What is the Vanguard?

Introductory speech form Nomos Birmingham March 26th 2022

This speech was part of Nomos Birmingham

Without attendees, there is no community. Without community, there will never be the vanguard group that native Brits need if they wish to survive

To Lenin, the Vanguard or Vanguard party as he saw it had one sole purpose:

“...to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat; a rule of the working class. The change of ruling class, from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat, makes possible the full development of socialism.” 

Now whilst many of us will balk at the idea of class consciousness amongst the proletariat, or what is laughably claimed as full or real Socialism. We must recognise the power of such a statement to those who are already inculcated with radical Marxist thought. Lenin may have held some downright evil and missguided ideas. He was, however, no fool when it came to understanding power–and its necessity for social change.

The vanguard party was never going to constitute the entirety of the working class, nor did Lenin have any interest in making it do so. He knew all too well that a cadre of Marxist elites had to “represent” the proletariat, for the masses themselves can never be organised as a whole. Some of the early Bolshevik meetings of the late 19th century took place with as little as two dozen members with a handful of revolvers shared amongst them; they planned and consciously saw themselves as a force which could change the world. And, to some extent they achieved this, the democratic age of the 20th century was in many ways defined by Leninist and later Social Democratic thought. Whether money from wall street and the help of western intelligence agencies helped in this process is an issue for another time, but one must recognise that there would have been no Bolshevism, no October Revolution and possibly no USSR, without the pre-existing radical thought of Lenin and his Vanguard.

This should be of little surprise to us, yet many disregard vanguardism and so too do they disregard radicalism, even when it comes from ostensibly their own group; politically, ethnically or economically. To the tone of “revolutionary, racist, fascist” and the like, vanguard groups find themselves constantly under the ire. Maybe this very phenomena shows the true power of and subsequent hesitancy around vanguardism, even those of a politically engaged disposition are terrified at the thought of their own “class” becoming “conscious”. The strangeness to us of such language is, in its own way, a sign of the desperate need for our very own Vanguard.

It is verboten, to be part of or even think good, of any group which could raise the consciousness of native Brits to a level whereby they begin to recognise the struggle that we all face in kind. To hold on to radical yet traditional thinking of what constitutes Britain, its people, its culture and its order, is to separate oneself from polite modern society. To make a stand and say that Britain, and its people, should not be bent out of shape to fit modernity. Instead, the modern world must be bent to fit British continuation of both people and values; unless, of course, such a continuation is made entirely unfeasible by modernity—in which case modernity itself must be rejected wholesale. It is a step outside of the bounds of the pragmatism that is all too familiar within political discourse. It is to think of what is truly best for Britain, its people and to reject the managerial regime with its scientistic bun-fight of numbers, facts and studies that boggle the masses. One can only represent the mass properly by feel, by communicating to fellow initiates about the necessary end goal of an intensely existential struggle, and to ask the very simple yet so often overlooked question “Is this in our interest?” 

“The only reason for vanguardism is for the elite to protect the mass and seek to bring it forward in history, because the mass can never act for itself.” -Jonathan Bowden

For the masses do not have the time, education nor the diligence to fully grasp the crisis facing Western and consequently British civilisation. Much like the proles of the late 19th century had no interest in Marxist ideology, even if they were lucky enough to be able to read. It is only when the self interested goals of any individual are disrupted by some facet of the crisis facing us all, that they even dare to peer behind the curtain. For most, it is normally too late in life to make an attempt to halt and overturn the erosion. This is by no means a mistake or accident; the ties of family, career, mortgage and the like are a fantastic prophylactic against radical thinking and organisation. That is if the individual doesn’t flee and cower upon first bearing witness to the nature of the task at hand, be that from the sheer overwhelming scale of the crisis or the direct threats upon those who are willing to identify the crisis—especially publicly. The mass is indeed conscious, but only on a lower level where each individual amidst it feels alone, powerless and voiceless in his own singular struggle.

“To explain correctly the present state of affairs is the great task of the agitator.” -Mao Zedong

This sensation of feeling alone, despite recognising a group you belong to or identify with, is the condition of modern man. Interpersonal connections are forced—literally in the case of civil rights, asinine, purely material, or even purely immaterial as technology allows. The rapid expansion of cities required the destruction of the old world and its towns, villages and dwellings the world over. So too went its ways of organisation, be they churches, guilds, local government and militias to name a few, and thus the masses were born.

A proportion of society that can never quite be quantified, but always remains present enough to reflect the centrality of modern social organisation. And, of course, to organise such a mass one needs propaganda. No longer can it be said that the majority of British cultural products are an organic representation of British values or people. There is only the shallow puddle of mass media. For Lenin too recognised that the national newspaper in and of itself performed the function of mass organisation. A single media outlet which could talk to the whole nation at once and yet speak separately to each and every individual on his own—as a representative of that mass. In the words of Jacques Ellul:

“This is the situation of the ‘lonely crowd’, or of isolation in the mass, which is a natural product of present-day society and which is both used and deepened by the mass media.”

Ellul also recognised the need to destroy what he called “small groups”, in order to make propaganda effective in its totality.

“Only when very small groups are thus annihilated, when the individual finds no more defences, no equilibrium, no resistance exercised by the group to which he belongs, does total action by propaganda become possible.”

Hence why having our small group, our vanguard, is so important. It is vital to the survival of Britain, not just to counter the low hanging fruit of left wing journalism or to shift the Tory Party vote by a marginal percentage, but to counter the very concept of modern parliamentarism when it no longer reflects our interests and to stand against the progressivism that is propagated from all sides. Even those who stand and are said to be speaking from a place of tradition, do so only meekly as they are all too ensconced in the milieu of presently oriented thought. Only small and ultimately radical groups that can maintain their radicalism through the test of time can even begin to speak of tradition in any sense that is true. It is only that true connection to tradition and heritage which will help to quell the condition of The Lonely Crowd. A connection to assist in understanding their position amongst their own kind, not just through the dissemination of ideas in media, but through action itself. In this sense we can create behaviours that make possible the full development of traditionalism.

For those of you who were present at our previous event in Manchester, you may recall a passage from Julius Evola used within my speech: 

“The opposition between modern civilisations and traditional ones may be summarised as follows: modern civilisations devour space, whereas traditional civilisations devoured time.”

It seems only too obvious that a group, especially one that devotes itself to the radical adherence of traditional ideas, need not consume money, energy or space but must instead consume time. This, I feel, is our greatest challenge; the perfect strategy, the correct narrative or type of artistry will be in vain if we cannot create an air of permanency. We, as the vanguard, must be able to stand the tide of modernity and refuse to move with its flow, even when it appears to be in a relative state of ebbing.

Within this one can truly begin to delve into what makes the vanguard so special; it is not the content of ideologies, strategies or principles, but the very attitude with which each member approaches organisation. The persistence and radicalism of the vanguard will not be born from adherence to the avenues of rationalism, pragmatism or ideology; rather sentiments like heroism, myth, and authenticity will propel the vanguard through time and in to the position needed for the raising of consciousness and a change over of the ruling class. 

It will do so because it's heroism, its mythos and glory, will be grounded in a realism that no quantity of spreadsheets, databases or polling could ever reach. Each and every one of us here recognises that it is down to us, and only us, to take on the impossible and remould it into the possible. Yet one can only do this if one is willing to fail, which is a sentiment I see many misinterpret. It is thought by a worrying number of our allies on the right that the possibility of failure itself is enough reason to give up hope. However, I feel that this provides us with a fantastic opportunity to gatekeep and develop the aforementioned attitudes that are all too crucial to vanguardism. One must not wait around or expect to be handed victory, one must be willing to take it, by any means necessary.

“Who is he that says always, “There is a lion in the way?” Sluggard! Thou must slay the lion then; the way has to be travelled!” -Thomas Carlyle