Having a clear and obvious enemy is an invigorating thing. The enemy brings you together with others of a similar, opposing mind. It stirs up the atavistic animalistic spirit of your primordial origins. It motivates you with a focused mission, normally to do good as you see it, often to save or protect some ideal or, as a conservative, a way of life. We all benefit from enemies.
The woke battalions are not so good in choosing their enemies: their scatter-gun approach is to blast away at anything that simply does not conform to their latest faddish bête noir, be that genetically-modified houmous or transphobic bees. Mind you, this does provide an endless source of fascinating case studies for saner folk to trying to understand hysteria.
But by what name do we conservatives know our enemy? ‘Woke’ serves nicely for one branch of the ‘progressive’ left, but it applies more to the foot soldiers. What of the people pulling their strings – and yanking our chains? The orchestrators of the illiberal liberal movement? I struggle to find the appropriate nomenclature for the High Command of liberalism. And this frustrates me. I need something solid, clear and which is easily understood when I vent my spleen. Any suggestions?
Of course, one wants to avoid, if one can, the intemperate, Anglo-Saxon invective of the football terraces – though goodness knows that can be tremendously satisfying. I largely reserve that for the privacy of my own home when I feel the TV needs a good hollering at, taking care that I am alone at the time lest the Hyde in me is revealed to a shocked family. Besides, taking instant recourse to colourfully and joyfully robust pejoratives might mark me out to my enemy as an inarticulate, ranting neanderthal. (To be fair, I self-identify as that on the third Tuesday of every month or when, as they say, ‘tired and emotional’.)
There are some phrases that we know and which serve us well, but, well lack the necessary impact.
The Great and the Good – This term is all-too-readily accepted by our ‘progressive’ overlords as a worthy moniker for themselves, for surely, they proclaim, are we not both? Alas, the irony of the G’n’G is lost on a good many people.
The Ruling Classes – Good, grief, no! Again, we understand what is meant by that, but they just love that seeming affirmation of their rightful place in society’s hierarchical order, placing them at the top of the pile and the rest of us at their feet craving their benevolent rule.
The Elites – Same as above but even worse. Elites – ooh, aren’t we just? I have witnessed an audience smugly smirking in satisfaction at an academic political science conference when a speaker told them that they were part of the ‘elites’. They just loved it. Brrrrr! I can never shake that horrible image from my memory.
The Clerisy – This is my personal favourite and much vaunted by a perceptive and learned friend of mine. It hints at the slimy, sanctimonious moralising of the self-appointed priestly caste who are oh so much more intelligent than us and oh so much purer. But it lacks a broader appeal and understanding. Besides, the lib toffs would again adapt this as badge of pride – or rather a virtue-signalling lapel pin.
Currently I am employing the term ‘our overlords’, but I’m not sure that cuts the mustard either.
By what name shall I know my enemy?
Do you read J R R Tolkien? In his private correspondence, Tolkien often referred to the enemies of tradition and enforcers of “progress” as Orcs, and I think we could expand his usage to call the leaders of our “clear and obvious” enemies as Nazgûl or Balrogs.
Next time I wake up to the sound of the Today programme and lunge for the off button, I might try shouting “Shut up, you Blanking Balrog Blank,” instead of merely “Shut up, you Blanking Blank.” It may prove to be a more satisfying start to the day.
The problem is that there are so many of them.Politicians,national and local, oligarchs ditto, senior civil servants llike Whitty and Vallance and rude ones of the bin police variety, the ermined rogues and rascals of the Lords, including those despotic EU-loving judges and clerics.
Maybe Marx had a point when he referred to the class enemy as ‘Capitalists’, after Capitalism, the system which spawned them. It clearly identified the enemy, which they are, and distinguished the two groups between ‘us’ and ‘Them’.
Or perhaps we should look at ourselves, and recognise that the enemy was, is and always will be us.
As I write I am watching the remarkable coloured military pageant in front of our Monarch in Buckingham Palace.
However, my heart is not in the celebrations because my head is aware of the condition of her ruined realm. Nice to see a predominantly “pale” but certainly not stale and only male crowd. But there is a touch of “The Mouse that Roared”, and tears are those of grief rather than joy. Sorry.
When I first encountered the “progressive” movement in local government, education, social work and community-relations, the “anti-racists”, “anti-sexists” and multiculturalists called their incremental subversion of our nation “agenda-networking”. This has spread outwards and upwards incrementally through all aspects of society, with its near-final achievement as “diversity, equality, inclusion” as the official state-religion, though some have woken up to the insidious development somewhat belatedly and ineffectively; see the books by Douglas Murray, Ed West and Steve Moxon, for starters.
One group after another has been nobbled – the Institute of Race Relations, the Royal Anthropological Institute, the Galton Institute, and even the English Associaton whose non-English intellectuals are currently engaged in a “network” explicitly designed to dismantle our native English cultural heritage as “racist”, “sexist” and “hierarchical” – all familiar to a few individuals like me who have been trying to warn a complacent and compliant “establishment” about what the late Sir Alfred Sherman long ago called “cultural genocide”.
Under its forthcoming Indian Chair can we expect even The Royal Society of St George to “embrace” the Afro-Asianisation of England with its new “mission” to “embrace” other cultures in our future homeland? The “Patriotic Alternative” has shot itself not in the foot but in its head by publishing a tribute to a man who assisted the Nazi war against Britain. Only the “Salisbury Review” is left, for how long, before it is banned as a hate-crime?
HM The Queen speaks of the “achievements” of her “Reign” and its New Commonwealth Albatross (with rising republicanism).
During the last six decades of accelerating “managed decline” these can be counted on the toes of two left feet: (1) Massive and still continuing polyethnic inward settlement, including transnational criminals providing narcotics, guns and sex slaves;
(2) the imposition of a revolutionary “race, gender, class” ideology disguised as morally imperative “diversity, inclusion, equality” on almost all our institutions, from heritage-attacking classrooms to yet unclosed police stations;
(3) the collapse of traditional marriage and responsible motherhood, with rise of a “sex, drugs, rap and roll” culture in paradoxical parallel with activist and legislative misandry;
(4) the weakening of our island defences alongside futile foreign adventures;
(5) rising unprosecuted real crime, including imported ethnic knife crime and rape;
(6) the foreign take-over of our “economy” and residual assests by equity finance or alien governments;
(7) the venality, incompetence and myopia of pygmy politicians;
(8) the technology of mind-control for woke utility;
(9) the closure of CofE churches alongside the growth of Deobandi mosques; (10) one big toe is missing – as a symbol of “disabilty” now celebrated as an entitlement, if not yet an aspiration.
The Jubilee Bunting Bandwagon disguises England’s Hidden Hearse.
We’ve seen the enemy and they is us.
I have just caught the end of a “Britain’s Got Talent” show in which some effeminate-looking white boys who looked about 10 years old had just finished their act in the rainbow costumes of “Gay Pride” (aka the male-on-male buggery and felching movement) to wild audience applause and “virtue” signals from David Walliams & the rest of the panel; to adapt a WW2 quote which will be understood by those cognisant of pansexual decadence: “Some chickens. Some neck!”
As for the rest of this programme, which appears to have ditched some remarkable conjuring and vocal acts from the finals, I am reminded of the question asked by Oswald Spengler when the Queen was a lovely 10 year old normal girl in a nice country: “Will Negro dancing provide the Funeral March for a Great Culture?”
@ Sandra Cooke
There are many able and agreeable “black” people, but the entertainment media gives a prime focus on those of them whose chief skill is to use their lower limbs either as the “English” soccer team or as people who can only jump up, down and about to monotonous “music”. On top of that we have less than 5% of the UK population making up a majority of TV adverts, except for the addition of white women as partners and mixed-race kids; the larger Indian and Polish communities are relatively eclipsed as are those of us born with “white” skins. What is the point of this exercise? How does it reduce “racism”?
I thought the “look like us” revision of white/western/English literature &c would stop at the portayal of a Black Winston Churchill, but apparently this actually occurs in a current play about the suffragettes. Roll on the day when Ricky Gervais plays St Nelson Mandela.
It seems that Black self-esteem has gained the status of a delicate and fragile treasure – all too easily damaged by careless words, unflattering scrutiny, insufficient deference or even insufficient praise.
Worth considering the Sasha Johnson shooting and the failure of the Black ‘community’ to identify the perpetrators – but we are not supposed to notice that.
The US “American Renaissance” online site will lead the curious into FACTS and STATS about race and crime.
@Brian S. Rockford
Interesting piece by David Cole in Takimag.com this week: “Dysgenic Supremacy” giving some indication of how the virulent post-George Floyd denigration of “whiteness” has led to growing absurdity in US education.
The ideas of one Dr. Gholdy Muhammad are especially half-baked and damaging: skills based education is white supremacist, she insists. If black kids underachieve in education then the system itself must be at fault (and racist). Destroy the system and build a new one which favours the abilities of black kids who, according to Doc Gholdy, are all natural geniuses in their own way (yes, really!).
There we see an old Leftist notion given a new, woke, anti-white spin – the idea that conventional teaching is inherently authoritarian and therefore oppressive. One need only be given room to fulfill one’s natural potential. JJ Rouseau for the 21st Century – the Romantic dream never dies.