Sunday 14 November 2010

A nationalism of the NCOs, not of the officers?


To continue the argument of the previous post -

- another way to state the matter is that previous nationalisms have been originated and led by the officer class.

But nowadays, since the officer class is politically correct, if a nationalism were to arise (which seems unlikely) it would need to originate from and be led by the Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) class: that is to say led by the Sergeants and Corporals; and not by the Majors and Captains.


All else being equal, under normal circumstances, an army led by Officers will be much more effective than an army led by NCOs.

But these are not normal circumstances.


The modern situation in the West resembles that of a city under siege.

The city is threatened by riots within and by the enemy without.

However, the officer class have become decadent.

The officers find uncouth, are bored-by, scared-of, and have come to loathe the NCOs and squaddies of their own city.


Periodically, groups of indigents approach the besieged city gates.

Some are hopeless cases - displaced peasants from the surrounding area, some are shrewd merchants from here and there - keen to work hard and make some money, some are petty criminals - others not-so-petty criminals.

And some of the indigents at the gate are enemy fifth columnists - who intend at some point in the future to inflict violence and mayhem to aid the besiegers.

Whoever the indigents are and whatever their intention, the officers invariably feel sorry for them, and always let them all in; and direct the NCOs to make sure the new arrivals are well taken care of - by allocating them a generous share of the squaddies rations and living quarters.


And within the cities own indigenous population are large mobs of sturdy vagrants who are either too feckless to be of any use, or simply refuse to help with the defense of the walls.

These beggars and barflys roam around robbing, having parties and staging riots.The NCOs are not forbidden to intervene but will be harshly punished if they transgress any of the very strict (and continually changing) rules of engagement.

On orders from the officer class, the sturdy vagrants receive a daily dole of bread and beer from the squaddies supplies.


This is roughly (and in a purely materialist sense - which leaves-put the vital spiritual and religious dimension) the situation of the modern West.

Nationalism is (at minimum) an attempt to make effective the defense of the city - first to stop admitting then to expel fifth columnists and parasites, and to suppress internal disorder. 

But the officers will not do this.

So, if the city has not fallen first (and that is a big 'if') then at some point, perhaps, there may be an NCO mutiny - and the army will be taken-over and run by the senior sergeants.

Because a city will be better defended by an army led by loyal NCOs, than by an army led by traitorous officers. 


If this kind of nationalism happens, it would surely, necessarily, be accompanied by a powerful anti-officer campaign - during which officers would be purged from all significant positions of leadership - and replaced by sergeants.

What would result would be a pretty shambolic form of army, of society. Yet it would not have to be well-organized; only better-organized than the forces which oppose it.

If nothing else happens first, at some point in the cultural decline that is political correctness the point will be passed at which a nationalist NCO-led army will be more effective than an army led by anti-nationalist officers.


Yet before this happens, it may well be that the city will fall to the enemy; and instead of being run by an NCO army of the indigenous population, the city will instead be taken-over by an officer-led army of invaders.


No comments: