I will start by saying that I personally subscribe to the idea we should almost never try to get concessions or reforms because they can act as pressure release valves. To me it seems like any concession/reform we get ultimately only harms us because then there's going to be less disaffected people for us to appeal to. These kinds of things can be used as ways to give us more options, but we should always try to not shoot ourselves in the foot by helping the system to strengthen itself.

This is true, but at some point it just becomes very difficult to do anything in the current system. I am surprised there even are any active right wing minded people in Scotland for example, given the far reach of their "hate speech" laws etc. Also specifically in regard to free speech, I feel like in the present circumstances it would increase popular discontent rather than decrease it. It would have been different two or three years ago, but the way things are now the shock of free speech would be far too much for current propaganda and radlib minds to handle.

I also think this approach leads to co-optation and subversion. How could we keep it secret too? If it came out we're all secretly nationalists the public wouldn't trust us, if you mean should we join other movements we think might help us we'd be ultimately working for other organisations' goals and whatever. I don't think any of these kinds of approaches will be as effective as just having a nationalist organisation doing civic work and trying to organise a mass movement whilst agitating on all these same issues and publicly supporting them.

This is why I gave the communist as an example earlier, but I think that in the end it really boils down to who the press sides with. Communists could get away with this shit because a lot of the press covers for them. The opposite would probably happen to nationalists. What you say makes a lot of sense, but the issue with parties is that you have to both find a good one and not have that party destroyed by the state. Of course, you could try to have a movement without party structure but that's also vulnerable to subversion, infiltration, infighting etc.

Did they get anything for the workers? The 70s is when wages got stuck whilst GDP kept soaring, all unions and such have been destroyed since this period etc.

Do you think there was a causal relationship there, like the elites deliberately diverting attention traditionally devoted to working class leftism into more "social" and bourgeois issues and in that way enabling them to sap living standards or would you say the whole thing was just a cover to distract from changes they would have introduced anyway?

Occupy Wall Street birthing the newest iteration of libtardism in wokeism for example. This was a movement that kind of fit your bill of not being ideological and it easily got co-opted, if we were the leaders then that leads back to the question of why we aren't doing it on behalf of an organisation that is out in the open to build rapport with the public.

This is actually a more or less perfect example of what I was thinking of. The issue with these movements is that they have no identity and are therefore easily co-opted, but when they do have identity they are attacked over their identity rather than their policies. If you have a strongly ideological leadership but a visually non-ideological movement that would resolve both problems, but it's difficult, if not impossible to have your cake and eat it too. It's frustrating though, I have been thinking about this problem a lot and it's just hard to come up with a sustainable and effective strategy in the current circumstances. This is probably one of the better approaches, but it's hard to imagine that it will achieve much, even with the limited objective of free speech.

Also look at what happened to Sargon, he was dragged around a media gambit humiliated over and over again about that not-rape joke. The whole time he was going on about the British traditions of 'liberal values', 'free speech' etc and the media just laughed in his face and called him a nazi while libtards cheered and salivated for him to be 'milkshaked' and whatever else. I don't think there's really any opportunity for us to get much if any concessions since none of our goals align with anything the people in power want and if they did we'd just be used and thrown out as is the standard procedure.

I was thinking that if the general public sees enough "respectable defenders of free speech" etc. get tarred and feathered by the media and the left they might finally end up deciding that something has to change, at least, but perhaps this was a bit too naive of me. Then again, excluding elite politics and popular support or at least popular discontent as objectives, what even is there? In practical terms, I feel like the right wingers that promote lifting and reading are actually the most effective activists since at least their efforts go towards something, but you can't achieve change just with that.

There's a lot of potential in America opening up, boomers nonchalantly storming the capitol without even conceiving of themselves as revolutionaries could be perceived as typical retard American hyperreality but it can also be seen as a good sign that the population literally has no regard for the authorities whatsoever.

I think people underestimate how stunning this is. I am not an American, but I grew up with this idea that the USA is the most powerful and advanced western state, the global hegemon that controls the destiny of the world. In many ways, that's correct, but I can't imagine how people who still hold that view today can even react to the photos of the "QAnon shaman" in the Capitol, for example.

I think alternatively the best thing we can do is the civic organisation approach. Study how the mafia operated, in their communities they were respected and trusted. We need something along these lines (without the organised crime) and basically become a parallel government that the people actually rely on and trust in. People are pissed off that the government doesn't fix the potholes? Well the local nationalists will do it, they give homeless people food and shelter, they help the elderly and disabled with DIY stuff and delivering groceries, they give gifts to poor families on Christmas etc.

This is a good way of thinking, but I think most of the influence of the mafia came from the fact that they had money and power, especially if we are looking at the neighbourhood level rather than the national level. Fixing potholes and delivering groceries will certainly net you positive reputation with some people, though if these people are willing to do anything to help you in return is another issue entirely, but I don't think the majority cares about or feels grateful for things like that. Call me cynical, but I think I am correct.