2024: A Survival Guide for UK Dissidents

The Coming Wilderness

We—as dissidents—have been accustomed to surviving in the political wilderness for many a year, and have in many ways become accustomed to navigating through and even surviving within it. However, things are soon to change, we frequently in our streams discuss the tactic of containment and the folly of attempting to work with the centre-right. It has come to my attention that some people are either confused by or unaware of these concerns so I will attempt to put them down in written form.

A disclaimer must of course be given that in some part this piece engages in speculation, which may in turn not come to pass, this I believe would be for the best. I would rather our wilderness stay as it has done for years, but there are too many signs already that the peace, quiet, and generally light hearted environment we once gathered in is no longer.

It has become an eminently obvious fact that the Conservative Party in the UK is set to lose the next election, whenever that may come this year. 13 years of rule has seen them do nothing but attack British national identity, by immigration, by corrupted cultural messaging, and setting the stage for British identity to be no more than a legal category. Be under no illusion, what it means to be British is and will continue to remain under attack no matter who is in charge.

The Conservative Party has failed this nation, not for the first time, nor will it be the last. But we shall limit our analysis to this election. Not if, but when the Tories are cycled out they will not just give up, admit defeat, and attempt to govern no longer. We cannot become confused by thinking that political parties in the UK exist solely for the electoral process, they are organisations that exist over and above the process that seek to garner power in whatever way they can. Both the Tories and Labour in part represent factions of the ruling elite who care less about elections and more about the legitimacy of the ruling class as a whole, the election process is in many ways just a method of clocking in and out for these people. They are beyond election cycles, they strive for permanence in their positions with the hopes that their influence can be felt across the UK.

Whether as Lords given a lifetime peerage, as senior civil servants, as the head of a powerful NGO (see Tony Blair Institute), at the helm of the partisan money pot (Legatum Foundation, Marshall Wace), a partisan media mogul like Tim Montgomerie of The Centre for Social Justice, creator of ConservativeHome, founder of Unherd, and backer of GBNews alongside Marshall Wace, or a tactician and organiser within a party whose competency is deemed irreplaceable. This is a more subjective position to understand, but I think it hard to argue that someone like Michael Gove does not have more sway and weight than that of his less senior members.

The above demonstrates only a small portion of countless positions that exist in the near permanent ruling class, and I believe the primary role of those in the Conservative ruling class is to survive their coming time in the wilderness. Over the last year or so we have seen as the momentum continues to fall away from the conservative party, the Labour class of elites have begun to show their hand. 13 years out of power has given actors like Tony Blair more than enough time to recoup, strategise, and build institutions so they can be seen to be ready as an incoming government. Conferences on tech, AI and the importance of Big Data. Reports and studies on New Britain, a constitutional revolution the likes of which we have not seen before. And latterly, a refreshed electoral Labour party disciplined and purged of its radicalism, done so in the public’s eye. It is this that gives them legitimacy as a ruling class, the vote later in the year is little else than a demonstration of that which everyone already knows. The Tories are a foreigner infested joke, Labour is back and it means business.

So how does the Tory ruling class carry out the same task?

I believe there to be 3 main strategies for doing so, many of which we will begin to discover are already underway. It has been our thinking that the Tory ruling class already recognises this opportunity and seeks to grasp it as early as possible, the very rapid rise in institutional “anti-woke” media over the last 12 months is a strong indicator of their attempts to grasp at wider cultural relevance.

Adoption

A key aspect of rebuilding any political organisation back into ruling shape is to invigorate it with new ideas, new people, and the energy they bring. It has already been noted by the likes of Academic Agent that the Dissident Right, as we have taken to calling ourselves, performs little else than colour commentary. So many of our ideas have been mainstreamed that we have very little intellectual novelty left to offer. There is of course not a drought but rather in our current state of organisation, and with a growing popularity around what we do, we find that many who should otherwise be at the cutting edge of ideas and strategy are left to rehash simple lessons to fresh meat.

At this point I wish to turn to a document called Right Response, written for Chatham House in 2010-2011 by one Matthew Goodwin. A life long researcher of extremism who has recently become a darling of the conservative ruling class, appointed as a government advisor in September of 2022 by none other than Liz Truss just a handful of days prior to her short lived stint as PM. To me Goodwin is being brought fully into the fold, a regular on GBnews, engaging in polling that solidifies centre-right positions, appearing on New Culture Forum to speak to high society, writing in the Sun to speak to the low, and even appearing on Lotus Eaters in an attempt to speak to us. Either Matthew himself or some agent of his is determined to make sure he sticks around.

I mention his near 13 year old report now because I see it as indicative of one of the only true beliefs held by the establishment right, they truly believe that they are only people capable of holding back a fascist uprising in their countries. See below a quote from the primary funder of the report:

“This project was born out of frustration and fear – the same forces that constitute part of the fertile soil for populist extremism. While observing developments in Sweden, a country that has long been considered immune to this trend, I became fearful of decreasing public tolerance of difference in society, and the way in which an exclusionary form of politics was attracting increasing support and influence.”

-Daniel Sachs CEO of Proventus and Chairman of the Daniel Sachs Foundation Stockholm, September 2011

I think we would all be in agreement that someone who says the above is an enemy to our ideas, our people, and the nations they have brought forth. Sachs and the other backers of this report saw the resurgence of “populist extremist parties” or PEP’s as a serious threat to their own progressive values, and further a serious risk to the legitimacy by which their class rules.

Goodwin himself provides much polling, census, and voting data to paint a picture of what PEP’s are, why people vote for them, and who these voters are. I would implore readers to read through this report in their own time to get a full picture of what these people believe and wish to act upon.

I will be using selective quotes from the section Response Strategies. Goodwin starts with a brief discussion of the strategy of Exclusion, but quickly counters the simple strategy of gatekeeping with relatively deft logic:

“In several states, this has led mainstream parties to employ a strategy of exclusion against populist extremist parties. Whether referred to as ‘no platform’, a cordon sanitaire or Ausgrenzung, the goal is to curtail the

influence and presence of PEPs. As others note, exclusion has two core aims: in the parliamentary arena it aims to prevent these parties from entering office and influencing policy, and in the electoral arena it aims to discredit them in the eyes of voters as ‘extremists’ whose supporters are ‘wasting’ their vote.

Yet the strategy might also have an unintended third effect on the internal evolution of PEPs. By reinforcing their ‘outsider’ status, it might strengthen feelings of solidarity among activists and encourage their ideological radicalization.”

Goodwin in his decades of research has firmly identified why a simple strategy of gatekeeping can’t work for the current regime. It must make an effort not to embolden the dissident status of a PEP by solely going after them as racists or shutting them down. This by no means suggests that this never happens, the BNP was routinely cut out of any ability to engage in the mainstream debate, and many other “PEP’s” in Europe have been dealt with a heavy hand, typically as a last resort. Our regime’s today loathe to reach to methods of hard power; bureaucratic farce, legalism, and financial audits, tend to work as an interim between soft and hard power, carrying a more open threat of the latter.

“To capitalize on these issues, PEPs need to increase the perceived importance of these issues in the minds of voters. If we follow this logic then a second response is for the mainstream parties to attempt to decrease the importance of these issues in the minds of voters. This strategy would entail avoiding or downplaying these issues and shifting public attention onto issues on which the mainstream party has an advantage. One example would be developing a consensual approach to divisive issues on which PEPs mobilize support, such as integration policy, and working across partisan lines to avoid the politicization of these issues”

Rather, according to Goodwin it is better to attempt to defuse the concerns put forward by PEP’s, and even more importantly lean on institutional issues like GDP, healthcare, and national security in the face of a party which in the public’s eye has no experience in these departments. Irrespective of the failures of the ruling class on these issues it makes the rising PEP’s look somewhat ridiculous, their rather justified single issue approach leaves them lacking a big vision or grand plan. Furthermore Goodwin suggests that by forming a block with the left on issues, the centre-right can appear to make issues like immigration appear to be beyond debate. As he says himself, side-stepping the issue of immigration by instead discussing the policy of integration, allows the primary issue to remain un-tackled, meanwhile the free flow of foreign invasion carries on.

“...this second strategy comes with risks. The most obvious is that mainstream parties will find it difficult to control policies that are partly shaped by their opponents.”

This to me appears to be a challenge that no longer exists, the PEP that used to exist as UKIP ran a major campaign on the issue of Brexit and this purported to be a separation from the EU, its bureaucracy, and its version of globalism, towards British interests. When the regime adopted Brexit it saw fit to reframe this separation not as independence from global structures, but further dependence on them. It saw fit to replace the moderate influx of European migrants, with a fire hosing of migrants from the most diverse corners of the earth. Here we can see clearly how the core issue of a PEP, and a highly mobilising one at that, can be completely absorbed by the regime, it's talking points neutered and its direction completely changed. We still see the after effects of this as Anti-Woke types champion Brexit as the cause of Britain's rapid vaccine roll out.

This presumes of course that the pot-banging, anti-BNP, pro-Israel leader of UKIP at the time was ever interested in facilitating a real Brexit, neither does it help that off the back of UKIP’s most successful electoral result Nigel Farage scarpered off to America to become a culture war celeb. Leaving 10’s of millions of voters to turn to the Tory party for the Brexit they were promised.

Amidst a lull in governing the Tory party was essentially given a whole new party platform, and a new issue to performatively debate with Labour at the expense of the issues that PEP’s brought to the fore. It is vital that whatever ideas we put out as our own are so unique and strict in framing that they cannot be adopted by the regime lest they tarnish their own reputation. Or alternatively we work in the shadows and keep our powder dry for just the right moment.

Navigating the wilderness is not easy, when a passing caravan of populism travels on by, do not be enticed by its charms or its vision. Even if it is believed whole cloth, it is very unlikely that it will be carried out to its fruition. Do not allow your body of work, or the organisations you are developing to be absorbed by causes with no thoroughly defined end goal, operated by unscrupulous types. Always be aware of the risk that you could be the thin end of someone else’s wedge. As members of the conservative ruling class continue to establish their outposts in the wilderness, the saccharine comforts offered by them will only multiply in size and quantity. They must be rejected, if not lauded as a symbol of their desperation.

Crowding Out, Engagement

Strategies for reinvigorating your ruling class don’t just stop at the adoption of new ideas, by seeming bigger than you are one can pull the wool over many eyes and create the illusion that a politically tactical move thought out by no more than a dozen is rather a genuine cultural movement emerging from all corners of society. Those with eyes for seeing will have already noticed this happening. Networks pop up every other week with the intention of manufacturing hundreds of young talking heads with a variety of centre-right to right beliefs. Almost daily viewers of GBNews, TalkTV, Piers Morgan, Talk Radio etc. are bombarded with fresh anti-woke faces desperate for their 15 minutes of fame and a chance to red pill a few normies. To the passive viewer this looks like an organic movement, as if hundreds of freshly suited youths have all at once taken a stand against woke tyrants, the polling provided by GBNews, Goodwin, or those at Unherd, helps to solidify this illusion. It is however all lies, the youths in question are plucked out of university, attached to a talent agency or larger NGO like YoungVoices, and given connections and bookings across the media landscape. This will be more than familiar to those who watched countless lefty talking heads spawn like an infestation on our screens as Woke came into ascendency. I would implore readers to research and remind themselves just how false the Woke cultural moment was, for the anti-woke moment will be all the same.

The lashing out culturally against woke is in many cases authentic, but the avenues through which this response is mobilising are pre-set. Populism at its best is the collective understanding by people across society that the ruling elite is fundamentally unfit for the task it takes on, and for the betterment of a people they must be removed, “Clear them out!”. This as noted by Sachs above is the core concern for the centre-right. This is why they would rather crowd out the authentic or uncontrolled voices, with a cultural moment well within their control. Taking the conversation away from the repeated mistakes of the elite class as a whole, and redirecting it towards a conversation of novel Woke or Liberal elites who are the real problem.

As an aside this is not to suggest that Woke was always a Machiavellian play by the centre-right, but rather that there are entrenched elites whose time scale goes beyond cultural fads. We watched elites pivot towards Woke in the early years during its ascendency. Screen time, Money, connections, and tapping into a dialectic with which one can punish enemies made it an enticing idea to Machiavellian actors. So too does its descent allow for the opportunity to consolidate narratives, tie up loose organisational ends, and the chance to declare a victor. The ascension of hardcore Zionists like Bill Ackman at Harvard after the recent firing of the overtly Woke Claudine Gay is just one of many examples.

An even more intense version of this crowding out strategy was carried out in the weeks after the October 7th attack by Hamas. Instead of Islam being discussed as its own issue, or the security of Britons being considered sans the framing gymnastics of media elites. One found constant discussion of the threat Hamas, and Hamas sympathisers pose to the Jewish population in Britain. Furthermore at a time when the critical energy surrounding multiculturalism was at a recent high, the conversation was switched into how a multicultural Britain has failed its Jewish population. It was only with the help of this astro-turfed Anti-Woke network that such narrative dominance was possible even within explicitly right wing spaces. The likes of Douglas Murray, young GBNews reporters like Charlie Peters, or Turning Point UK puppet Darren Grimes, being sent off to Tel Aviv to help cement this as a real issue. Nothing will make the average man turn a blind eye to obnoxious and corrupt anti-semitism campaigns, like a torrent of war footage, detailed stories of the horrors of Hamas attacks, and live footage of plucky British reporters sheltering amidst a shelling.

As mentioned above Brexit was a turning point for the regime’s ability to control and redirect the energy of PEP’s, we are so far down the line that even groups like Britain First, or ex-EDL leader Tommy Robinson, have fully latched on to the pro-Isreal/anti-Islam messaging. Either as a cause of wanting to garner legitimacy in the eyes of the regime, a fool's errand, or playing nice with their paymasters.

The opening of a window to crowd out is something Goodwin recognised back in 2011:

“Many PEPs lack the money and manpower to be consistently active, but their websites are often the most innovative available and where they do invest they often do so heavily in traditional campaigning methods.”

“The professionalization of politics has arguably left large numbers of voters feeling disenfranchised and susceptible to the populist anti-establishment message. It has also made it easier for challenger parties to position themselves as champions of the people, against ‘out-of-touch’ politicians. Politics is about winning the hearts and minds of voters, not seeking to win arguments on intellectual grounds. To do this, mainstream parties should be part of the community, have an active and visible presence, and forge stronger links to local groups and forums. In practical terms, this means standing full slates of candidates at the local level, engaging with voters face-to-face and redirecting some resources to revitalizing grassroots campaigns.”

The dissident organisations, the PEP’s, exist online and in more public facing settings. In 2024 to “revitalise grassroots campaigns” is to step into the online media space with so much information, talking points, and fresh faces that it almost no longer represents the grassroots. Undoubtedly this has worked, tricking many dissidents into believing that what they see before them is a rival class of elites waiting to counter the corrupt elite. Rather than the truth, they are being engaged for their consent, for their time, energy, and money.

The empty cultural space created as a consequence of the solidifying of a purposeful political class, has already been filled. It is a media space devoid of action that tells people what they want to hear–with the appropriate caveats.

In 2024 we must act at all times to limit the effectiveness of this approach, at all times limit the ability of astroturfed actors to be even present in your spaces. Many of us are reasonable people, we don’t go out of our way to be unapproachable, but in this respect we would benefit from presenting ourselves like the savage dwellers of the wilderness we are often described as. This must be done sensibly of course, one would be best not getting into more trouble than it's worth, but we cannot brook even a minute of air from many of the fresh faces we are sold each and every day. Once you welcome in one your defences are broken to the rest, and you will never be rid of the infestation.

People are easily controlled, young impressionable wannabe politicos even more so. Through the networks created to manufacture what I have taken to calling “based sprogs” they are able to give these people profiles, point out what ideas to adopt, and what specific dissident circles to engage. I have personally watched people come out of the blue, talking almost exactly like us, when we have no past rapport. These types are welcomed, sometimes in a matter of days, despite their background and benefactors being unclear—or them having the very same regime backers we have pointed out in our work revealing The Tory Octopus. The want by many to build a mass movement is dangerous, it creates a door which when wedged open cannot be shut, this is before one even questions the intentions of those doing the welcoming. Gatekeeping is all we have against these crowds.

Containment, Segregation, Delegitimization

The two strategies above are admittedly more surface level and appear like a lot of leg work for minor results, now we can put all the pieces of this wider operation together.

Issues like the “Great Replacement” are already in the process of being rhetorically contained, it has become less and less a discussion of specific ethno-cultural replacement at the hands of a certain elite class. Now it’s discussed as a Red Vs Blue issue pertaining to voting demographics. It’s lowered to the standard of petty politicking, cheating, or an issue of economics, as opposed to what it really is, an attempt to erase majority white nations entirely.

This is really the crux of the matter, I am certain that many centre-right politicians are gleeful about the reduction of whites down to another minority group. This makes the attempt to run an explicitly populist, and implicitly pro-white ethnic movement much harder, as the majority isn’t visibly recognised as the British people. Rather they become the melting pot of peoples who believe in British values, how awfully American. By reducing the native population of Britain into a minority, we become just another client group at the beck and call of the politicians who give us a voice.

“Culturally inclusive and unifying policies are best started from a community base where interaction between groups is a more manageable and realistic prospect. It is at the neighbourhood or community level that citizens

come together, and develop shared experiences and a shared sense of purpose. Yet there is also a role for national government and mainstream elites. Notions of citizenship with its attendant rights and responsibilities can be a way of forming bridges between different communities – both long-standing white working-class citizens and new migrants or previously

excluded minorities. A widened civic culture where it is made clear what can be expected and what can be demanded can bridge ethnic divides and reduce the potential for division”

As shown previously and again in the excerpt above there is always a strong emphasis on integration as an opposing strategy to division. This as we have seen with the current Conservative government is very much an active strategy, no longer are different ethnic groups to be passively managed, instead they are actively pushed together on all fronts. To the technocrat ethnicities are just another distinguishing variable between peoples which must be eradicated for the sake of better management–see the Becoming a Minority framework. What was once the dream of fabian utopians is now standard Conservative policy.

This is why those on the centre-right appear so contradictory, they talk openly about our replacement, then switch up the conversation to talk about a “sensible immigration policy” or develop concepts such as “non-essential migrants”. These elites do not believe in a people as an ethno-culture, but more an aggregated economic unit within a specific geography. They want to talk about immigration to quell people’s fears, but they have no interest in dealing with what causes said fears.

I believe it to be true that the long term plan in this regard is to hold out until the public is desperate enough to settle for White civil rights. Even the masses can recognise that immigrants are bad for Britain because they are fundamentally different, they don’t belong here in the way that Brits do not belong in Africa, East Asia or Central America. Yet the very same masses will be lulled by a politico-media class into reinvigorating equality, once we are all legally equal multiculturalism will work they will say. There is of course no solution to the multi-ethnic jungle bar personal protection which is no problem for the moneyed elites. Nor will they have to be as concerned about a backlash from the native population whose backs and wills have been completely broken.

We are British and always will be, we are Scots, English, Irish and Welsh. In the eyes of the elites we are soon to be no more than “White Brits”, which assumes of course that British is not the status or identity of a people but a legal category. As little as 50 years ago, we in Europe were people’s, now we are being reduced to mere citizens. Heritage, blood, soil, culture, prestige, these are all soon to become secondary standards to which state you pay tax and just happen to dwell in. The likes of Rakib Eshan, ex-member of the Henry Jackson Society who somehow found himself writing for the dissident magazine The Mallard, writes both in his reports for policy exchange and discusses in his GBNews interviews, that foreign peoples can better embody Britishness than native Brits. That our society could in a sense be more British by importing and venerating non-Brits. This is what happens when your movement’s idea of what it is to be British is so abstract and intellectualised, as opposed to the tangible aspects of ethnic lineage and the plainly objective aspects of race. It is then no wonder that someone like Calvin Robinson, another acolyte of the Tory personality machine, can retro-actively claim that Enoch Powell was an anti-racist civic nationalist. “The English aren’t necessarily white”, can be claimed openly by Calvin with no opposition.

There is good reason for this, the Tory ruling class wishes to have under it a plethora of opinions on the matter of immigration and ethnic replacement, this in time will allow them to draw a line of what is and isn’t acceptable. By adopting people, and their ideas from ardent anti-racist libertarians who openly talk of culture and ethnicity as shackles, to civic-nationalist one nation Tories whose primary concern is how much new immigrants hurt those who have been here for decades, right up to people like us who stand for deportation and a reconsolidation of what it means to be British in hard-line ethnic terms. A spectrum is drawn up from sensible policy to the far edges of what may be called criminal organisations.

MI-5 and other aspects of the security state already seem to be moving towards this understanding by redeveloping the categories which right wing groups are placed in and drawing a new line on what is and isn’t terrorism.

Possible terrorist groups may fall in line with the following categories:

• ‘White Supremacist’ and ‘White Nationalist’

• ‘Cultural Nationalist’

• ‘Identitarian’ movement

“‘White Nationalism’ is a belief that mass migration from the ‘non-white’ world poses an existential threat to the so-called ‘white race’ and ‘Western culture’, with a resulting desire to create an all-white state”

“JTAC has defined ‘Cultural Nationalism’ as: A belief that ‘Western Culture’ is under threat from mass migration into Europe and from a lack of integration by certain ethnic and cultural groups. The ideology tends to focus on the rejection of cultural practices such as the wearing of the burqa or the perceived rise of the use of sharia law. In the UK this has been associated with anti-Islam activist groups.”

It is clear that they wish to cover the whole spectrum of anti-immigration arguments, so much so that they go on to argue that the more milquetoast “Cultural Nationalism” is more dangerous than the more extreme versions because of its popularity.

“[We] assess the inspired threat from ‘Cultural Nationalist’ ideologies may be further reaching than ‘White Supremacists’ or ‘White Nationalist’ ideologies, owing to the mainstreaming of many of the ‘Cultural Nationalist’ principles into conventional media reporting.”

What else are we to see here but several arms of the state acting in cahoots, one half builds a new media empire tapping into sentiments they know are not represented in traditional media, meanwhile MI-5 gives them cause to police and punish an audience they cater to. To suggest that even the mention of a “lack of integration” as a possible signal to one’s terroristic intent gives scope wide enough to arrest millions across the UK. But that of course isn’t the plan, these exaggerated standards are the result of a need to write in a legal backstop in case anyone else wants to helm their own ship of Cultural Nationalism.

This coupled with the past experience of the far-left Corbynites should demonstrate the plan in full. By adopting the ideas, and platforming people from our sphere the centre-right elites get to pass themselves off as secretly, or even openly, based. This allows them to garner popular support and cache with the public as it is deemed that these centre-right types have “had enough” and are willing to change. The media elites help to carry this forward by further solidifying a fabricated rightwards cultural moment, using their newly trained talking heads to steer the conversation as they please. As we draw closer to the election the conversation will continue to head rightwards, further into our own sphere to the extent that our own will feel emboldened and see this as an opportunity to push the Overton window, completely forgetting that said window was never ours to push in the first place. This may carry on for years to come if it is felt within elite circles that such a strategy is useful. It may even be so that our very own Friend/Enemy distinctions are completely co-opted towards the regime's goals.

Then the time to enact the contingency plan will come, amidst the chaos of an even more declining nation, an event will happen that will allow the “Cultural Nationalist” moment to be shut down as Woke is experiencing now. First they will use soft power methods, painting ourselves as the radical and noisy wing of the right who are so obstinate that it is our fault that immigration can’t be fixed, and that our opposition to integration makes reconciliation with new British Citizens impossible. That our strident stance of understanding a people as ethno-cultural is anachronistic, and limiting our ability to engage in the multi-ethnic arbitration process. Money and connections will be pulled from those who don’t fall in line, benefits handed out in the wilderness rarely ever come without strings attached. It is ultimately this soft patronage power centre that makes them so effective, despite the bluster of many a self-declared radical or dissident they will tame their work and audience if livelihoods or the custody of one’s own children comes into question. Lastly a subset of people will be arrested and deemed a threat to British values and people, they will be made an example of, and in turn suck much of the energy out of dissident spheres as the threat of questioning or arrest permeates the air.

A Deadly Confluence

All together this allows the centre-right to fulfil its most sincere belief and become a legitimate ruling elite once again in the eyes of those who matter. By following a strategy akin to Starmer, they can craft and continue to manage a movement that they already have an escape plan for. What better way is there to accrue ruling legitimacy than demonstrate your ability to take advantage of, and thoroughly rout, the fascists. Both within the conservative ruling elite, and without amongst the chattering classes and established managerial busybodies it will be agreed upon that their ruling legitimacy as a whole has been reinforced. The greatest threat; an organised, independent, vitalist right wing force has been co-opted, bent over a barrel, and dumped lifeless in the nearest lay-by.

It is my hope that 2024 onwards holds something completely different in store for us, however we cannot afford to hang on to hopes or good will. We need to be prepared, each and every one of us, for the eventuality that the regime needs us in some way. When it does we must reject it, offer it nothing but your scorn. We will never subvert the regime in its current form, nor can we fight openly in public debate, we can only seek refuge in the wilderness tending to our preparations for the one day when the risk of battle is justified.

Donate: https://ko-fi.com/scrumpmonkey

Our Telegram: https://t.me/EvScr123

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@scrumpmonkey/videos