'Speaking out' against problems isn't enough anymore. Maybe in times gone by it was, but it isn't now.

Political mobilisation is the only thing that makes any difference.

This is why I said something else that I did in the same space, which was that people who are motivated to do things for OTHERS (their nation/party/people/group), even if the things they want to do aren't necessarily what we agree with, are more workable and able to be made useful than people whose political/social views are exactly in agreement, but who don't care about anyone but themselves. People whose entire pattern of behaviour is governed by self-interest will invariably destroy any collective enterprise they get involved with, EVEN IF they agree with it.

The point I made in the space which I think is the single most important:

Anyone who says, 'Support me and I will help you,' is a liar. They can't. I don't say it either. Neither I nor the National Agenda will solve your problems for you, instead we give you the means to help yourselves.

Civic nationalism is, unintentionally and ironically, MORE discriminatory and genuinely unfair than any racial nationalism. Why? Because its definitions of belonging to a group are totally abstract, impossible to quantify and solely based on the random opinions of a random person.

'You belong as long as you adhere to British values.'

How on Earth can anyone be honestly expected to conform to a standard that nobody can accurately define, and which changes depending on who you ask, and is entirely based on opinions rather than hard evidence? Obviously, they can't.

In a society in which belonging was defined by 'values', you would see people spend their entire lives being told that they belonged, only to be told randomly one day that they didn't, because they went against 'values' that nobody can actually specify.

'You don't belong anymore because someone randomly decided that they didn't like something that you did'

At least with a racial definition, EVERYONE knows exactly where they stand to begin with, can plan their lives accordingly, and isn't living in constant fear that their situation might arbitrarily change at a moments notice based on something random that they did.

Many people in political circles are constantly proclaiming 'support' for parties, causes or people online:

The bottom line is - if you aren't physically supporting something with time, money or manpower, then you aren't supporting it at all.

Online proclamations of support aren't worth anything to anyone, and in many cases only lead to wasted time.

By the time of the next General Election, the 'Right' (I don't count the National Rebirth Party as part of this, because it exists in a genuine third position) will look like this:

The Conservatives will still be chugging along. The parties of the 'alt-right' (Reform, UKIP, Homeland etc.), will have manifestos which, as a whole, will be so similar to each other that the voter base they cater for (ethnocentric conservatives) will effortlessly bounce between each one depending on who happened to say the last thing that they liked. Thus the voter base they cater for will be so unpredictable that nobody can accurately plan anything they are doing.

It will create a state of equilibrium in which none of those parties can fully overcome any of the others, but also can't be defeated themselves, creating a permanent fragmentation.

The only way out of that fragmentation at that point, will be for the parties involved to totally rebrand themselves into something radically different (NOT just in immigration policy) from ALL the others, BUT the first Party to do that takes in inevitable short-term hit as it loses a good chunk of its present support base. Thus creating a toxic paradox whereby in order to move forward in the long-term, they have to move backwards in the short-term.

Now all of this can be avoided, by being RADICALLY different NOW rather than a few years down the line, but, again, that still means being prepared to make short-term sacrifices, which most aren't prepared to make.

Written by a Latvian; I agree with the sentiments expressed here with regard to military life and how it changes your thinking.

One of the most frustrating things I observe within politics is the way that resources, especially money, get used in the sphere of 'nationalism' and 'the right'. Primarily in the sense that huge amounts of money get used in ways that benefit only a tiny number of people (or in some cases just ONE person), meanwhile there is almost a culture of resistance to investing money in collective enterprises that benefit HUGE numbers of people.

Perfect examples are the ways that people have given tens, even HUNDREDS of thousands of pounds to people who have gone to prison or had legal problems, even though all that money only benefits that ONE individual. But at the same time, if someone created a collective enterprise aimed at challenging the legal system, it would be like trying to get blood out of a stone. Another example is the way that nationalists will throw hundreds of thousands of pounds at projects to 'buy land', which only half a dozen people will actually use and benefit from, but at the same time trying to get them to invest in things like creating food banks, is (in most cases) like getting blood from a stone. Another example is the way that many will give seemingly endless amounts of money to online 'streamers', even though it benefits absolutely nobody but that singular individual, but give comparatively little to real world organisations.

It's an example of individualistic mentality within 'nationalism' at work. It's also why the 'left' are much more powerful, because they use their resources collectively rather than all for the benefit of a tiny number of people.

Amuses me that three times in the last 24 hours I've had people telling me that 'this' or 'that', 'looks bad' or 'sounds bad', and then I look at the social media commentary of the people saying that, and in all three cases it's diatribes of how women shouldn't be allowed to vote. This is the reason I rarely listen to criticism from anonymous people online.

If there's one point from that whole session that I will re-iterate it's this:

The liberal, individualistic nationalist needs to fundamentally decide what is more important.

Is it more important to them, to create a better future for our people as a whole, OR is it more important to have their individual freedoms and liberties?

They can only have one or the other. They cannot have both. They either want their people as a whole to be saved, OR they want to save themselves at the expense of their people. It's one or the other.