The network

[s e pearson]

In my previous essays on this site (DRM 11 and Asymmetrical political conflict) I have laid out some broad brush arguments about the tactical and strategic models I believe the radical right must adopt if it is to stand any chance of being successful. I have so far deliberately ignored the ideological and intellectual arguments in favour of what I have proposed in order to make the case in pragmatic terms. (However, if you’re interested in ideological argument, watch this space) In this essay I will advance an argument on what the practical implications of what I have discussed theoretically are and what they would look like if put into practice.

We are currently witnessing the fragmentation of the radical right into multiple groups; this is an inevitable and frequently repeated phenomenon. The ideological differences between the various positions on the vast radical right spectrum and the constant pressure of the asymmetric challenges expose the radical right to immense stresses which must result in periodic fragmentation. The inflexible nature of the ridged broad front hierarchical model implicit in a conventional political party exacerbates these stresses to such a degree that schismatic outbreaks are more or less constant. This is just one of the critical flaws that make the model unworkable as demonstrated at incredible cost by the failure of the NF and BNP.

Received wisdom informs most people on the radical right that what must happen now is a period of competition between factions from which one group will emerge as a dominant force and demand the alignment of all under its banner. I suggest that if this happens then the cycle of failure will simply repeat itself again.

However there is an alternative model, one which is optimised to mitigate internal stress, promote competition leading to rapid evolution and minimise the advantages of the establishment. This alternative is known as “the network”.

The network already exists in reality, the British Resistance collective is a good example of it, operated by a small none hierarchical autonomous group self tasked with specific objectives it operates in support of those elements of the radical right it feels it can support. There are many other examples of individuals and small and medium sized groups operating under their own organisational, ideological and tactical arrangements. Darwin First, a fragment of a fragment of the BNP in Blackburn, won four seats on the local council (that year the BNP won approximately a dozen). Whilst these entities do not have a common hierarchical structure never-the-less they work towards a common goal.

The problem the network faces is not one of needing to be brought into being, but in persuading its elements that it does exist and they should embrace it and work within its principles.

The network concept, and it is a concept since its design principles mean that it can have no formal existence, seeks to recognise that this organic decentralised system is a positive and superior organisational model. It is not an organisation which issues membership cards, collects money, appoints officers and demands conformity, rather it is a mentality.

Under the network model groups recognise their common interests where they exist and support and coordinate with each other as and how they see fit. Moreover the network model encourages individuals and groups to see themselves as operating within a loose unofficial federation and seek to find effective methods of fulfilling functions within the network . For example an individual or group might take it upon themselves to design printed material for other elements of the network, to provide legal advice, create internet sites in support of active units, raise funds, offer advice on planning and conducting elections or protests, organise tele-canvassing campaigns, formulate ideology, or any thing else they can think of which they believe might advance or promote the cause.

Because such “cells” are autonomous they are able to decide which groups they want to work with and which they don’t. So instead of internal power struggles, dogmatic schisms and personal grudges crippling the movement they are allowed to play out within a system which can tolerate them. Additionally this allows the movement as a whole to decide on its composition, groups who are considered to be incompetent, ideologically unacceptable or even infiltrated would simply be organically and democratically marginalised or even exiled from the decentralised movement.

Moreover whilst Element A might, for example, refuse to work with Element Z because of ideological differences or personal incompatibilities since both elements are working with elements B through Y their respective efforts are still co-ordinated and mutually supporting.

Unlike conventional hierarchical arrangements which are extremely susceptible to infiltration and vulnerable to incompetence decentralised organisational structures are highly resilient and adaptive. For example whereas in a conventional political party the appointment of an incompetent or corrupt treasurer must result in disaster and conflict in a decentralised system such a person can be easily supplanted by an alternate group fulfilling the same function. Competition between cells operating in the same sphere means that the most successful must become dominant for as long as they are the most successful. This attribute means that decentralised systems organically optimise themselves to be as good as they can be and rapidly develop to be better.

It is entirely possible that the opposition might attempt to deploy infiltration techniques by forming elements and attempting to integrate them into the network. However whilst this might be relatively easy to do in order for these elements to achieve any prominence or influence they would have to succeed in their task. Obviously this means that they would have to make a contribution to the network and inflict damage on the opposition. As soon as the infiltrated element stopped being a net positive asset to the network it would rapidly lose any influence and prominence and thus be organically bypassed so that it couldn’t disrupt the entire network. Infiltration is almost totally ineffective against decentralised systems operating with a proper understanding of the model.

The nature of the network encourages individuals and groups within it to take an aggressive proactive stance since the only way they can “advance” within it is to demonstrate success. Conventional parties tend to promote an inward looking defensive mentality as ambitious members of it seek to advance through the internal hierarchy. Instead of competition between individuals and factions within the organisation being destructive as they seek to exile each other under the network model it becomes constructive as they attempt to out compete each other by engaging the opposition.

Unlike a conventional political party decentralised organisations can not have “armchair supporters”. In order to be a part of the network you can not merely buy a membership card, you have to actually do something constructive. So the network would be immune to the baleful effects on poorly informed, badly motivated and demoralising mass of useless hangers on. In the case of the BNP this class of people, who actual had invested very little in the party, supported the incompetent/corrupt leadership for several years thus crippling the efforts of the radical right in the UK.

Such a decentralised structure facilitates experimentation and innovation. Whereas in a conventional hierarchical model much effort must be expended pursuing the authority of senior members in order to get permission to undertake experimental techniques and systems in a decentralised system it’s merely a matter of demonstrating their value through practical application.

Effectively proof against infiltration and incompetence (so long as there is competence to be found) and hardwired for success the network model, though unconventional, is obviously superior to the conventional structure of a political party. However its merits extend further than merely those obvious qualities.

The network model is ideally suited to asymmetric situations. Lacking a formal existence and even a official name it can not be sued or banned and is extremely difficult to smear by the use of standard establishment propaganda. Since no-one is a member, renegade or provocateur members can not be held up as representative of the organisation as has happened on dozens of occasions with the BNP. Propaganda leaflets and printed media can not attack an organisation which has no name, no members and does not legally exist, whilst identified elements of it can be the entire movement can not be hit simultaneously efficiently as is currently standard practice for professional state propagandists such as Searchlight.

For example, in a single election campaign the establishments propagandists might face multiple groups and individuals openly declaring themselves aligned with the network, although that can not be officially proven, individuals and groups operating as independents and even candidates within establishment parties suspected of alignment with the network. Such a barrage of potential targets overwhelms the ability of the establishment to demonise the entire operation as well as its research capacity and its available media resources (there is only one front page a day). Moreover the uncertainty and deniability of formal network affiliation guarantees “collateral damage” with wrongly accused individual protesting their innocence and even establishment candidates deselected on suspicion. The later creating a crippling environment of paranoia and mistrust within establishment front line units. Even if the elite’s propagandists successful engage elements of the network the network’s principal of engineering redundancy/swarm tactics means that the whole operation remains viable. The network just keeps coming.

Even elements successfully engaged by state propagandists do not stay dead. They simply re-name themselves, recombine and resume the attack. The network has all the combat attributes of ninja zombies.

The network also offers the potential to link organisations and groups which would never be able to make common cause with a conventional nationalist party under the full weight of attack by the establishment’s propaganda machine. Groups such as the EDL, Lawful Rebellion, MigrationWatch even organisations such as UKIP, environmental, independent and anarchist groups and community initiatives could be supported by network assets.

Other people are already acting in accordance with this decentralised model whether they realise it or not. To give an example which might illustrate the advantages, I understand Mark Collett (a man whose actions provoked me to disassociate myself from the BNP and conduct a running battle against it for five years) has offered to undertake design work free of charge for any group he feels able to support. So whilst I very much doubt Mark and I would agree on very much, it is conceivable that we could respectively support the same front line group. This would be impossible under a conventional arrangement.

The adoption of the network model by the disparate fragments of the radical right would confer all the advantages of unifying into a single entity, plus a dozen better ones and be easily achieved by comparison with formal unification. At local level radical right groups have cooperated with each other, and “fellow traveller” organisations like UKIP for years. All it takes is to recognise and embrace these emergent alliances as healthy and positive. Compare this with the traditional hierarchal conventional structures such as the BNP which has explicitly ordered its units to concentrate their efforts against potential rivals for local supremacy on the radical right, resulting in BNP units deliberately targeting UKIP, NF, English Democrat, NNP, Freedom Party et al target wards and visa versa. Is that really in the best interests of the fight against the establishment for the salvation of the British People?

So how do we make the network a reality? Simple. All it takes is for individual to accept the concept and ask themselves “what can I do for the cause?”. If this is providing some sort of support function, excellent. However if not then everyone can do something in their communities, and ultimately that’s what we need people to do first and foremost. Unlike a traditional nationalist political party we don’t need you to call down the sum total wrath of the state on yourself in order to fight a doomed election, stand as an independent, join the Tories, Labour or the Lib Dems (information would be useful, sabotage or entryism better still). If you can adopt the DRM 11 system then there is nothing more you can do for your nation. If you are persuaded to fight on these terms then so will many others that could not under the BNP’s or any successor to it, the choice is therefore yours.