Originally Pitched as a Witan 2022 Speech & Essay
The coalescence of a group identity is key to forming any movement, but for one based around a counter regime traditionalism–that is deliberately and radically dissident–it is at the top of the priorities list. Without an idea of who we are and what we want there is no moving forward. These ideas I believe are coalescing as we’ve heard a somewhat cohesive set of talks based around shared ideas and ideals. This is encouraging, but there is–partly by design–a large barrier to entry to interface with those ideas. There is no “bottom rung” or “thin end of the wedge” that is not in some way steeped in the ideas of our ideological enemies and the ruling elite. This is not a populist movement, indeed it rejects the very notion of functional change through populism, but it is one that must secure the action and inaction of certain groups if it is to find a path to power. The most neglected aspect of that pathway is the function of what De Jouvenel referred to as the periphery, those who are totally shut out of the power process and with whom those wishing to gain power can make a powerful alliance. As the philosopher and historian David Humes points out, the many are always governed by the few; this is not done by raw force–which numerically is always on the side of the governed–but by the belief in legitimacy of that governance to some degree. We may not seek electoral power, but how do we gain a level of basic legitimacy in the eyes of the masses?
The answer I and many others have come upon is to posit ourselves the true heirs of Britain's ideals and draw on its long history to show the illegitimacy of the current order in regard to the basic principles of Britishness and the peoples that make up the native populations of Britain. I spoke in my essay last year of drawing on the long diluted spirit of the British liberal tradition as an antidote to modern mass democracy–a tradition that is radically propertarian, steeped in older traditions and wholly incompatible with the modern conception of Liberalism. Those ideas of freedom and property still have some remnants in the modern world and can serve as a starting point to draw on a deep ocean of native British ideas and identity consisting of thousands of years of pre-modern concepts. I do not believe we are so degraded, uprooted and deracinated that the ancient spirit of these isles is lost. To quote that essay:
“The rights of the Englishman to build his shelter, till the earth, raise a family as he sees fit, defend his property, praise his God, and be unmolested by those who would consider themselves his betters goes back before Locke’s homesteading principle and into the mists of Albion.”
Getting those ideas to at least a section of the masses in a form they can readily understand is vitally important. There is a whole slew of the British public that is primed to be receptive to these ideas, an ember of Albion still burns within them, it can once again grow into a flame if only we can parse our ideas in the correct terms. But in order to get there, we must first take a trip to the pub:
The Power of the Pub
Nowhere do the remnants of a Britain long past bubble to the surface more than in the local pubs, they are whispered in dark corners of The Kings Arms, and then perhaps even shouted in slurred fashion after a few more pints. There are no content moderators in the pub, the bouncer isn’t interested that you said a no-no word in confidence to a friend, he has real problems to deal with; junkies, drug dealers and–god forbid–Hen parties. He’s a working man like the rest of the punters.
The local pub is an institution and it is the closest thing to time travel you can do in Britain–sometimes almost literally with many suffering pubs ill equipped to afford a major refit since the 1980s. In areas where a community still clings to life it is the singular informal meeting point for extended conversation between members of that community and therefore a place ripe for discussion unmoderated by the power structure inexorably leading to dissent.
For that reason I believe the war on the local pub is no accident, its decline has been excused as being “good for the health of the nation” with panics around “binge drinking” and the patronizing indoor smoking ban taking their toll on the pub along with minimum unit pricing, higher alcohol taxes, higher alcohol production costs and a general anti small business environment chipping away at the local pubs. In the UK we have lost almost fourteen thousand of our pubs–that’s a full twenty two percent–between 2000 and 2019. That’s even more dramatic when you consider the population has increased by around fourteen percent in that time period. This is even before we factor in the onslaught of the lockdowns and the current needless suicidal inflation spiral–two things I will expand upon later.
Nothing shows a town or city in decline like a closed or converted pub, I find it a mournful sight that inspires genuine sadness in me. If I routinely wore a flat-cap like my Lancashire forebears I would remove it in solemn reverence. I mourn not just because of my personal enjoyment of them as an institution, but because their disappearance represents a shrinking of the spirit of a dissident, localist world they carry. I do not wish to repeat myself too much, so I will once again draw on my previous work:
“One heartening factor is that, in my experience, there is a dormant desire for ideas precisely of this type with the British public. There is a constant thread of “man in the pub politics” which runs counter to the prevailing narrative. The elite strata may control mass media, but they have never convinced the man in the pub. He is committed to his family and his community before any layer of state ideology. It is often said that the average British man is more nationalistic than his current rulers, but this is a misreading—his instinct is far more localistic. Millwall localism supersedes working class nationalism. This commitment to town as tribe is a source of great derision within the managerial strata of society; it is seen as the apex of vulgar “gammon” behaviour.”
Polling done by the regime themselves bares this out, as does their own propaganda. There is much hand-wringing over the dangers of “English Nationalism” or the “anti-immigrant” sentiments of the lower classes. There is an obsession with what is put forward as the moral health of the nation–with the working class imbued with undesirable ideas akin to a disease in the eyes of the ruling elite. But you shouldn’t need to look at the polling. It's obvious. You can go down to the pub yourself and ask them. As we talk about these concepts from a birds eye view, it is important to understand that this is a phenomenon made up of individuals who experience the boot of the current order from which we can truly be liberators. These shared experiences build up into a class-consciousness.
Big Baz: The Lumpenproletariat
There is an in-built aversion within right wing circles to talking about class–and especially class consciousness–in a serious manner. Class as a political reality is seen as an affectation of Marxist thought, in the same way the liberal centrist has been trained to desire a colour-blind society and tuts dissapprovingly at those who see race as an immutable reality, so too is class seen as a remnant of the dark, non-egalitarian past to be falterned and extinguished in service of the atomised, sovereign individual. Strides have been made in identifying and reckoning with “The Elite Class'' and “The Managerial Class” as groups who act with a clear class consciousness and shared purpose, but little attention has been paid to the British working class. If we are to be the guardians of hierarchy and order–the staunch anti-egalitarians–then instilling the correct logos within the average British working man is of vital importance.
Widespread as though it may be, the “man in the pub politics” of the working class is something that–when expressed publicly–is used to mark individuals out firmly as enemies to be dehumanized and disregarded. Within Marixst theory itself we see a key Get-out-clause reserved for “class traitors'' within the otherwise heroic proletariat:
Lumpenproletariat, (German: “rabble proletariat”), according to Karl Marx in The Communist Manifesto, the lowest stratum of the industrial working class. The members of the Lumpenproletariat—this “social scum,” said Marx—are not only disinclined to participate in revolutionary activities with their “rightful brethren,” the proletariat, but also tend to act as the “bribed tools of reactionary intrigue.”
Signaling the Lumpenproletariat status of what is now a measurable majority of the working class is a very prominent feature of modern British politics; these are the “Gammons” who en masse stubbornly “vote the wrong way,” much to the regime’s chagrin. They key here is not their lowly or outsider status, but their unwillingness to engage in “class struggle,” and in many modern usages of the term simply apolitical or the non leftist working class are considered Lumpenproletariat. Despite the readiness of traditional and modern leftists to recruit from and venerate the ranks of the criminal class, they use a natural reactionary impulse of disgust at base criminality to conflate their working class opponents with that section of the social order.
As Paul Gotfried points out in The Strange Death of Marxism: The European Left in the New Millennium, genuine revolutionary Marxism in the traditional sense has completely been abandoned by the ruling elite as their perceived status from insurgent to managerial class has solidified. They wear Marxist trappings like a skin suit and utilize it cynically and pragmatically to their own ends, but nowhere more cynical than in regards to the British working class.
As presented in other essays in this book, the modern managerial class see the working poor as mere livestock. Their efforts focus on keeping them free of disease and able to fulfill their functions within the social order and ever more complex societal systems–this is why we see focus on “national health” and “herd immunity.” Along with the aforementioned binge drinking excuse to give the local pub another good kicking, these are a prime example of another of Gotfried’s salient subjects “The Therapeutic State” which aims to meddle and medicate all dissident feeling away, seeing it as a form of mental illness. Rather than delve into why the man in the pub finds his reality so repugnant that he wants to blot it out with fifteen pints, they simply seek to tax that pint more so he can only afford ten.
Thomas Carlyle in his writings quite humorously makes use of personified typical Englishmen to make his point, the William the Wood Turners of his age make his essays more grounded and give a sense of time and place to his words. Some of you may be aware of the Norf FC memes and their strangely endearing portrait of the northern working class. He is, quite literally Lumpen in that imagery–head like a great stubbly potato, body wide and football shirt clad. He is a loving caricature in almost the victorian “John Bull” style and his understanding of the predicament of modernity is one that is purely intuitive and instinctive. “Love me pint. Love me footy. ‘ate them illegal immigrants. Not racist, just don’t like ‘em. Simple as.” His is a world where that is the extent of logos, where right is right and wrong is wrong. Praxis and Logos are needlessly fancy words for the world of the local pub, in a way his intuitive understanding is more pure, less corrupted by having to talk yourself into the obvious solution: clear them out. He is a fiction, a thought exercise, but he embodies a spirit that disquiets the establishment deeply.
Images of large, tattoo’d, gammon-faced men amassing to make themselves heard (and felt) completely outside of the control of traditional political forces makes the effeminate public school boys of the whitehall mandarin class quake and sweat with genuine fear. This is why so much attention is paid to vilifying the reactionary working class in a way dissident intellectuals or those with a higher social status are not. This is because those people are more easily bribed and bullied, they have more to lose and are inculcated enough within the system to know where they can make gain through compromise and concession. Big Baz is less easy to deal with, his anger is not intellectualized but is raw and vital.
The Most Hated Men in Britain
This is why–for example–Tommy Robinson was performatively put in prison but someone like Peter Hitchens was not. This is why Kevin Crehan was effectively murdered by the British state for putting bacon on a mosque door handle and pedophile serial rapist Qurban Ali is now once again free to walk the streets of Rotherham. The right wing working class man of action is the most hated form of dissident; and when the establishment signals through both stated and revealed preference that something scares them, you should take notice.
Groups such as Robinson’s former English Defence League embody–albeit clumsily–a genuine groundswell of feeling. There have been dozens of these groups, movements and political parties throughout the years that have tried to embody the spirit of rightward working class dissidence but none of them found real allies within the establishment or secondary power centers and none really had an intellectual or disaffected elite vanguard behind and above them to keep them both cohesive and focused. You need both sides of this equation if you are not to merely fizzle out, largely because earnest grassroots working class action is the most heavily targeted by both the police or intelligence services. The men who make up these movements are imprisoned–as Robinson was–and bullied into situations of compromise, often becoming agents of the security state itself. This is a function of the current elite’s hegemony, and even in the political mainstream, instincts of working class dissidence are signed as low status and morally wrong.
Much has been made of “the crumbling of the red wall” in British politics, with the media dutifully falling back to calling the native working class of Britain all the signifiers of the modern Lumpenproletariat. Their rightward dissidence is a subject of mainstream debate, but so far it has mostly seen only controlled outlets with which to express itself. Despite being great in number, the supposed egalitarians of the modern British state have ruthlessly suppressed the presence of the native working class within the governing elite strata.
I spoke in a previous speech presented at Nomos Birmingham entitled Where Are The New Elite? about this very phenomenon:
“Males who excel without the conniving traits that would allow them to dishonestly integrate into modern education are the very definition of what Pareto dubbed “The Lions,” natural elites who favour strength, bravery, and honesty above the purely intellectual—what we would have previously thought of as the warrior class. Preventing these individuals emerging from circles not already subsumed in the elite structure is of extraordinary benefit to the current elite class as they constitute the most dangerous potential threat to it.”
What I did not have time to elucidate fully during that presentation is that these Lions are overwhelmingly working class men who are driven to work in practical or manual fields. Many Working Class men have better financial means than their middle class office bound contemporaries, as good plummers, roofers, fitters, plasterers, builders etc can command a high premium and often grow to employ multiple other people. They are—nonetheless—shut out of the managerial process even though the self-employed and small owner-operators are those who feel the brunt of the bureaucratic state most keenly, neatly demonstrated by the recent lockdowns. This is because the regime would not survive their integration into its ruling class in its current form, they are fundamentally incompatible with it.
Samuel T. Francis in his magnum opus Leviathan and its Enemies points out the link between the intolerant views of the working class and their exclusion from the managerial ruling class; quoting Seymour Martin Lipset in 1960 he says: “Public opinion data from a number of countries indicate that the lower classes are much less committed to democracy as a political system than are the urban middle and upper classes.” Those with ideas and skills that don’t fit into the rigid social expectations of the current ruling order are kept on the periphery, no matter how much competence they demonstrate. This is why you can have absurdities like working class millionaires: the aforementioned non technocat business owners are still shut out of the power structure no matter how much wealth they accrue. Working Class in Britain is no longer simply an economic signifier but a deep cultural and political one too. Pareto in his theories predicted this polarization of the social order between the ruling and non ruling elite and it forms the basis for his theory of the circulation of elites and ideas of social revolution.This is why both Perato and Francis posit that that causal relationship between anti-regime ideas and lower social status is reversed from how we are taught to see it: these people are not ‘intolerant’ because they are relegated to what is perceived as a lower class, they are relegated to a lower social class because they have counter-regime ideas. There are then massive untapped resources to be drawn upon by those who can energise and activate those within the British working class who are receptive to a traditionalist and dissident message. Potential “Lion” elites abound in this abandoned class, natural leaders that are incompatible with the current order–we cannot afford to ignore them if we wish to make headway. The issue is, once again, forging a bridge to those people who have been systematically walled off from each other and elites who may share their ideals.
Containment and Control
Jonathan Bowden made most of his speeches in pubs for a good reason; he was one of the few men of logos in the 21st century who could communicate readily with the disaffected working class in Britain and often did so face to face. The pub is really the only readily accessible non-digital space where these ideas can be talked about– and as such in times of imposed crisis we as a movement must strive to keep those community meeting places open and full of conversation. Pub of course is simply short for “Public House,” a concept reflecting that these places mostly started as people’s homes open to the drinking public. There were some heartening hints of a speakeasy culture during the lockdowns–dissident speakeasies in times of crisis and persecution are an excellent idea. I will give a shout out to “The Cathedral” project run by the London Basket Weavers as a real world example of this, being a dissident pop-up club.
Bowden exists firmly in a beyond the pale area of British politics because of his activism with The British National Party. Even within current dissident circles, you would find more people with proudly displayed copies of Sir. Oswald Mosely’s “The Alternative” than would who openly admit they had supported the BNP at one time or another. Within the mass media the BNP functioned as a working class zoo for journalists to poke and prod at the caged examples of working class rage. Its continual public humiliation ended up as a cautionary political tale about why you don’t listen to the scum and why the working class would do best to keep their reactionary thoughts to themselves lest they suffer the same fate. The BNP was a caricature of the Lumpenproletariat used to sully the idea of any outlet for working class dissident right wing feeling at the height of the Blair regime, there could be no party to the right of The Tories during this time as that would allow a shift of where the center ground was located. Once the Tories were back in power though, this building rage needed a controlled outlet.
Nigel Farage and UKIP emerged as a more palatable, emasculated version of what the BNP had become in the Nick Griffin years, due to its attempts to exist within the party political system. UKIP gained large, widespread dissident working class support acting as a lightning rod for those opposed to mass immigration and the wholesale abolition of their birth nation an E.U. superstate would bring about. I am convinced a large part of the success of UKIP was simply down to the fact Nigel Farage looked comfortable holding a pint, whereas most politicians look like alien robots when they try so much as eat a sandwich. His big bloke in the pub energy and single issue message made him the perfect sound-bite machine for Big Bazzes the country over.
This mass support culminated in one of the most written about events of postwar British politics: Brexit, the supposed routing of the establishment by the lumpenproletariat brexiteer scum. Seen in retrospect the Brexit referendum was a disaster for non establishment British politics as the effective disbanding of UKIP in its aftermath meant all that pent up working class rage over a whole slew of subjects could effectively be dissipated into a sea of wannabee successor parties, with most of the Bexiteers folded back into the Tory Party with Boris Johnson their Great Blonde Hope. Brexit and the collapse of UKIP functioned as the most effective method to reintegrate those who had shifted into a soft dissident space back into the party-political mainstream–especially those of a working class background.
UKIP never had what Johathan Bowden wanted British right wing politics to have: a genuinely radical revolutionary spirit. Working class British identity in the media is still tied to the ghost of Arthur Scargill, the myth of leftward revolutionary action against the evil tyrant Maggie Thatcher the milk snatcher. In reality Scargill ended up being seen as a disgrace within the union movement after attempts to sell the UK out to the Soviet Union for personal gain, but his myth is still lionized by the established order as he represents action that is wholly captured by the establishment. The Labour Movement he so violently fought for is the same movement who’s elected MPs allowed mass immigration into those same northern mining communities. You can draw a straight line between blood on the picket lines and islamic rape gangs, but even this admission of reality is something no major UK political party would dare to do.
The Unspeakable
At some point–if a dissident movement is to be successful–it must reckon with some level of recognition and tolerance. The message we have is a powerful one, a resonant one and one which simply needs articulating to people who already know it implicitly. Part of “what must be done” is creating messaging and outreach that can build a bridge to that section of the masses, Baz evangelism. I speak not of building a mass, bottom up movement of course; but in order to start being a power center we need to start thinking like one. The British working class man is an ideal peripheral figure to ally with once a central vanguard has been formed, as discussed earlier those of a ruling temperament that do not fit with the conniving managerial “Foxes”--as Pareto described–are cast out into the political and social wilderness where they are primed for our message and well equipped to be of help.
Speaking of the socialism and Marxism of the 1950s and before, Peter Hitchens has this to say in The Abolition of Britain:
More modern divisions over social or sexual attitudes were simply not reflected in the left-right split. Working-class socialists were likely to be less sympathetic to homosexuality, more opposed to abortion, more likely to support stiff alcohol licensing laws (and even to have been brought up believing in temperance) than middle-class Conservatives. Two of the most dogged opponents of abortion law reform were the Mahon brothers, Labour MPs from Merseyside. Nobody saw anything strange about this. Labour’s working-class base was also its conservative foundation. Working-class socialists of the time were at one with the middle class on the need for good behaviour. All were also intensely law abiding, orderly and respectable.
Standard working class socialist fare from 1900 right up until the late 1960s would today be considered deeply reactionary, span on in the halls of the Labour party conference as the dreaded “ Blue Labor– even in the halls of the Tory art conference many of these issues such as abortion are considered beyond the pale. The political soul of old-style working class socialism has already been put into the category of the politically unspeakable, making the Big Baz working class man something of a political untouchable. He is no longer placated in the modern political landscape by promises of handouts from the state–and hollow tub-thumping around soaking some imaginary sneering capitalist class to pay for them. He is disconnected from his traditional values utterly when it comes to political representation. He wants his town back, he wants to live in a country he recognises, he wants his kids safe, he wants his work to be meaningful and honest–he is already a reactionary without knowing it.
What we are offering is not a hard sell: natural ideas of order and implicitly understood by the working man of britain Family, community, strength and localism are already things that appeal to him– and we have one more ace up our sleeve: in regards to the fetid, aging ruling elite who cling to power, we do genuinely want to “clear them out!”
Discussions around propaganda was a major theme in multiple speeches this year, and its base nature should not be shied away from. If the Tory party genuinely wanted to dominate in their newly conquered electoral northern territories in places like Rotherham their adverts attacking their rivals would not be "Labour Isn't Working” or “Labour's going for broke again” they would be “A Paki Raped Your Daughter Because of Labour.” There is an off the record comment I’ve heard multiple times from people who’ve had political careers of some form or another that any party that promised to “hang all the nonces” would capture the native British working class vote overnight, but of course doing so would lead to a crucifixion in the media along with the electoral commission and Parliamentary standards commission crippling any political party who did take this line of campaigning.
De-intelectualising and simplifying down complex ideas is not a “low” pursuit, it is one of the most difficult things to do and expresses a high maturity of those ideas. These ideas–our logos–must be capable of being distilled down to their purest essence in order to stir action and create praxis. We cannot wring our hands about “oversimplification” when appealing to different audiences, nor should we be worried about “fairness” to a class of people who have already singled us out as an existential enemy to be utterly destroyed. If we are to appeal to the working class non ruling elite–Big Baz, the lion–we must be simple, decisive and confident. We must deal with truths and certainties he already knows intuitively to be reality but that no one else is brave enough to say. Not just surface level platitudes about rowing back the excesses of the latest phase of social degeneration, but an embodiment of that truly revolutionary spirit Bowden wanted to instill.
Those trapped in the dying areas of britain–the council estates and new non-native ghettos–who are without hope are those most primed to accept this message. Their lack of exposure to the propaganda machine in the education system means they are less integrated into the ideas and systems of the regime. These people are the true political untouchables, portrayed as feckless and useless–lower than the immigrant who will work for pennies an hour to boost the sacred GDP. Those people have truly been betrayed–even the regime media acknowledge they have been relegated to an “educational underclass”--but are sneered at for the conditions imposed on them. Their anger is the most raw, and their hatred of the current order the most ingrained. We are often accused of representing “the politics of hate,” but this is something we should not disavow: hatred of the conditions we and our countrymen find ourselves in is not something to shy away from. I hate what Britain has become, what it is still becoming, and I hate those who are deliberately transforming for their own gain. Portraying politics as a class war between the native British man and a class of disloyal elites who are quite literally sacrificing the wellbeing of the nation’s children for their political projects of personal power is incredibly powerful–and above all it is true.
This kind of rhetoric is politically unthinkable–despite the fact it would be ruthlessly effective–because you cannot put that kind of English working class rage back in the bottle; if fed and harnessed it would lead to the destruction of the current order and so there is an agreement between the supposedly bitter enemies within the political parties to never utilize the power. The massive advantage any truly dissident movement would have is that it can promise, in no uncertain terms, to make the enemies of the British working class man suffer. That impulse requires neither nuance nor finesse, it is pure praxis. The anger in Britain is a raw, perpetually open wound that has not found a satisfactory outlet or even a voice. A lid has been placed over it all we need to do is remove it. But, as our good friend Panama Hat pointed out in his speech, a lumbering body of praxis is nothing without a head to guide it. The immense strength is simply wasted in an orgy of unfocused, violent action.
Body and Mind
In the immediate term though this is all logos, it's all theory. I do appreciate the irony of advocating for pure praxis through the medium of logos as its clear thought must precede action, but action must inevitably come lest the nascent dissident movement be relegated to a head in a jar. There is a feeling of a dearth of Praxis, a paralysis many feel in the dissident space around the idea of action. We should less be looking at “Logos Vs. Praxis” in the adversarial sense, but looking at them yin and yang to be kept in balance and to their credit most of the speakers have done this to some degree. Let us then move to the world of theory and examine how the native working class anger of the modern British man interfaces with the Jouvenelian model of power.
First, a brief explanation of the model: De Jouvenel divides power distribution into three areas; primary, secondary and periphery or “High, middle and low” if you will. The primary power center–which he refers to as Power with a capital “P”– is where sovereignty is held. It is the home of the ruling elite. The secondary power center–the middle–is made up of subordinate organs of state or rival non ruling power centers such as the church, the police etc. They hold power but do not hold sovereignty. The periphery–the low–are the masses who do not exercise or wield institutional power. This is where the British working class reside. In his book Nemesis, C.A. Bond discusses the model in relation to the periphery in an easily understandable way:
“At times, it is this Power which aligns with the periphery as a means to strengthen itself and weaken the subsidiary power centers; at other times, it is the subsidiary power centers which engage with the periphery to undermine and overtake the primary Power. Whatever section is aligning with this periphery, it should be noted that without this alliance between a power center and the periphery, the periphery is itself basically irrelevant. Without the assistance of a center of power, any action by the periphery is, by virtue of lacking institutional embodiment and political protection,at best sporadic and ineffective. A popular protest, rebellion, or any other form of dissenting action by the periphery, if it has no support from an element in the power structure, will quickly fade into irrelevance.”
This model provides a good explanation of why this anger has failed to boil over despite its ubiquity in modern britain: there is no secondary power center willing to ally with the dissident working class, despite it being of immense size. Within traditional leftist models the periphery is made up of some invocation of the proletariat working class such as trade union members and other labor organizations. Major British trade unions are now fully on board with all aspects of the regime programme to the degree they do not even object to the dilution of the labor market via mass immigration. The supposed periphery the current power center reaches down to is an illusory one: it is in fact made up of activists from secondary power centers like NGOs, political interest groups, large charities, universities and think-tanks that parrot its own rhetoric back at them. The only peripheral group the current power center does genuinely reach down to are recent immigrants–even the supposedly oppressed racial and sexual minorities have long been folded into the secondary power structure once they become established in the UK. This goes some way to explaining why mass immigration is so important: a constant stream of violent immigrants are a group that can be used to threaten the native population of Britain if they do not go along with the ruling class.
What this means is that they put themselves deliberately at odds with every non-elite, non regime native british person. This is where self preservation has begun to take over, but political hegemony has stopped it taking an organized shape. This is where we come in. Demystifying dissident action to mobilize the genuinely dispossessed native working classes is the path to effective action once a toe-hold in the secondary power structure has been achieved.
We cannot view the anger of our countrymen–our kin–as a utilitarian object to be wielded or with the anthropological dissociation the modern intellectual class views it with. Rudyard Kipling’s “The Beginnings” speaks the infamous line “When the English began to hate.” In that poem it is a silent, slow but justified hatred growing reluctantly but inexorably in the ordinary man, “It will not swiftly abate.” We are not fermenting this sentiment, we are merely giving it an avenue to be resolved. To do so we must be genuine in our belief and earnest in our actions, the only way to build that bridge is through personal relationships and community building. It is down through a form of evangelism and creates a permanent group identity rather than a transitory mob. Radical Liberation spoke of the growth of the early church as an example of this and Panama Hat spoke of the infection logos that enabled the spread of ideas. Those ideas are best spread in the natural community hubs we have remaining, the pubs, the social clubs, the hobby groups.
Johnathan Bowden’s immortal chant of clear them out was most often shouted whilst holding a pint in a pub full of people also holding pints. He was a man whose legacy mostly consists of poorly recorded pub backroom speeches that are nevertheless hoarded and poured over today like rare bootleg Beatles recordings. Perhaps this time, time shall count from the date that Baz began to hate. Outreach to the political periphery is a bridge we need to be consciously building now–and alliances already in place–if the full apparatus of praxis is to be there when it is needed.
Hatred of the ruling class and the intellectual class by the working class is seen as a permanent feature of social order–but in Britain that is simply not true. Residual love for the crown stretching back centuries still remains and is one of the last cohesive forces in modern British society. This pale shadow of past nationalism was called upon during the Diamond Jubilee, briefly clothing the Evolian ashes of modern Britain in a sea of pound-shop union flags and 1950s style street parties. There is genuine love for those who are seen to rule by right and not merely might–and the only right the current order can call on are tattered ideals of democracy and submitting to the “popular will,” even if it means your own destruction.
We are currently a movement of artists, poets, philosophers, intellectuals, writers and scholars with a smattering of engineers, business people and finance thrown in. We should not shy away from our elitist and hierarchical instincts but instead harness them to create a pathway from outer to inner circles that requires genuine commitment and talent. To do this we need to add the practical skills the natural leaders the British working class possess and tap their immense stock of strong, committed and well rooted men. It is not a performative reaching down, but a making whole of a tribe scattered by those who seek to undermine the very idea of Britain and the ancient communities that make it up.