Events
The events are largely fictitious. Even small details are fabricated or misrepresented. The opening episode shows a White Man March in Bradford. This never happened. As I recall we held a demonstration in York during the May of 2016 followed by one in Berwick Upon Tweed. There may have been one in Liverpool around this time too. When Jo Cox was assassinated we did not know who she was. The reaction to her death fell into two camps: Those who were angry because it jeopardised the Leave campaign during the EU Referendum and those who found it amusing that some unknown MP was assassinated by an absolute nobody. The North East twitter account made three or four distasteful jokes after the assassination which are part of the justification for banning the group. They are portrayed as serious statements in the show to support the mythology of NA as a terrorist organisation.
The group are portrayed as having inspired or having links to rockerz88 who stabbed a Sikh dentist. This is not true either. The group considered him to be a fringe troll and if my sources are correct he intended to stab his abusive step father before settling on the Sikh. Either way he is not related to NA in any way beyond having purchased a flag and using similar memes. During National Action's existence it did not commit, nor did it support, one single act of terror. The main plot point of the show concerning the alleged plot to kill Rosie Cooper occurred half a year after National Action disbanded (the night before it was proscribed). This is portrayed as a sober conversation in the show but in reality occurred between seven or so people during a drinking session between friends. This is why everyone was claiming to be drunk. I know, factually and from first hand experience, that nobody believed Jack Renshaw was serious. They believed he was under a great deal of stress from being heavily persecuted at this time and that he was crying out for help.
This brings us to the trial. They have misrepresented history. In the show only Jack Renshaw, Matthew Hankinson, and Christopher Lythgoe are portrayed as being on trial. This deliberately excludes Garron Helm, A Clarke, and M Trubini who were all found not-guilty in relation to all accusations. It does, however, show that Chris was cleared of encouraging Jack to commit a terror act. It omits the point at which the testimony of Collins against NA was openly laughed at by the jury for its absurdity. This trial was a miscarriage of justice and Christopher Lythgoe now serves eight years for membership of National Action after December 2016 and Matthew Hankinson now serves six for the same offence. Neither can be guilty of this because the group had long disbanded.
The argument that the group continued to exist is largely based on a statement made by Christopher Lythgoe that they were shedding "one skin for another". This statement must be understood in the context of the group being a protest group and not a terror organisation. They are portrayed in the how as having the reach and understanding of a spy network. This is false. Robbie's first meeting was not in a dingy pub surrounded by surly bodyguards, for example. In reality he met with Christ Lythgoe and me in a well lit pub in late Summer. There were families drinking and eating around us. Patrons enjoying some midday drinks. It was a relaxed, friendly meeting with some banter. The group is totally mischaracterised and that youthful humour which was its hallmark is removed or distorted.
Additionally, the gym has been shown as belonging to National Action. This was purchased after National Action disbanded. It did not belong National Action nor to any organisation. There was much talk of starting something new. We abandoned the idea of contesting the ban and made not so much as a murmur in public. It was decided that we would instead start off with a new legacy. We’d take the positive aspects of NA and form a far more professional group which would make clear its rejection of terrorism and political violence. It would also allow us to put into practice what had been learned from NA’s mistakes without any baggage. Unfortunately, this group never came into existence.
Summary
This is a perverse hit piece against National Action and the people who were later involved in the so-called Jack Renshaw terror plot. It tries to tell the story of a brave simpleton who, despite his naughty political ideas, overcame his flaws to foil a terror organisation plotting the murder of an obscure politician. However, it comes across as a desperate scramble to justify the political repression of those who seek the preservation of their race and nation.
They try to pin two terror attacks on National Action. Both of them were unrelated to the group as observed and affirmed by the courts. They try to use the “edgy memes” which were so popular in this group of young men as serious statements to support the invented philosophy of far-right terrorism. This was the same tactic used by the state to justify the ban in the first place and shows how this group of mentally ill defamers has a symbiotic relationship with that same state.
As previously told, the Jack Renshaw case occurred after the group ceased to exist but even if the group continued, as presented in this fiction, the anti-Whites must concede that this can only be utilised on a post hoc ergo propter hoc basis to justify the state’s actions.
There is no justification for the banning of National Action. The men convicted in relation to it are the victims of obscene injustice.
I would not recommend watching this without knowledge of what really happened during those infamous years of 2016 and 2017. The acting is good enough to convince people without critical thinking skills or the wherewithal to research the various cases. My message is simple, avoid this televisual atrocity.