This is the text of a speech I gave at the Great Resist conference in Newport, South Wales, last Saturday, June 24.
LIKE many words in the English language, ‘demoralisation’ has a lay usage removed from its original, literal meaning. Years ago I was researching for a history of mental hospitals/asylums, and in the nineteenth-century records of admissions were tables showing the main factors for patients’ mental disturbance. Alongside alcohol abuse and head injury was ‘disappointment’. It seemed odd until I realised that it meant that the patient had lost his or her job, having been dismissed or made redundant. A man had been appointed by an employer, and then ‘dis-appointed’.
Similarly, demoralisation is not what you may think it is. Instead of an individual episode of sadness or despair, it refers to a negation of morals. The prefix ‘de’ or ‘dis’ indicates active intent, unlike the passive ‘un’ which simply means that something is lacking or lost. This is significant, because just as a company fires a worker, society is being deliberately demoralised. But by whom?
The driving forces of demoralisation in Western society began a hundred years ago, soon after the First World War. The Frankfurt School of critical theorists were Marxists who saw that a Bolshevik revolution in Russia was unlikely to happen elsewhere in Europe. Heritage, democracy and liberty were too strong. They began a ‘long march through the institutions’, focusing on culture rather than economics and the means of production. Hence their agenda is accurately described as Cultural Marxism. Their prime targets are faith, flag and family.
Progress was slow until the 1960s, when youthful emancipatory movements overturned the old order. The baton of the Frankfurters was taken on by Left Bank philosophers such as Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida. Students in Paris and other Western centres of academe enthused over the uncompromisingly brutal Cultural Revolution in China, some bearing Chairman Mao’s ‘Little Red Book’ as they berated lecturers and other authority figures. Today’s woke warriors are as fervent as Mao’s Red Guards in their pursuit of increasingly absurd identity politics.
The second driver of demoralisation is technocracy. Unlike Cultural Marxism, this is a corporatist movement associated with the political right, akin to Mussolini’s fascism. Rather than marching jackboots, the true meaning of fascism is an omnipotent alliance of government and big business.
The organisation Technocracy Incorporated (which I wrote about in TCW here) began in New York with the goal of replacing democracy with scientific experts to plan and control population and resources. As the technology was not sufficiently advanced in the interwar years, Technocracy Inc remained a theoretical, visionary entity. Tremendous advances in computing inspired a new dawn for technocracy in the 1970s. David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski founded the secretive Trilateral Commission, which has pursued technocratic globalism. A new world order is the unholy grail of the World Economic Forum, whose leader Klaus Schwab does not shy from promoting a cyber-controlled society led by an elite.
Neofeudalism here we come, but the masses in the main seem blissfully ignorant of the digital and physical prison being built around them. Each notch of the tightening ratchet is presented as an enhancement to efficiency, convenience, comfort or safety. Contrived crises are exploited to keep people in fear, emphasising their dependence on government and experts. Brzezinski’s fellow Trilateral Commission member Richard Gardner wrote that one-world government is best advanced through a ‘booming, buzzing confusion’.
Whereas Cultural Marxists are inherently destructive, always seeking enemies, technocrats are constructive, building their Tower of Babel. The ‘slash and burn’ methods of Marxist agitators will eventually become a threat, and the technocrats will quash any opposition to their authoritarian structure.
Cultural Marxists and technocrats are inspired by two shady organisations, the Fabians and the Freemasons. Steeped in eugenics, the Fabian Society uses and manipulates the Labour Party to pursue radical cultural change. This is why Labour does not represent the working class: as a political institution it was marched through long ago. The strings of the Conservative Party, meanwhile, have been pulled by the grandmasters of the lodges at local and national level. And that, dear Tory voters, is why the Conservative Party is not conservative. Neither the Fabians nor Freemasons leave their fingerprints on their handiwork.
Demoralisation is not irreversible. There are many things that we can do. He who controls the language controls the debate, and we should not be deterred by censuring tactics such as labelling any opposition to the globalists’ agenda as ‘far right’ or ‘anti-Semitic’. Remember that traditionally minded folk constitute the majority, albeit bludgeoned into silence and conformity. As role models for speaking out, we spread awareness and license others into resistance. We must defend humanity from technocratic enslavement, ethics from warped scientism, and use humour against misanthropic dictators such as the James Bond villain of Schwab.
Finally, we must not abandon the younger generations, the understandable but self-defeating response to the indoctrinated products of today’s education system. The prospect of youth rebellion is not forlorn. Many courageous students and school pupils are fighting back, aware that their future in the ‘new normal’ is bleak. Each of us is like David to Goliath, but if we sling our metaphorical pebbles in unison, we can fell the ogre. Let’s go for remoralisation.
