We already have enough people to violently overthrow the system with force.
Academics who study the success rates of revolution state that you'd need 10% of the population to do it, and we easily crack that number.
What you need, which the likes of Tarrant lacked, was organization, others who believe as you do, who are able and willing to back you up when the time comes so you could act as a group.
It's not about how many people are feeling rebellious, and not about how many people are engaging in rebellious behavior, it's about how many people are engaging in rebellious behavior together.
It's never some lone hero who overthrows a corrupt system, it's always a band of people, who first prove themselves by holding their own in the face of the establishment's attempts to squash them, which makes other malcontents, who are unsure of whether supporting them is suicide or not, be more willing to join them, knowing it's not a flash in the pan, but an enduring resistance that has a chance of succeeding with their involvement.
It's not about people being aware or sufficiently dissatisfied, it's about getting these people together, where they recognize the others as allies, where they can make plans and execute them as a team.
A lot of people would later join them, but only once they survived the siege for a while, then they will feel comfortable lending their hand to the cause as recruits.
There's something else, a lot of people will know what we stand against, but not what we stand for, and that makes them uneasy, as bad as this system is in their perception, they at the very least know what it is and have an idea of where it could be going.
You, on the other hand, offer no vision of what they are going to get with your kind in charge, you can be lazy as point to something in the past and say "that", but this does nothing for them unless you describe exactly what you think "that" was in detail.
This is because when it comes to regimes that idolize past eras, they often either have a flawed knowledge of what that era was like, or are dishonest about that matter. For reasons of both of these possibilities, they want to hear you, yourself, describe the details of what will happen after you or your allies take power.
Not platitudes, policies, that's what they need to hear, what exactly will change after you win, and how will it change?
Presenting a vision like this goes very far in getting people together, it also boost morale and willingness to fight, because it shows them a future they think is worth fighting for.
You will fail if you simply define yourself by what you oppose, if you want to gather up multiple alternatives to what exists now as allies in taking it down, since they all share a common enemy, then what you do is present a future where all of them get a share of the spoils as payment for their involvement, for example, proposing that the nation that's been overthrown be split up among these various parties who will govern themselves as separate (but allied) nations.
This goes beyond "Uniting the Far Right", by promising the Nationalist Socialists of the Top-Right Corner and the Anarchist Capitalists of the Bottom-Right Corner their own lands when it is over.
Even those who call themselves our enemies can be swayed to fight beside us instead of against us, so long as they are just as discontented with the current state of affairs as we are, never forget that a lot of the rank and file among the far-left genuinely believe in opposing the system that exists right now, and would be pleased with getting a piece of land of their own once the fighting is over (that they will use as a launching point for an attack on us, but which will be far easier dealt with by us at that point than the establishment we fight against today). Making these types go rogue to fight with us in a war-truce is a god way to gank the middle from the radical parts of the political spectrum.
In this way, White "Supremacists" and Black "Supremacists" can fight alongside one another, knowing that each of them is going to get what it is that they most desire out of a victory.
This is wonderful, in that you will have multiple allied rebel forces, attacking the same enemy, with an agreement not to fight against each other, the establishment is fighting multiple different groups with many different things to learn about them, and .
it's all about gathering enough people together in order to launch a coordinated attack followed by a defense that can withstand the counterattacks the regime will launch in response, after that point, others can be recruited in, territory can be gained, internal order can be imposed, and eventually the whole of the country is divided into territories held by rebels and loyalists.
Upon having a territory, people will look to you to provide for their needs in a way that can satisfy them, to enforce matters of justice in a fair and impartial manner, to give people hope and keep their minds occupied, and to generally win over the hearts and minds of the people within your zone, especially those who are initially opposed to you and your cause.
This is every bit as important as winning fights and holding land, if not more, do a good job of giving the people a taste of what future you offer them, and they will prefer you to the regime, at that point, even if the claimed land is taken back by the establishment, you will have people within the territory of the loyalists, who are on your side.
Doing everything from feeding you information, engaging in sabotage, smuggling valuable resources out to you, or, best of all, advocating for your side's victory from within, thus sowing internal division and running down morale as their side paralyzes itself with internal witch hunts suspecting traitors.
Keep in min that most of the initial fighting will be by guerilla tactics and various dishonest and dirty methods of warfare, you will fight like cowards, because you are cornered rats, and this is how an asymmetrical battle is fought, for david to slay goliath, he has to cheat.
I really don't have much else to say on the topic, just note that all this is just opinion and being shared only for academic purposes.