Why Britain is not dead

In response to a March 16 post entitled, “The Dead Island continues to decay,” Keith Jacka from England had written:

If the Establishment of a Nation is almost totally disconnected from the main body of the people, then one does not use its doings as an accurate index of the condition of the Nation.

I then replied to him, saying that I don’t see any significant popular resistance to Britain’s establishment.

Today Keith Jacka replies:

Apologies for the delay in answering your note, of the 17th. I reproduce your letter below, for your convenience. And below that, a few comments.

You wrote:

I take your point, but my reply would be, where are the signs of the body of the people resisting the Establishment? I don’t see resistance, I see grumbling. Conservative readers’ comments in British publications almost uniformly do not express outrage and indignation at the things going on; they express sad resignation, they grumble. I’ve pointed out many times how even the most supposedly conservative critical voices among the British commentariat have nothing to say beyond some vague protest, like Leo McKinstry’s pathetic remark the other day that the country must “stand up” to the radical Muslims, without his giving any notion of what such “standing up” would consist of. There are no conservatives arguing for a concrete direction different from what Britain is doing now.

Until there is a coherent voice, whether of a prominent individual or a group, rejecting Britain’s entire current direction and calling for something different, then the Island continues to be ruled without resistance by those seeking its destruction, and so can be described as Dead. Yes there is the BNP, but there needs to be a more mainstream voice without BNP’s baggage.

I’m not saying that other countries are better in kind that Britain. The whole West is heading in the same direction. But Britain, to an amazing degree, embodies suicidal leftism. Also, the polite, pacific aspect of the British, which is one of their most attractive features, turns deadly when Britain is under an evil leftist Establishment, because the British don’t seem to have it in them to resist the Establishment. The Anglo-Saxon thing of “not making a fuss” is a fine and admirable quality in ordinary life. But when your country is being destroyed, it means passive surrender to the destruction.

[end of your comment]

1) ” … where are the signs … ?”

There are no signs, or very few, for several reasons:

(a) The mechanisms here for suppressing such signs are many times more effective than anything you have in the USA.

(b) The main body of the people have concluded that the political system is worthless, but they have not quite decided what to replace it with.

(c) One reason they are cautious is that they know that they themselves—many of them—are a people still capable of extreme behaviour, very savage behaviour They would rather avoid that; although it may not be possible. (The British are actually much less Left Liberal than the Americans. They have been spiritually disinherited, but the deep structure is still present in many, waiting to be reactivated.)

Most of the time there is little real grumbling. The apparent grumbling is in the MSM, and it is all pseudo, fabricated, not serious. The lack of grumbling is the danger sign. I paste below an extract from a weblog, written by someone who gets it.

Yesterday, I wrote of the electorate being in a “funny” mood. That brings to mind the old adage during officer training. Happy “troops,” we were told, will always grumble. It is when they are not grumbling you have to worry. That is what is “funny” about what is going on. People are angry. We know this, and can feel it. But they ain’t grumbling anything like they ought to be. That is baaad.

2) “Yes there is the BNP, but there needs to be a more mainstream voice without BNP’s baggage.”

I think that here you are not being your usual percipient self. A “mainstream voice” is just what we do not need. And the BNP has baggage? Certainly, but no more than average. And it would make no difference at all if it had none. I speak from personal experience. Years after certain events took place I still meet people who are amazed to find me quite a “civilized” person. (The typical formulation.)

Staying with the BNP. They are organizing with great skill and busyness, building a base. Their present strategy is the correct one. And in Nick Griffin they have a leader who, quite unusually for a politician, is capable of intellectual growth. The Establishment have made a mistake. I think they have left it too late to assassinate him.

3) We are in a revolutionary situation, in a way that you are not, across the Atlantic. As an indication, you could not get Tea Parties here in Britain. We are way beyond that.

4) You may think I am, at least in one way, too optimistic. I don’t think so. Even if one percent of the people think the way I do, that is still 600,000 persons. In a small Island, quite enough. I live in London, where the smouldering outrage is least overt, but there’s plenty of it, if you know where to look.

5) Saul Alinsky wrote a book called, as I recollect, “Rules for Radicals.” A Manual of Nihilist Destruction, the reference book for many of the activities of both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Such a Manual is easy to write, if you’ve got the appropriate temperament. For the last three years I have been attempting something much more difficult: a Manual of Creation and Regeneration. It is a mammoth task, and I don’t much enjoy the activity of writing. However, I have children and grandchildren, and I have obligations to them. Within a year, I hope less, I will have finished. In two or three weeks I shall send you a website reference, and you can look at the introductory chapters, if you are so inclined.

In the meantime, not necessary to reply to this, unless some happy thought comes to you. I’ll be in touch, as indicated.

Yours is the weblog I most enjoy reading.

All the best,
Keith Jacka

LA replies:

Thank you very much.

Gintas writes:

If you use the Burnham / Francis model of ruling elites, the question is: is the BPN, led by Nick Griffin, an elite that could lead this quietly smouldering English mob? I wouldn’t really know, but it is a functioning party, and it does seem to be gaining support while frightening all the right cowards. It’s more than we have in the USA. It doesn’t look as though Nick Griffin is as deeply flawed as anyone our small parties put up.

Mr. Jones writes from Britain:

A lot of what Mr Jacka says rings true to me.

In particular I think the catalyst (in this case the BNP) must be unacceptable to the current mainstream. Any organization that is acceptable to the current media-political class won’t be acceptable if/when things blow. They need to sit in the gap between what is unacceptable to the ruling class and what is acceptable to the people.

I also agree that “building a base” is exactly the right priority.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 25, 2009 02:34 PM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):