top of page
  • Writer's picture738

Our lads (on the beaches)


There’s a common propaganda line taken by the radical right online, even has an X account dedicated to it, that says, “What would our lads, them wot stormed the beaches at Normandy, say if they was teleported to Britain today, eh?”.

The idea is that they would be shocked and appalled—“this isn’t what we fought for”. Now, this is probably effective rhetoric for some people, but if we extend the thought experiment outwards we find that we’ve fooled ourselves.

The basic contention behind it is democratic, by the way. The idea is that “the people” will one day “wake up” and either vote the rascals out or “string ’em up by their bleedin’ knackers, innit?”. Yet they will never do so, because reality is elitist—and revolutions don’t happen that way.

In short, if you teleported a soldier about to storm the beaches at Normandy to modern Britain he would be, obviously, bewildered—but, if we assume he were to carry on his normal life, let’s say he’s 27, then he’d get used to it soon enough.

This is because the masses are malleable and compliant—indeed, a “lad”, as we say, tears in our eyes with sentiment, from that time would likely be more deferential and obedient than a “lad” from today, because Britain in 1944, though already a full democracy for about 30 years, from the time the Lords lost their veto power, was still very disciplined and hierarchical.

In essence, in medieval times, about 3.2% of the population went to university and so the ruling strata constituted about 5-6% of the population. These are the people who can “think about thinking” and can actually conceive that there are different political and economic systems, can speak multiple languages, and can grasp ideas like calculus.

This percentage, the leadership cadre, never changes—it is the same today as ever it was. The only difference is that today about 30% of the population goes to university—so people who in the old days who would have been teachers or people like Bob Cratchit in Scrooge’s office (clerks and the like) are put through the parody of an education that is meant to make them capable of “thinking about thinking”, to lead the country, and to ask “the big questions”.

In practice, they can’t—because hardly anybody cares. Here is what concerns most people: 1. That I earn the most decent living I can; 2. That I have access to sex (and, latterly, have children); 3. That I am respected by my family, friends, and neighbours to the greatest extent possible. That is it. That is all 95%, if not 98%, of the population cares about.

These people just want to “get on with it” and if you talk about other issues, as I did to a “lad” who was trained in Computer Science at a mid-rank university once, they just say, “You’re moaning, you’re just moaning—you’re a moaner.” Just get awn withit, mate! That’s all these people care about.

George Orwell was wrong in 1984 when he said “if there’s hope, it lies with the proles”—because he never gave up his socialism, he remained adverse to “reaction and religion”. So he thought “the proles” would escape the brainwash. So, just like the meme I’m talking about, he was sentimental about “our lads” (and their supposed earthy wisdom). That’s why he was a miserable bastard—and died miserable.

In fact, “the proles” are the most brainwashed people—Orwell was an inverted snob, he looked down on intellectuals (who, it must be admitted, entertain ridiculous ideas) and then extolled the proles, because they couldn’t be so abstract. But their lack of abstraction just means they’re inane and biddable. Orwell himself was still a “deluded intellectual”, a decadent elite (from Eton College).


So what would happen is that our transplant from 1944 would just imbibe the current propaganda environment and “go with the flow”—get savvy, and get awn withit. He might be a bit adverse to the “transgender bollocks” and that “feckin Sadiq Khan” but, like most people, he’d just “try not to think about it”—enjoy the footy, enjoy the pub, enjoy Tenerife.

And that would be it. You also have to remember that everything we live in now was already in existence, in a more primitive form, in 1944. So, to quote my favourite example, in the RKO wartime adaptations of Sherlock Holmes, with Basil Rathbone as the sleuth, Holmes is flown out of occupied Europe in a daring SOE night flight by…a girl pilot.

Yes, already, in the 1940s kick-ass girls saved the day. The leap from that to today’s feminism is not so great (and the films feature extensive lectures about “the fight for democracy” and other progressive ideas). And that’s because what “our lads” fought for was precisely what we live in now—this is what they died for, this is the democracy they died to create.

Think about that other wartime hit Casablanca (1942)—Humphrey Bogart’s best friend in that film is…the negro jazz musician “Sam” (“Play it again, Sam…play it again, goddamit—play that song.” “Awright, Mizzer Rick but I don’t gone done think you’ll like it—that lady iz juz no good for youz...”). In other words, white guy with a black best friend who, today, would be an up and coming grime artist. It hasn’t changed.

So your average squaddies—“our lads” (dry your eyes, mate)—would not be so surprised by our modern society, because everything they see now would be a logical development of ideas they had already been inculcated with. Unless they were very stupid, they would be able to draw the link back to what they were told “good people” thought circa 1944.

We often make a mistake and think people in the past were somehow all stupid—that they couldn’t extrapolate forward and would be “shocked” by our world as if it were “magic”. Look, people in the 1940s had telephones and radios and cinema—the idea, for example, that a phone might one day be portable and also send pictures was not beyond the wit of the average man and was featured in comics and popular science speculation at the time.

If they saw the modern world they’d just think, “Oh so they figured out how to make portable phones somehow.” They wouldn’t have some nervous collapse. In similar fashion, they wouldn’t be surprised to see women in positions of power everywhere—because people already anticipated that would happen “eventually”.

Indeed, ideas like feminism were in full swing in the 1780s—and I read an excerpt from a book published in the 1880s about the origin of mankind the other day where the author, an American academic and clergyman, made acidulous remarks about people with “race prejudice” who claimed different origins for the various races…

The ideas we live with now have been established for centuries at this point—at least as far back as the French Revolution in a formalised and hegemonic way. All that has happened is that these ideas have been taken to their logical conclusion (e.g. if the differences between men and women are arbitrary, it follows anyone can change sex).

So your average squaddie (“Gawd bless ’em”) would “get it” pretty quickly—he’d be shocked in some respects, but the basic ideas would make sense to him. Ideas like “world government” and “race prejudice” were known well before the war.

Indeed, the soldiers were told they were fighting for “the United Nations” and “for humanity”—really, leftist activists who say “the soldiers on D-Day were the first antifa” are more correct than not (albeit not in a literal way). The “world’s democracies” were fighting as “the United Nations” against, well, “race prejudice”…

Plus, during the war, the Army Bureau of Current Affairs (ABCA) was captured by left-wing Labourites and Communists. This organisation prepped servicemen with smart arguments, prepared by Oxbridge graduates (the 5%), that advocated for socialism and so on.

These were films and lectures, political propaganda, delivered at the front—and this indoctrination explains why Labour won the 1945 general election, a surprise (because men who win wars, like Churchill, don’t usually lose elections—except all his soldiers had been propagandised against him at the government’s expense…).

In short, your average tommy was as indoctrinated then as he is today—aside from “hardcases” or people who just disagree about everything on principle (often borderline criminals) or people who followed Mosley (who were still followers) or pacifists. So nobody really objected. Yes, doubtless, they had inchoate emotions and some crude ideas but these can never square the circle—and eventually come out as “it’s like racism ’gainst whites, aint it? Can’t be right” and “Rights 4 whites!”.

It’s not their fault—that’s just how most people are, and there’s nothing wrong with it. In their own way, like the organism that is an evolutionary dead end, they live and die untroubled by their ultimate fate. Their fate is to obey, and they’re happy to do so—in fact, it makes them angry and upset if you confuse them with “ideas”, such as the meaning of life. Just get awn withit, mate!

This itself reflects the materialism we live in—there is no “ultimate purpose”, just be quiet and play with your toys and have a “nice life” (“It’s wat everyone wants, aintit? Just get awn withit.”).

Men like Jordan Peterson retail this at a slightly higher level: just work hard and have a career and don’t “cause trouble” or else the holocaust and/or the gulag will happen. That’s what life is about, ultimately—to make money and to maintain social respect, per whatever the system you live in dictates (this is what Socrates called “the unexamined life”—which he held not to be worth living).

Because we live in a collapsed society under full democracy, even our rightists are sentimental. “Our lads” who “wear their poppies with pride”—they won’t stand for it! But they will—because they, especially people who join the military, just like to obey (the police are worse, being cowards who, unlike soldiers, join to engage in the sadistic yet legal torture of people who can’t fight back).

The military officers aren’t much better, not being top topwits—though they get a more sophisticated brainwash (“Bit rum, what? Joined to defend Britain and doesn’t seem to be much of Britain left, what?” “Quite something, Geoff.” “Quite.”). You have to remember that even in the 5% not everyone who is capable of critical thought exercises it, many just want to be liked, and some come up with perverted ideas—which means the proportion who stand genuinely outside society in any way is very small and with little influence.

The statement by Heraclitus, circa 535 BC, remains constant:

“For what sense or understanding have the masses? They follow minstrels and take the multitude for a teacher, not knowing that many are bad and few good. For the best men choose one thing above all—immortal glory among mortals; but the masses stuff themselves like cattle.”


Recent Posts

See All

Dream (VII)

I walk up a steep mountain path, very rocky, and eventually I come to the top—at the top I see two trees filled with blossoms, perhaps cherry blossoms, and the blossoms fall to the ground. I think, “C

Runic power

Yesterday, I posted the Gar rune to X as a video—surrounded by a playing card triangle. The video I uploaded spontaneously changed to the unedited version—and, even now, it refuses to play properly (o

Gods and men

There was once a man who was Odin—just like, in more recent times, there were men called Jesus, Muhammad, and Buddha. The latter three, being better known to us, are clearly men—they face the dilemmas


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page