IN Britannia’s grim new garb, the official narrative is sewn up, traditionalism (with honourable exceptions) stitched up. About her hovers a harrying, restless spirit; everywhere, conservatives are ousted and cowed – by people preaching ‘kindness’.
Argument grows redundant; wreckers loathe reason. Power is the age-old goal: gaining and cementing it. Ends justify means: intimidation works, so why stop? We’re all caught in the dragnet. Town hall, high street and church fly the flag – the fluttering fetish – of the new imperium.
If being British wasn’t personal, we could look on in detached fascination. Pass the popcorn; few generations witness a great country’s self-destruction. We can’t just be spectators; it means too much. All the same, let’s record the unfolding tragedy faithfully; at least the parts we grasp. Tracing Rome-rivalling decline and fall, future historians will thank us.
On this they’ll agree: never was so much influence exerted over so many by so few. Coups, it’s true, are often elitist; consider the Bolshevik leadership of 1917. But today’s tyranny of the minority (or rather, minorities) goes further, exalting the sub-group for being such, smearing the main group for the same reason.
Once every few years we have the charade of ‘democracy’, where, expediently, a more generous concept of majority is trotted out. Duly elected, the politicians return to their fixation on the Other, oblivious to the irony. Above them, the cabal of technocratic control-freaks tightens its grip. The Very Clever neither need nor like us, save as lab rats.
It’s only happening in the West. Contempt for the majority grows in the fetid swamp of decadence and apathy. And while it has benefited us all, it’s our economic prosperity which has unwittingly helped create the swamp.
You can afford to believe there are a hundred genders, in open borders, in Britain’s uniquely evil history, only if you’ve never needed – and never will need – to worry about the basics: where your next square meal is coming from, whether you’ll always have a roof over your head.
This is why the middle and upper middle-classes are in the vanguard of woke. It’s also why there isn’t more resistance to them. Though it’s getting harder for ordinary people to make ends meet, in material terms most get by, and there’s always the safety net (or way of life) of the welfare state. Hence, for now, there’s insufficient concern, much less anger, at what’s happening.
Similarly, you can boast that you’ve loosed the ancient bonds of nation only when you’re fully immune to poverty, elevated beyond the parochial to the lofty heights of internationalism. From here, you can bestow global paternalism, the perfect vehicle for minority rights, and not only ignore but disown your own kind.
Misplaced remorse plays its part, of course. The ‘social justice’ modus operandi is cynical, cyclical and wildly successful. You endlessly feign anger as, or more often on behalf of, an ‘oppressed’ group, throwing in barbs about the Empire whenever possible. This confuses and unsettles a noble people whose sense of honour rests on fair-mindedness. To preserve it, they acquiesce to your demands. You and your activist chums are emboldened. Rinse and repeat.
At some point, honour becomes a fig-leaf. The real reason for caving in is self-preservation: concern with what people think, with keeping one’s job. For opportunists and turncoats, there’s also the question of advancement. In the ‘cutting-edge’ new world of EDI, cultural suicide pays well. Along the way, people will fear you. It massages the ego.
This malaise ends when the silent majority stirs as one; when bread and circuses cease to blind the Great Asleep to – or adequately compensate them for – their erasure. It may require total economic collapse, and for many this will be too high a price. Whatever it takes, time is short. Those to come won’t know the meaning of cultural displacement: there’ll be nothing left to displace.
The judge and philosopher Sir James Fitzjames Stephen (1829-94) wrote: ‘The way in which the man of genius rules is by persuading an efficient minority to coerce an indifferent and self-indulgent majority.’ Our present elite’s efficiency and desire to coerce aren’t in doubt. But for how much longer can it nurture indifference and self-indulgence?