recently (January 2016). Demonstrations of this kind can be staged with minimal opposition, because our political enemies have no time to organise a counter-demonstration and because the police have no time to stifle the event. Therefore with larger numbers in attendance, such demonstrations could held without the need for scary face masks and without such great concern for security.
In a well organised flash demonstration we will have the opportunity to be relaxed, creative, and dramatic in terms of the display we put on for the amusement and edification of the public, and because of this we will appear friendly, non-threatening, powerful, confident, in control, and our words will have heightened impact with the public. The public will have the opportunity to see us and interact with us without the attendant violence that normally blights our demonstrations and we will win new followers.
As we go forward therefore, we should be planning demonstrations in which every nationalist group should send contingents to co-ordinate with each other and create the regimental mind-set and organisational structure that I have already described, and the benefit of this is that we will have the makings of our ‘street army’ and my vision of 10,000 disciplined men marching into Dover and occupying the town immediately comes to life!
We need to organise imaginative, engaging, entertaining and inspirational flash demonstrations in order to attract new members, especially the young, for whom at present the future looks increasingly bleak.
Lastly, we need to build the revolutionary infrastructure that I describe in the Six Prerequisites, and advance to RevCon 1 — revolution readiness condition one — a state of readiness for revolutionary action the moment a proto-revolutionary opportunity presents itself. Then when the day comes we will have the wherewithal to mobilise a restless public and we will see 750,000 angry citizens or more – perhaps one million — angry White men and women marching from the far flung corners of our land to reclaim our birth-right, to unseat the corrupt regime that currently plans our demise and clean out the cesspit that Westminster has become.
This must be the prize we aim for and nothing less! This is why we must organise as I have described and this is why each and every one of you must through the auspices of this website make yourselves known to us and pledge your support.
How many times have you heard people say, “What this country needs is a revolution”, well, come to us my brothers and sisters, and let us have ourselves a revolution!