The port blockade protest in Portsmouth over the weekend has caused a number of ripples over the last couple of days - not least widespread antipathy towards the RNLI - the cause of much establishment media revulsion.
To my mind, it makes perfect sense to protest the RNLI’s actions. The NGOcracy is the soft underbelly of the regime, and protest is a means to draw them into a political battle they would rather not be part of. Nobody should get a free pass and they shouldn’t expect an easy life if they want to continue operating the way they are.
Illegal immigrants quite deliberately put themselves in peril, with the full knowledge of the French (which is not "innocent passage" as defined in international maritime law) - and it is an operational decision on the part of the RNLI to go and collect them. As such, they are part of the smuggler's business model by choice, thus a legitimate target for protest.
Leaving aside that the RNLI is fraudulent, parasitic organisation, using its fleet of boats as a shop window for its fundraising (to funnel money into its self-serving bureaucracy), its activities are now actively harmful.
Protest will cause them, and the police, to divert their resources into security and new operating procedures, which is not what they want to do. That is the object of protest - forcing organisations to do things they would rather not (not least wading into politics).
This is of limited effect, but it’s the only real soft target, so you have to pick your battles accordingly. In conjunction with other protests like the one we saw in Portsmouth, it makes it more operationally complicated. It caused diversions of RNLI boats which used up time, and fuel, and forced a formal executive response from the organisation.
What we now have to do is make it clear that we do not accept their excuses. We have seen that French rescue boats operate a hands-off approach, and we expect the same of the RNLI. It has no business making itself a part of the smuggler’s business model - especially not in calm seas.
To that end, it requires regular and persistent protest. One of the effects of this, at some point, is that the RNLI executive, tone deaf as they are, will retreat further into the NGOcracy narrative, indicating they have chosen to side with the enemy, which legitimatises calls for the RNLIs charitable status to be revoked. If the organisation no longer exists to serve the British people then it should not exist at all.
As far as protest actions go, I’d say this on in particular has been a resounding success and if it can be replicated with more men on hand then we are looking at a movement that can actually achieve something where the political parties have failed.
Next up, though, we’ll get a stern editorial from The Times lamenting the toxicity of the national debate where a cherished institution like the RNLI has come under fire. It did not, however, become toxic in a vacuum. We have watched a steady stream of invaders for YEARS now while five consecutive prime ministers have allowed it to happen.
I appreciate that democracy is often slow and bureaucratic, and it is incumbent on citizens to have faith in the process and be patient, there simply aren't any signs that this or any future administration is serious about bringing it to an end. That necessarily demands a shift of rhetoric and tactics, because the politicians have heard our message and we have seen their reply.
We told them we did not want any more illegals. They keep shipping them in. We said we didn't want them put up in hotels. So they moved them out of hotels and into our communities. They have since admitted they are aware of the dangers and this does not inform their actions at all.
Furthermore, they have built up an iron curtain around their operations and coerced local media into silence, which necessitate citizen journalists, to which their response has been to clamp down even further, and arresting protesters who expose their operations. Meanwhile, we see government signing long term contracts with suppliers and service providers which is a clear indication that they do not intend to put an end to it. It is a further insult now that we know that only a tiny fraction fo asylum applications are genuine.
As such, the state has abandoned the democratic social contract, while expecting the public to keep up their side of that contract. That is not how contracts work. If the contract is no longer upheld then the public is entitled to choose its own remedies. For now that means "toxic" rhetoric and unruly protest. That's the market signal (the warning) which the state is still choosing to ignore. It can only unravel further for here - but that is a deliberate choice on the part of the parasites who rule over us.
A fly in the ointment, though, is that any street movement has a tendency to attract grifters. I don't know if that is necessarily true of Danny Tommo but he certainly hasn't done himself any favours in launching a go-fund-me today. It's not good optics. I'm going to need to see more results before I endorse him more than I already have.
That said, once you put yourself on the line like this, there is no going back to working a normal job and you spend the rest of your time under intense police and media scrutiny, bogged down in legal paperwork with the constant threat of imprisonment. It's not a pleasant life.
I have some small insight into what they go through because I've had my fair share of hate mail in the post, unwelcome media intrusion, police visits, and psychopathic abuse from the left. After my arrest I am still never wholly at peace in my own home if there is a knock on the door.
On that basis, I don't really give a shit if these lads make a million for themselves with crowdfunding, on the proviso that they actually deliver the goods. This is why I couldn’t care less if Tommy Robinson is coining it. It’s nice to have the money but it certainly isn’t nice having to live with all the bullshit that goes with it. Money might buy him a few nice things, but he will never know peace and privacy in his own homeland ever again.
The benchmark, this time, is that they actually achieve something. I am not especially impressed with Tommy Robinson's light entertainment roadshows in London because all they do is soak up money that could be put to better uses, and don't really accomplish very much.
If, however, Robinson/Tommo, or some other hard man, can put several thousand men on the approach roads to the ports (to the extent of overwhelming police capacity), then we might actually get somewhere. That will enjoy my wholehearted support - to the extent that I'll donate whatever I can. When you put yourself in a position of high profile political leadership, you can never work a normal job again. Leadership comes with real costs, and it is not unreasonable that leaders of a street movement should be paid to the extent their basic life expenses and legal costs are met.
Since there is currently no formal fund or mechanism to pay them, crowdfunding is a legitimate source where individuals can decide for themselves how much to pay them. I don't begrudge them of it if they get results.
One thing I think we need is a new Patriot's Union (not dissimilar to FSU) that will handle things like legal fees for protestors, so that it doesn't end up being dodgy crowd funders that grubby individuals can make off with and bring the movement into disrepute. It would need to be run by people with a spotless record with a proven track record of handling large sums of money.
The aim should be to build up a legal team that has our backs and is sympathetic to our aims - and one which can eventually finance a political party in the same way that the leftist unions prop up Labour. This could actually be something useful that Rupert Lowe could do. Restore members should lobby their leadership to do this because all of us are going to need it eventually. FSU is great, but we're going to need a union that does not equivocate on partisan issues.
One thing that’s clear is that party politics will get us nowhere. All of my political instincts tell me that Reform is toast. It might take another six months or so to play out, but Farage is untenable whether he stays or goes - and the party will struggle to hold together without him. Yusuf is very far from universally liked either by the parliamentary party or the membership, and if the party ends up led by a Tory defector then the mainstream right starts to look like what it is. A factional Tory civil war.
It is at this point when all the financial backers start to peel away because they won’t get a return on their investment, and being associated with the party is too reputationally hazardous.
What’s more, this latest scandal is a shot of adrenaline for Reform’s opponents who now smell blood in the water. They know that tactical voting with the help of their friends in the media, they can knock Reform out of the game so far as forming a government, or becoming the official opposition is concerned.
From there, the only direction for Reform is down and out, unless by some miracle they can find competent, presentable leadership that can rebuild. That, though, is not going to happen because slopulism tends not to attract serious people. In all of its time of existing, I can count on one hand the number of people in the party who are actually credible, with three fingers to spare.
That, then, raises the question of whether Restore Britain can step into the breach. Let me save you some time. They can’t - because they are similarly unprofessional and unserious. They may already be holed below the waterline, and can only exist as a noisy right wing faction - capable only of splitting the vote and handing seats to Labour.
As such, the Tories are the only vaguely right wing entity in the running, and in my view should be kept as far away from power as possible because they are still essentially aligned with the centrist consensus. The moment Badenoch put Beavis and Butthead in charge of defence and foreign policy was the moment she let us know that she does not want the right wing vote.
That is why we now need to look at democratic means other than voting to get what we want - which is going to require our own unions and a mass street protest movement that is actually willing to cause a real nuisance. It means rubbing shoulders with “far right thugs” whether we like it or not, and it does mean going up against NGOs like the RNLI and other blob organisations.
Essentially, we have to shift it up a gear and do all the things we would rather not do, and learn the lessons from successful left wing street campaigns. Our inability to put a coherent political party together combined with the weight of establishment opposition means that we are wasting our time at the ballot box. Either we get organised as a people’s movement now, without the corruption and stupidity of the people we’ve had as leaders, or simply accept that the game is up.
I like the recent very clever protest that occurred at Dover. No mobile phones, no violence, zero arrests. Why did Farage condemn it? This needs repeating and with much larger scale. Reform should be supporting it.
As I've said before either here or on Pete's father's Turbulent Times street protest without clear demands will achieve little except give the government a target to hit to cover their own incompetence.
The Chartists of 1838 had six demands and became supported by a mass people's movement which convinced both Conservative and Liberal politicians to enact five of the six. Only their demand for annual General Elections was thankfully never adopted!
If we are to reform our governance and democracy then we must have a system where the 'people' have real power over their politicians turning them into our servants and not our masters.
Back in 2012 Pete's father and I along with 28 others in Harrogate came up with six demands, for governance by the people for the people, we called it The Harrogate Agenda.
https://harrogateagenda.org.uk/
I recommend it to all the people in the UK serious about getting our politicians to successfully address all our ingrained problems we face that they have largely created over the last 30 years through constantly trying to 'buy off' trouble which has resulted in policies that have the effect of us committing suicide through empathy or Suicidal Empathy as it is now called.