14 August 2015

Exploring the usual options of struggle against a dictatorship

By Mike Smith

14th of August 2015


Elections are not available under full dictatorships. However, dictators know that elections can give them “legitimacy” to rule and endorse their hold on power. Therefore the dictator will use elections as a weapon to stay in power. This “legitimacy to rule” is one of the reasons why people obey and tolerate dictators. More on that later.

Therefore, one of the first things a dictator under pressure will do is to announce early elections then rig them to place civilian puppets in government offices and “legitimize” his continued rule.

Like in the former Soviet-dominated Eastern Bloc, dictatorships might go through the motions of elections in order to appear democratic. They might even call themselves “democratic” like in the former East Germany whose official name was the German Democratic Republic.

Those elections, however, were merely rigidly controlled plebiscites to get public endorsement of candidates already handpicked by the dictator.

Dictators are not in the business of allowing elections that could remove them from their thrones. A dictator and his regime are only interested in elections when THEY can win. In just about every case, from the Philippines to Zimbabwe, from the Balkan to the Ukraine, electoral fraud has been used to keep dictators in power.

That is why it is imperative not to accept new or early elections called for by a dictator and not to accept the obviously rigged results.

Under a dictatorship, and in the absence of a strong opposition, elections are futile and a waste of time.

Negotiations and the appeal to reason

There are still people who think that negotiations with dictators are an option.

For negotiations to be successful both parties need to be reasonable and have an understanding of the principle of “Give and take”. Both parties need to be open to accommodate and compromise.

Further one can only negotiate successfully from a point of strength. The opposition needs something to use as leverage or a force multiplier, otherwise negotiations are useless and a waste of time.

Usually the oppressed people have nothing. No political power, no military power and no economical power.

In South Africa, the whites still have some economical power, but most of the wealth is concentrated at the top in the hands of a few individuals who control the media and work together (for now still) with the dictatorship. The common man has nothing.

There is no reason why the dictator should negotiate with the oppressed. They have therefore no other choice but to sit down and shut up.

In the case of a Marxist dictatorial regime as in South Africa, experience at Codesa (also in Zimbabwe) has shown that one cannot negotiate with Communists. Communists are not reasonable people. They are psychopathic, narcissistic megalomaniacs.

Just the fact that you are willing to negotiate, is to them a sign of weakness, because if you had any power you would finish them off, not negotiate.

Before negotiations they will start off with a list of demands or pre-conditions that will have to be met before negotiations can even start. Most of these demands are points of negotiation in themselves, but when you refuse, you will be accused of the one being, “unwilling to negotiate”, “unwilling to compromise”, “de-railing negotiations”, etc.

They will also (hypocritically) accuse you in the media of being “dictatorial”, “authoritarian”, and (heaven forbid) being a “racist”.

Nobody wants to be known as “dictatorial”, “authoritarian” or “racist”. So you give in. By giving in to the pre-conditions and demands you have already lost half or more of what you wanted to negotiate about in the first place. The rest is a walk over for the Communist negotiators.

When the negotiation begin they will only give something up if they can get something bigger in return. They will lie and promise you the world to get what they want. All agreements will be broken by them afterwards, but then it is too late. You won’t get anything back that you gave up in the spirit of good negotiations.

Further, they want half of what you have and when you give in to their demands they see it as weakness to get half of what you have left and so on until they have everything and you have nothing at which point you become expendable. End of negotiations.

The point here is that negotiations are not a realistic way to remove a strong dictatorship in the absence of a powerful democratic opposition.

You do not negotiate with a dictator. You depose a dictator.

International intervention

People living under a dictatorship have hope and they believe that only international help can be strong enough to bring down the dictators. A great nation like the USA or maybe the United Nations would come and save them.

Likewise those who have gone into exile to escape the immediate grasp of the dictatorship, do not believe that the oppressed can liberate themselves.

They expect that their people can only be saved by the actions of others. These people place their confidence in external forces and try to raise international awareness on social media and forums so that the UN, USA or somebody will see their plight and rescue them.

However, truth is that usually no foreign saviors are coming, and if a foreign state does intervene, it probably should not be trusted.

States do not have friends. They only have interests. They will only intervene when those interests are threatened and will change sides at the drop of a hat like the USA did in the Philippines in 1986 when they abandoned Ferdinand Marcos whom they previously supported.

In October 1956 Hungarian students revolted against the Soviet and Communist policies. The revolution spread quickly and within two weeks the Communist government collapsed.

When a large Soviet force was sent in to crush the revolution, the West (Including the UN) did nothing. At the time the Suez crises was unfolding and President Nixon said: “We couldn't on one hand, complain about the Soviets intervening in Hungary and, on the other hand, approve of the British and the French picking that particular time to intervene against [Gamel Abdel] Nasser”…So the Hungarians were offered to the Soviet Demon.

The soviets killed 3000 civilians, raped thousand of women on the streets of Budapest and 200,000 refugees fled Hungary.

In Zimbabwe in 1983/84 dictator Mugabe massacred 20,000 Matabeles for opposing him in the elections. The USA and the UN did not intervene.

In 2000 when Mugabe drove 4000 white farmers off their land, Tony Blair and his New Labour betrayed the farmers, neither the USA nor the UN came to their help and not a single white South African helped them either.

Examples are many. Another one is Uganda. During the 19th century Britain brought Indian labourers to East and Central Africa to build the railroads. In August 1972 dictator Idi Amin drove out 80,000 decedents of these Indians, seized their homes, businesses and other belongings. Most were lucky to escape with the clothes on their backs.

Did Mother India come to help them? Did the US, UK or UN send troops to save them? No.

Be clear. There will be no outside “saviours” coming to rescue South Africans from a dictatorship either.


In the past, short-lived, uncoordinated, protests have proved to have very little impact in trying to unite people against a dictatorship.

Further, these protests were usually poorly organized, badly led and too early. Therefore very few people turned up.

Mass protests and demonstrations are the apex of a campaign and the culmination of smaller efforts that have reached “critical mass”. Attempted too early it will end in disaster.

Cultural festivals or music concerts might have been held or may have occurred, but not part of a campaign and therefore, however noble the motives, such past acts of resistance have often been insufficient, to overcome the people’s fear and “habit of obedience”, a necessary prerequisite to destroy the dictatorship.

The use of violence

It is understandable why people have often concluded, mostly out of frustration and ignorance, that only violence can end a dictatorship.

However, this is wrong. By placing confidence in violent means, one has chosen the very type of struggle with which the oppressors nearly always have superiority i.e. military hardware, ammunition, transportation, and the size of military forces. Despite bravery, those who want a true democracy are (almost always) no match against the forces of the dictatorship.

When you use violence against the dictatorial regime you attack them where they are strongest, not where they are weakest, which is what you should be doing.

It is like climbing into a boxing ring with Mike Tyson. You don’t want to beat him at boxing. You want to beat him at chess.

I don’t care how strong or how good Mike Tyson is, but if he falls into the sea and cannot swim, a thirteen year old girl that can swim will beat him. All she has to do is to wait until he exhausted himself. She doesn't even have to hold his head under the water. If he has no support under him, she can watch how he will simply sink.

Guerrilla warfare

Guerrilla struggles often last a very long time and rarely, if ever, benefits the oppressed population or ushers in a democracy.

In the case of the Second Anglo Boer War after the Boer capitals were lost the Boers adopted a brave Guerrilla campaign with the attack on Sanna’s Post (on 31 March 1900) against the British. The guerilla campaign lasted until 31 May 1902, the end of the war.

Despite the bravery of the Boers and the excellent fight they put up, after 2 years, 7 months, 2 weeks and 6 days, they have lost the war.

Although the Boers killed more than double the amount of soldiers than they lost (about 8000 in combat) they lost themselves 4000 men in combat, 24,000 soldiers in prison camps overseas, and 34,000 Boer woman and children died in British concentration camps after the scorched earth policy of Lords Roberts and Kitchener.

We can thus see that violent rebellions can trigger brutal repression that frequently leaves the populace more helpless than before. The Boers lost everything and were impoverished and starving after the war. The war also did not stop for them seeing that the British tried to anglicize them banning their Afrikaans language in schools and churches after the war triggering a war for their language, culture and nationalism, the so called “Taalbeweging” or “Language movement”.

The guerrilla warfare is no guarantor against failure, despite supporting theory and strategic analyses and sometimes international backing. The Boers did have backing from Germany and hundreds of foreign volunteers from all over the world fought on their side, yet they still lost.

Therefore guerrilla warfare is no obvious solution, particularly given the very strong tendency toward immense casualties among one’s own people.

Military Coup d’état

A military coup d’état against a dictatorship might appear to be relatively one of the easiest and quickest ways to remove a particularly repugnant regime, but it can fail as easy as it succeed.

One needs military resources (human and otherwise) and absolute loyalty and secrecy for if anything leaks out (it only takes one traitor) the entire conspiracy comes crashing down. This risk of treachery from within one’s own ranks by planted agents, coerced or bribed individuals makes the military coup d’état an extremely risky option.

Further, after consolidating its position, the new clique may turn out to be more ruthless and more ambitious than the old one. Consequently, the new clique —in which hopes may have been placed — will be able to do whatever it wants without concern for democracy or human rights. That is not an acceptable answer to the problem of dictatorship.


The conclusion is a hard one and after considering the options above, the reader might feel even more hopeless, despaired and depressed. Liberation is not easy. It is not called a “Struggle” for nothing.

A liberation struggle is a time for self-reliance and internal strengthening of the struggle group. Liberation from dictatorships ultimately depends on the people’s willingness and ability to liberate themselves.

Nobody is going to send in the cavalry. No one is going to send us loads of weapons or money. It is up to us and our ingenuity to make a difference, nothing else.


  1. Anonymous1:34 am

    "The Boers did have backing from Germany..."
    What are you smoking Mike?

    1. Boer Rebels and the Kaiser’s men

      The relationship between the Boers and the German nation was an unusual one. During the Boer war there was great support for the Boer struggle within Germany and the Kaiser sent a telex to the Boers voicing his support for their war efforts.

      The Boers were armed with weapons made by Mauser and Krupp. Although the Boer Commandoes fought in a manner foreign to European battlefields the Artillery was well trained in European methods. Major Albrecht, the officer commanding the Orange Free State artillery was a German Veteran.

      A German Freikorps of Volunteers was formed who fought on the Boer side. This included German Officers and Graf Zeppelin who was killed at the battle of Elandslaagte.

    2. Anonymous2:28 am

      The kind of backing Mike is talking about is that given to the American Revolutionaries by the French during the war of Independence ( and was crucial )

    3. Anonymous2:33 am

      It would be highly enlightening ( entertaining ) to read what these foreign volunteers thought of the "Boers"

  2. Anonymous2:32 am

    There is a way -- but I doubt many will have the guts for it.
    Self enabled ethnic cleansing.
    Sell up and move the Cape ( the ONLY place where the odds ( demographics and history ) are somewhat in your favour.
    When the demographics reach some form of critical mass the scenario changes radically !

  3. Anonymous3:10 am

    So... the objective is to get rid of the ANC and any other Communist wannabe's.

    Problem 1: Too many people support the ANC and the reason is because they believe their bullshit propaganda. Things are changing but too slowly. Part of the reason is because we are still helping blacks by giving them jobs, hand outs, tips etc. so why should they vote for anyone else?
    Solution 1: Have nothing to do with blacks.

    Problem 2: Bribery and corruption is alive and well. Why are we still doing business with them?
    Solution 2: Have nothing to do with blacks.

    Problem 3: etc etc etc

    When they realise that they cannot survive without White people only then will things change. When they understand that this Country 'was what it was' was because white people had the initiative to build infrastructure together with law and order. When they realise how well off they were when white people ran things. When they realise that blacks cannot run a Government and are only in it for the money. When, when, when...

    In the end we will all have to live and work together but the "Regime" must GO!! first.
    Then we can talk.

    Hey Mike... why not use this platform to start this PLAN! Get input from South Africans so we can get this started. Find ways to convince South Africans to take action. Something concrete that people can actually use and feel good about. The ultimate objective being to free ALL South Africans from this suicidal path we are on.

    1. No, the objective is to have a proper democracy. The kind of country we envisioned. Getting rid of the ANC is only the halfway mark. It is what we want to replace them with that is important.

    2. Anonymous5:35 am

      THIS !


      Seems they read your wish list and are busy implementing it ?

    3. Anonymous6:53 am

      No Mike getting rid of the ANC is the first step. Democracy will fall into place thereafter. Someone with the right credentials will need to take the reins once the rot starts disappearing. All this blah blah yadda yadda is just hot air and is not helping anyone.

      We need a concrete plan that people will understand and embrace and use every day until the tide changes. Someone, like yourself with the influence and support you have gained thus far, just needs to take the first step to change the mindset... one step at a time. BUT we need a concrete PLAN.
      I'm not suggesting you become President... just use your influence to start changing mindsets with a concrete plan. Remember when people said "We will never walk on the Moon".

    4. Anonymous8:23 am

      You're all delusional. Black people have survived fine without whites for millennium.

    5. Anonymous4:58 pm

      Anon 8:23, so go back to the bush then !

  4. Anonymous4:56 am

    "... is a time for self-reliance and internal strengthening of the struggle group." The person next to me in the battle has to be utterly convinced of the justness of our cause. If he feels the faintest bit of remorse about our "cruel racism during apartheid" I will have to dispense of him before the battle starts. Any subjective personal resentment because of being wronged by BEE/AA has no place here - there is a bigger picture here of a people being wronged, not only individuals, of which your "Pandora`s Box" series provides an excellent picture. It is true - there is an oppressed people here at the southernmost tip of Africa, but it is certainly not the blacks ...

  5. Anonymous5:09 am

    'The kind of democratic country we envisioned' ??? WTF! Were you a Libtard in the early 90's???

    1. I have met a lot of pricks in my life, but you sir, are a cactus,

  6. At this stage, although it may sound ridiculous, the best way of splitting the ANC and reducing their power is by whites voting for malema and supporting him. The idea is not to let him win, just split the ANC vote. The old divide and rule. Many minorities survive in countries by playing many sides, the Jews and Indians being prime examples of minorities who prosper in host nations.

    It is a question of vote with your head, not with your heart. The more blacks vote for malema, the less vote for the ANC. I doubt the DA will ever be a big enough power base to make a difference unless they can get some of the black vote.

    The more the ANC sees a threat by the loss of votes, the less they can steal and the more they must use for service delivery. Does it matter where the threat comes from for whitey? Splitting the black vote is what matters.

    In many ways, malema has been the best political movement for whitey in a long time. He calls 'Duma wat jy wil ' to acount and darkies lap that up. Of course no one wants him to win; only to be a thorn in Showerhead's side.

  7. The problem of perspective is that if just see the negative, then you will see emigration as the only option. Being to positive you become a libtard: the darkies are just like us and will develop etc.

    I think you only get the energy to do something if you don't see stick your head in the sand or flee as the only 2 options. We go out of our way to hire white. Work in white associations, I use a white maid service, only white contractors etc. Promote my race. Why not? Blacks do it with BEE, Jews do it, Indians do it. Why not white people?

    I can focus on crime, the corruption, the low intelligence of darkies, black government, and see the solution as to cut and run. I understand why people come to this conclusion. But it may be hard to understand why stay.

    1) Family. If you run, you leave the old people to fend for themselves. One of my mates came back from NZ for this reason. Couldn't live there and leave his old parents as prey.

    2) We have less libtards here in proportion to the total number of whites and far less PC. You can express yourself more without hiding from the PC police. Maybe most libtards like the Suzmans and Gordimers have run off. Good riddance. At least in SA people are racially aware. You don't hear the libtard stupidity that you do in europe and america. Open your mouth around other Whites here and you usually get agreement, or at worst silence. Overseas, you may face criminal charges or antagonism. I would be in prison in a week for saying the wrong thing.

    3) Black government. So? other nations ruled by libtards with crazy PC laws, or in thrall to Israel, constantly embroiled in mideast wars. But blacks are too dumb to really make life hard for whites here. whites still prosper because we have the skills, and they know it.

    4) You can reduce crime if you are prepared to take control of your own security. And I dont mean those aaphok security complexes that i despise

    5) SA is beautiful. Not the darkies but the climate and scenery. If you love the outdoors, and for me it is long distance dirt biking, SA is one of the best places in the world for this, with variety of scenery, beauty, empty space and climate and mountains. The smell of the bush, the remoteness. Oz has the outback, but it is flat and not as varied. Europe has no dirt roads. In the USA they are very limited and private.

    6) You can live far easier under the radar here. Pay a minimum of tax, not be under Big Brother's eye. Just don't use your ID for anything. Use a foreign passport if you have one, buy vehicles under a TRN etc. If you want you can even get an Intl driver's licence and drop your SA one.

    7) You can far more easily live in a large private home here and maintain that way of life.

    8) I am far more free here but not as safe perhaps. Free to say what I want, do what I want, live how I want and I am not giving that up for security. I would rather take steps to increase my security.

    9) Firearms. Although not near as free as the USA, we can still have firearms. My son has everything to use from air rifles and a crossbow to a 0.22 as a kid. Not sure what the firearms laws are like in Oz.

    10) Braais. real ones on wood not Valie charcoal or gas.

    In the words of Karen Wessels - My Land

    Maar as die Afrika-son op my skyn
    wil ek nie weggaan nie,
    en die vrees verdwyn.
    Want ek is lief,
    ek is so lief
    vir my land.

    1. Very beautifully and eloquently put, Kradmelder!

      The sentiments you have expressed, your reason for staying, and your outlook to life in SA, is the same as ours.

      You penned it so much better than I could ever have done.

    2. Kradmelder, a while ago there was a chain-mail doing the rounds that suggested the formation of a Springbok Association [or something to that effect] that proposed and association of Whites for Whites - an anti AA and BEE thing where all Whites would be encouraged to only support White-owned businesses etc. I think that could possibly be a starting point?

  8. Sorry for going off topic, but in what kind of example Ukraine has been brought into account?

    1. The Orange Revolution of 2004/2005

  9. Anonymous9:20 pm

    To Anonymous8:23 AM
    You're all delusional. Black people have survived fine without whites for millennium.
    MY REPLY: Survived perhaps but never progressed one step forwards for six thousand years and if that's something to be proud of then you blacks should do some serious introspection then look around you and see what the white man invented and gave to you. You ungrateful ignorant black arseholes never had it so good before and you got it all for buckshee.

  10. @anon 8:23am

    Yeah, whites stopped blacks from cannibalizing each other.
    If it wasn't for whites, you could well just be a pile of shit on top of a rock, after being served up as a meal by one of your bruthas.

  11. Anonymous12:08 am

    To anonymous 8:23.

    Fuck-off back to the bush and die of aids and ebola and congo fever and famine.Just fuck-off.

    1. Anon 12:08 I totally agree with you that this "thing" should just fuck off and die. He has the cheek to refer to "Black people", what the fuck is that??? Some kind of creature, but definitely not a "people" like you or I. Fuck 'em all!

  12. Anonymous7:40 pm

    To Anonymous 8:23 AM
    You're all delusional. Black people have survived fine without whites for millennium.
    MY REPLY: Survived perhaps but never progressed one step forwards for six thousand years and if that's something to be proud of then you blacks should do some serious introspection. Then take a long hard look around you and see the reality of what the white man has done for this country. Then take stock of what the whites invented and gave to you. You ungrateful ignorant black racist arseholes never had it so good before the whites arrived in Africa. South Africa was a thriving first world country and you lazy worthless black arseholes got it all for buckshee. Only twenty years down the line and its plummeted back to square one. What a total disgrace you worthless freeloading blacks have turned out to be