In 2018, the redoubtable Carl Benjamin, for reasons that are not clear to anyone and not least to him, paid for membership to a British political party that was struggling to stay relevant at the time and is now dead. He was joined by several others – namely: Mark Meechan, Paul Joseph Watson, and Milo Yiannopoulos. The collective YouTube subscribership of these figures was near 2 million people. What proportion of those 2 million joined too? It is barely worth writing it as a fraction: fewer than 1,000 people. That was the highest degree of the “surge” in new membership.
These were civic nationalists, and about as close to the edge of the Overton Window as one can get in polite society before entering the realm generally regarded to embody “evil.” They had internet followings of impressive size, but in real life this turned out to be meaningless insofar as enacting radical change. And again, they were not all that radical. Their fans were too scattershot, too foreign (many of their followers are not British of course), too busy attending to their daily lives, or uninterested.
The numbers for anything more radical can be expected to be all the more diminutive, with every social and financial incentive pushing hard against it. Mark Collett, the closest thing British ethnic nationalism currently has to a “leader,” has 50,000 followers on Twitter. Actually, he does not even have that, but let’s roll with it. Only 20% of British people use Twitter, so let us say that his current “potential” audience is 250,000. Assume that all of those are white British people living in Britain, and that comes to ~0.5% of native British people. This 0.5% are the current “proselytes” for the pro-white cause in Britain.
It is easy to get excited about encouraging polling data, e.g. apparently 7 in 10 native Britons think the demographic replacement of British people is “bad,” so they tell you when you ask them straight-up. Some research has suggested that 10% of the population on one’s side is all one needs to ensure a new idea sweeps to a majority. Well, apparently we are already in the majority. One wonders, though: how much time have the individuals questioned in these surveyed spent thinking about demographic change since filling out the survey? This is why radical change fails to materialise.
It is important to remember that not even 5% of Britain’s population care enough about politics – that is any politics, the mainstream – to actually join a party. The average person thinks about politics no more than a couple of hours per year, I would guess. Truly “switched on” people, who both disagree with the current establishment and are willing to actively opposite it, are rare indeed.
In the past, and certainly before democracy, the whims of the masses were nearly irrelevant to changes in political order. How informed they were on this topic or that made no matter. Even mass movements of the 20th century with some grassroots support were spurred on by economic anxiety among other things, e.g. Germany in the 30s, not by populist activism or campaigning. Unlike economic depression, though, demographic change can be avoided almost indefinitely at a personal level as long as there are places to white-flight towards, hence the present trend. Unless one hopes for a global financial catastrophe, or for a re-hash of the travails of the BNP except optically enhanced (and what would that achieve?), the trends will continue.
The goals of any political movement can and have been undertaken successfully with just a few per cent of the population, never mind 10 per cent. But is there the will?