Counter-Currents
Sir Edward Burne Jones, Study for the Sleeping Princess in "The Briar Rose," c. 1881
2,077 words
With nationwide race riots and unemployment up to the 3 million mark, the question is being asked again: will the British people at last wake up and register their rebellion against their rulers through the ballot box and by means of their participation in a mass movement of national renewal?
I have kept on hearing that same question through the past quarter-century in which our country has been sliding into ever deeper decline, and each time that events give a negative answer it is followed by another, related, question: what degree of national catastrophe is then necessary before a real national awakening occurs? How much greater scale of race trouble and how many more unemployed are needed, how much further must living standards tumble, and how much worse must become the general breakdown of society before there is a massed revolt by the populace against the lords of misrule?
At one time I joined the ranks of those who were constantly asking these questions, but not any more.
I am convinced today that any political strategy that is based upon the hope that the mass of the people will one day “wake up” and revolt, as if spontaneously, against their political masters is a futile strategy. Such a thing will not happen.
Race riots can double and triple in their intensity, with not just injury but loss of life on a large scale. Unemployment can jump to 6 million. The nation can go completely bankrupt. All these things can happen, and much more—and there will be no massed rising of protest by the people. The people will not themselves take the initiative to bring about radical political change. There will be no “awakening.”
People will still vote largely as they are directed to vote by those who control the vital channels of public information and opinion. There will of course be protest voters, and these may increase in numbers as conditions become worse, but the numbers will be nowhere sufficient to turn the political tide.
And whenever it is thought that the protest vote could become dangerous, bogus movements of “opposition” and “change” will be created with the aid of much media publicity. These may take the form of factions within the old and established parties or, more rarely and as a last resort, an entirely new party. Examples of the first have been the Powellite movement of the early 1970s, and more latterly the Thatcherite movement of the late 1970s and 1980s, both of these being merely minor variations of the old and worn-out Tory themes of international capitalism and personal individualism.
And of course the obvious example of the second device is the creation of the Social Democratic Party, a party which incorporates all the very worst features of the Tory, Labour and Liberal parties that have become manifest in the conduct of national affairs in the post-1945 period but which, by some fantastic verbal trickery has been somehow represented as a movement of “change” and “reform.”
The appeal of the Social Democrats is of course based on a fundamental lie: the lie that the misfortunes of Britain in recent decades are in some way due to political “extremism” and are therefore to be reversed by a return to “moderation.” In fact it is the very “moderation” (which translated into plain English means cowardice and luck of principle) of the SDP that has paralysed Britain at every point in modern times when she has needed to opt for change or go into further decline.
Nevertheless, these truths that are apparent to every politically thinking individual are totally lost on the masses. Indisposed to make any serious enquiry into how Britain has got into its present mess, or what actual practical propositions the SDP has for getting her out of the mess, millions are now likely to vote for this new phenomenon in British politics in the pathetic belief that it somehow represents a change of direction for this country.
And at the present time there is nothing—absolutely nothing—that any of us can do to stop this happening.
Not On
So the great “waking up” process that many nationalists have hoped for for so many years is not going to occur. We can forget about it.
Personally, I have come to doubt whether there was any time in history when any people “woke up” quite in the sense that some nationalists have in mind when they use the term. Every great national or tribal awakening has occurred, not spontaneously, but by means of the leadership of spirited minorities.
Nevertheless, up to a relatively recent stage of history there resided among the masses of certain nations qualities of patriotism, national pride and sense of duty that were sufficiently strong and widespread for great numbers of those masses to respond instinctively to the appeal of leaders which was addressed to such qualities. In that sense the people of those nations could have been said to have “woken up.”
But today it is improbable that such a national and public consciousness any longer exists in any White, Western nation of significant size, and certainly including Britain. Our people in the mass, like those in the vast majority of our racially kindred nations, have been drugged almost into insensibility where vital matters of the national interest are concerned—drugged by the twin factors of propaganda and soft living, allied to the availability of all manner of instant amusements which provide escapism and fill leisure time once devoted to more serious pursuits.
The result, sad though it is for us to have to admit it, is that the British people are not the virile people they once were; they are not the people who founded and built a great empire; they are not the people who provided the bowmen at Agincourt and who manned the thin red lines at Albuhera and Waterloo; they are not the people who, when some of their menfolk were employed building the French railways during the 19th Century, aroused admiration across Europe for their extraordinary industry arid energy.
A very large part of the British people today consists of lazy, mindless, scruffy and indolent slobs, lacking even the elementary personal pride that is the basis of pride in nation and race. They chuck litter about our streets with the same abandon as they get drunk in foreign tourist resorts, bringing disgrace upon their country as much as they annoy the local citizens and police. Young football mobsters are the worst of these species and, although they may be deemed a small minority of the population, are nevertheless a minority not equalled anywhere abroad.
Another large part consists of those who are sober, respectable folk, who behave properly in private and in public, who do an honest day’s work, who look prim and smart and who observe the law but who are total sheep when it comes to political awareness, let alone political action, and who have cultivated the faculty of isolating themselves behind their double-glazed windows and privet hedges into a little private world of their own in which they are responsible only for family, home and job and can ignore the filth, squalor and bankruptcy of the country around them.
Will a nation today compounded mainly of these two elements “wake up” and take its destiny into its own hands, turning on its misgovernors and recovering its will to greatness? Not a chance!
But that does not mean to say that we should be discouraged. That does not mean to say we should take an attitude of pessimism. It does not mean that victory for us is not possible. It simply means that victory by the process that has dominated the minds of many nationalists for many years—the process of mass awakening and mass action—is not on, and that victory by other processes must be pursued.
It merely underlines what has been true throughout history and what is more true than ever today: that great political change; whether for better or for worse, is made by small minorities who understand and who are able to utilise the mechanics of political power.
Let us not forget that the sloppiness and inertia of the mass has never been regarded by out enemies as a barrier to their political success; those enemies have simply worked with that sloppiness and inertia rather than against it; they have turned it into an asset rather than a hindrance.
First in our enemies’ scale of priorities has come the recruitment, mobilisation and organisation of a politically activated and determined minority. Then has come the acquisition of the vital amenities for communicating with the people on a wider plane and directing them to these enemies desired purpose. With these amenities have come amenities equally important, i.e. those necessary to sustain our enemies in permanent political business, independently of any transitory ups and downs at the polling booths.
Not before this vital infrastructure has been built have our enemies battered their heads against the stone walls of mass inertia and ignorance, hoping for political success through some great popular “awakening” to the magnificence of their message, thereby causing the walls to crumble and the shafts of enlightenment to pour in. The walls have been left as they are, as was the Maginot Line, and they have been circumvented by intelligent strategy and tactics which has penetrated the nerve centres of the victim’s defence.
Masses Follow the Strong
Ultimately, the masses, however great their simmering discontent and however obvious the failure of those leaders in whom they have entrusted their affairs in the past, will only follow leaders and parties that are able to give the impression that they are established and strong; they will not follow anyone who, whatever the soundness or goodness of their message, clearly is lacking in this basic attribute. A St. Paul or a John the Baptist may orate in the market place; unless he has behind him the vital battalions of power, wealth, largeness, and organisation, he will be despised and rejected.
And those vital battalions are acquired only by years of work by active minorities allied to a systematic plan of development which is pursued undeviatingly as well as intelligently arid which exploits all the apparatus of political power appropriate to the age.
The British people in this day and age will not “wake up”; but they can within certain limits “be woken up” by whomever has in his possession an alarm clock powerful enough for the purpose. And then when woken up they can, barring only a tiny minority of them that is incurably biologically degenerate, be restored to their former standards.
Our task at the moment lies in the construction of that alarm clock, i.e. the vital apparatus of organisation, money and communicative resources to be effective in modern political terms. The task can be accomplished, but it can only he accomplished by a drastic readjustment on the part of many of us of their sights, their targets, their range and their time-scales.
We can have no use for the merchants of panic, who stipulate that there must be a mass awakening of the people within such-and-such a number of years or else all is lost—either through expresso-style massed racial mongrelisation, a Soviet invasion or some other fantastic creation of a paranoid mind. If we allow such folk to dictate our strategy and tactics, we will certainly be doomed to continue bashing our heads on stone walls.
But this does not mean that we should listen to the advocates of complacency, who aver that as long as we have God and truth on our side all will come right for us in the end, irrespective of what we ourselves do and the energy and sense of urgency with which we do it.
We have a task to accomplish in as quick a time as it is possible to accomplish it, and if we do not accomplish it in the time hoped for we must simply go on working at it until it is accomplished—always being prepared to be flexible in our tactics, sometimes even reviewing parts of out strategy, but above all never losing our heads.
This is the way our enemy thinks, and he has so far won all the previous rounds. If we learn from this, we can eventually beat him.
Source: Spearhead, no. 158, December 1981, pp. 4, 14.
15 comments
This is the main reason why democracy (aka “shamocracy”) is the ultimate tyranny: it always offers the facade of potential change and reform at election time thus leading the majority to hope for that change every time they allegedly “exercise their power” via the vote. Voting is the single greatest lie of our time. Until the majority of people in any given society — especially the U.K. and U.S. — understand that voting is a donkey and elephant puppet show designed to distract and create false hope, and nothing more, they will remain hopeless. They have been taken in by the deceptive stupor of the democratic voting game.
Let me expound.
Voting induces people to blame themselves when corruption sets in or politicians fail to deliver on their “promises”. The media and out-group politicians then tell voters, “Well, you just voted wrong last time, so be sure and vote right this time.” Put differently, “incumbents out, newcomers and agents of reform in.” This inherently deceptive frontispiece is kept in place to keep the people blaming themselves instead of pointing their fingers at the true culprits of corruption and destruction: the puppet masters who lurk in the shadows and prefer ruling by proxy. We all know who they are.
The systemic flaw in the parliamentary system of the Western democracy is this: when everyone is to blame, no one is to blame. When everyone is accountable, no one is accountable. When everyone is responsible, no one is responsible. In summary, everyone points the finger at everyone else and so nothing ever gets accomplished because no one accepts blame or responsibility. Leadership requires full accountability and personal responsibility, which is why monarchy and dictatorship is not only preferable to the mob, but far more effective in practice.
Things get done in authoritarian systems.
I do believe that a strong-willed minority core is far more effective and much more likely to triumph than a weakly-bound mass that is unlikely to remain tight-knit when the going gets the toughest.
LM/SS
This trenchant article is another of Tyndall’s great assessments of political reality, and the Anglo/White mindset in general. His incisive intellect and canny sense of discernment made him a visionary of extraordinary perspicacity as well.
Wouldn’t we hope that White Humanity in America will wake up? Won’t happen. Those who are awake, like us, are used by those others who are also awake, but benefit from the system of corruption, and we become the scapegoats by which they maintain status, power, and privilege.
With our awakening and complaining, our enemy Whites just raise their virtue by damning our so-called vices.
With the presence of any minority, we will always have Whites who use the victim racket against the rest of us. Until all the browns and blacks are sent back home to where they came from and God wants them to be, we will not have a mass enough awakening to make a difference.
The blacks are staying, and pretty much everything will stay the same: continual decline and degradation, slowly enough that we all just sort of adjust into a mode of managing the worst and trying to hold onto just what little we have left that hasn’t been apostatized.
@sambo-not
Try not to see our situation in such negative terms. A lot of nonwhites in this country are closer to us than our own racial kin. I am not saying that we should join hands and sing praises for the SPLC and NAACP, but I think you are seeing this in a way that does not reflect reality. If the Germans of the 1940s could work with millions of non-Germans and nonwhites, then why the hell can’t we?
LM/SS
Yep, so the way I do it is curtail any temptation to “give back” or “contribute to society,” etc.
I don’t want any of my Whiteness to benefit the blacks, and if I give to my community and those institutions that have helped me but are now fully enveloped by the Diversity Curse, then I am only helping hasten my dispossession all the more.
I trust no one who isn’t explicitly pro White. We simply can’t afford to give of ourselves to help create a future that will only be given away to the blacks and illegals, or stolen from us.
Under the circumstances, racism is the best option.
I boycott everything mainstream- school donations, church donations, etc.
What should really interest all of us is how non-racist conservative Whites are picturing the future. What conclusions do they draw from the prospect, no, reality of becoming a minority? Do they make the connection that as they become minoritized, so will Whites in all institutions? Do they worry that what they are building now will be mostly enjoyed by foreign tribes? Have they yet made the connection and responded as they should, i.e. just say no. Do they yet admit that their church will become Interfaith, which is the fist step toward becoming a Mosque?
Obviously they do not or they would not being doing it.
Our people survived the Mongols. Our people survived the Huns. Our people survived the Persians. Our people survived the Jews and Anglos. Our people will survive this as well.
You underestimate the Germanic spirit within the white race: the one and only hope for the entire white race. Please stop with the whining and start fighting back with the spirit and tenacity of a Valkyrie.
LM/SS
Most countries of Europe have to deal with the same problems for the same reasons. Here is a recent chronicle of mine on the subject. The text is about the situation in France, but it could easily apply to Britain. Apologies for publishing the text in French, but I understand that most readers here have a good knowledge of French.
Ils ne savent même plus tuer un lapin
L’histoire est simple, terriblement simple, et ce serait déjà bien suffisant si elle n’était pas terrible.
Bon, nous connaissons le vaste chantier de destruction de l’Occident chrétien entreprit avec la révolution française. Après, le cahot des guerres fratricides est venu rythmer cahin-caha le développement des nations créées sur la fameuse table rase jusqu’au premier affrontement mondial, cette boucherie orchestrée par les princes de l’usure. Y furent éliminés une grande partie des élites, dans tous les domaines, des nations qui prirent part au conflit. Mais il en restait toujours, et comme ceux là menaçaient de refonder une Europe forte basée sur les nations, un deuxième affrontement mondial fut financé par les mêmes. Une bonne partie de ce qui restait des élites et des guerriers fut laminée dans le combat contre l’ogre bolchévique. La guerre mondiale fut perdue par les nationalistes dont beaucoup connurent la bienveillante justice des vainqueurs. Mais, il en restait toujours, on les envoya dans des endroits impossibles au Tonkin et ailleurs. Bien entendu, on commençait à voir la portion congrue des guerriers et des élites, celle qui avait survécu et que l’on envoya en Algérie, et ainsi de suite.
Cependant, en Europe, à grand cris de « plus jamais ça », de culpabilisations et de repentances, on castrait joyeusement un matériel humain pas bien costaud, pas bien solide sur ses jambes. Et puis, pour être certain que ne renaîtrait pas un sauveur ou une Jeanne d’Arc, on perpertrait à nouveau par l’avortement le Massacre des Innocents, perpétuel celui-là, crime d’Etat financé par les impôts de ceux qui en sont les victimes. Spirituellement, on balançait un Vatican II aux conséquences désastreuses, la dignité et la fierté catholique ainsi que l’esprit des croisades étaient mis à terre. Alors, sans armes, sans uniformes et sans violence apparents ont fit envahir la vieille Europe, peu à peu et de manière croissante, par des hordes de barbares hébétés et brutaux qui salissent et qui cassent tout ce qu’ils touchent, et cela se passe sans problème aucun, car l’homme européen ne sait plus tuer. Il ne sait déjà plus tuer un lapin, le sang lui fait peur, alors tuer un barbare qui viole sa sœur ou sa mère… Au fil des générations le système nerveux des européens, déjà rendu débile par une consommation excessive d’alcool, a été annihilé, ce n’est plus qu’une carcasse avec de la viande dedans et des pulsions consomatrices. Dès que l’on énonce le simple fait qu’il faudra bien tuer tous ces envahisseurs qui chaque jour dévoilent un peu plus le pan de leur volonté de conquête, si on ne veut pas disparaître ou leur sevir de porteur d’eau, on rencontre des regards apeurés d’effarés qui vous prennent pour un fou, tandis que dans ce qui leur reste de cervelle on peut voir cliqueter les étincelles des reflexes pavloviens « plus jamais ça, homme blanc = criminel exploiteur universel, etc. »
L’homme blanc ne sait plus tuer, il ne sait plus tuer un lapin, il sait encore moins tuer son ennemi. C’est là son problème fondamental.
Philippe Régniez,
Unfortunately, relatively few readers here can read French, but your conclusion is quite right: “The White man no longer knows how to kill, he no longer knows how to kill a rabbit, he knows still less how to kill his enemy. This is his fundamental problem.” Indeed, the White man is in a state of moral and intellectual paralysis when it comes to identifying and opposing his enemies.
Can you recommend the works of Henry Coston? You have referred to the “princes of usury”–what Ezra Pound called the “usurocracy”–and I believe that Coston was a major author on this subject. Coston was fortunate not to have been murdered during the so-called épuration.
By the way, I must compliment you on your command of the English language. Aside from occasional orthographical errors, your English is flawless. I wish that I knew French as well as you know English.
Thank you for your compliment – my English is rusty, more than ten years without using it. I paid the hard price for it : twelve years in England, and three in India.
Yes, Coston is worth reading.
Incidentaly, I am preparing a publication of Pound’s text on Usurocracy both in English and in French. I am doing the translation and I am having difficulties finding the time for it.
Usurocracy is the anti-God, it spoils everything, creation, time, space, life, love, etc. and is like a sword of Damocles above everyone’s head.
Philippe, are you familiar with the works of Max Drumont and Roger Lambelin? I know that these works are somewhat dated, but like most classical quality literature, they are also timeless in many respects. Lambelin’s works seem to be rather short and to the point. I read an English excerpt from his book on the Jews and Anglo-Saxons, that impressed me (a long time ago), and would like to see an English language translation of it someday, if someone is interested in doing it.
Junghans,
I think you’ve mixed up the names of Édouard Drumont and Max I. Dimont.
Drumont was the author of the best-selling La France juive (Jewish France) and other works. He was also the founder and editor of the newspaper La Libre Parole (Free Speech), which bore the motto: “La France aux Français” (France for the French).
Dimont was the author of The Indestructible Jews. His account of Jewish history is written with all the objectivity and modesty that one might expect from a Jew. I still find this hard to believe–I cannot fathom the megalomania and messianism involved–but many Jews actually believe that they are “God’s Chosen People” and “a light unto the nations.” It was not for nothing that William L. Pierce said that the Jews have a corner in brass.
WR, thanks for the correction/reminder. It was late & I didn’t take time to confirm his first name. Edouard Drumont’s ‘La France Juive’ has never been translated into English, or published in English. The same goes for Lambelin’s ‘ Le Regne D’Israel Chez Les Anglo-Saxons’, which I mentioned too. What a shame.
Yes, the Jews have indeed cornered the brass market! Pierce knew when a “particular” group had a lock on unmitigated gall and effrontery, and boldly said so
Philippe Régniez,
What text or texts by Ezra Pound are you translating? He wrote many items on economics, which are collected in Impact (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1960) as well as Selected Prose, 1909-1965 (London: Faber and Faber, 1973).
I would not go as far as some writers on our side–such as Pound, William Gayley Simpson, and Ivor Benson–in identifying usury as the taproot of the illegitimate power structures of today. However, I do believe that usury is a cancer should be excised from the economy. There is an excellent chapter on usury in Garrett Hardin’s Living Within Limits (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993) which clearly demonstrates that usury has fraudulent premises and ruinous consequences.
Economics is derived from the ancient Greek term for housekeeping but it now means expropriation. While I’m not a Christian, I can sympathize with Wendell Berry’s remark that modern economics is based foursquare on the seven deadly sins and the breaking of all ten commandments. There is something profane and sinister about modern economics.
White Republican
Drumont, well worth reading, all of it. “A nous la France” Isaac Blümchen – pseudo of Urbain Goyer, well worth reading too.
Pound : America, Roosevelt and the causes of the present war.
There are important analogies in Pound’s ways of reasoning and those of De Maistre (Eclaircissement sur les sacrifices), and up to a point with those of Goethe.
This is a sad, accurate essay. I hear the words of Tomislav Sunic on the Schopenhaurian ‘Volk Metaphysik’, and not only the problem of morally and intellectually challenged white-folk in regards to kill/take-out a common enemy, but also the spiritual imperative — outside the immediately rational box of thought; a new faith if you will, be it meta-political, metaphysical, metapsychological or, all, rolled into one — for the folk and only the folk –“…(By)means of leadership of spiritual minorites.”
It also seems that nationals have, ironically, some waking up to do for themselves. Perhaps they require to smell the coffee that they have been for so long imposing upon the apathetic masses also for themselves.
Thanks, C. G.Hicks.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Edit your comment