..the need to coordinate with (as opposed to antagonize) the Genus European and other Species of Native European Nations and diaspora remains…

...it seems that we may have had some positive influence on Brutus and co.

...but his claim that “anti-Christian” is synonymous with being anti English Nationalist is not really true.

...he’s a bit too accepting of warring and supremacism as a natural fact.

...too simplistic in his view on gender relations.

...maybe should add a few more words to his catch-all go-to - “kick the foreigners out”. Maybe

While there are these disagreements with him and his colleagues to be had, in regard to episode -

Banter Nationalism 93 -  I want to deal with a nuance of agreement and disagreement.

As they are English Nationalists, I absolutely agree with them in critiquing “Patriotic” Alternative and other British Nationalists where they might place their cause simply under the rubric of “White” and where they might rally by the 14Words (let alone by German American WN’s Hitler redemptionism 88).

Brutus’ concern to make and emphatically maintain the distinction between English ethnonationalism and White Nationalism is very important, well taken.

However, while Brutus and co. can be forgiven as being in an initial stage, tad over-corrective break-out into appropriate concentration on English ethnonationaism, they do over-correct a bit.

You see, “White” merely represents the genus, European.

The term is not only necessary to avoid confusions as to who is being advocated when speaking of European diaspora, but it is also the case that we are under attack as a race - i.e., All White people, meaning the American sense of the term, “White” - all people of European descent, and therefore we are all in the same boat with a common cause in having to defend ourselves for our race - wherever we are.

Now, White as the genus, European, is not mutually exclusive to the species - e.g. English - defending their national kinds and borders as well.

I agree absolutely with Brutus and co. in emphasizing this distinction of concern, which I will call a distinction between genus and species. Where I disagree with them is in making the concerns mutually exclusive, antagonistic, even.

And regarding the 14 Words, while David Lane made a mistake in playing a role in killing the Jewish radio shock jock and David Lane paid the price for it, the 14 Words are, nevertheless, a beautifully composed, inspiring rallying cry for many.

It does remain true, however, that the 14 Words are not unproblematic when our enemies and doltish true believers (in “88”) try to re-attach them to the “88”. That again, was a mistake by David Lane, i.e., to make that association in the first place. However, the conscientious, such as TT and his admirers, have always been clear to say the 14 Words without the 88. The 14 words remain valid as such.

Even so, it is true that “White” and The 14 Words speak of the genus and do not distinguish the very important species difference - such as the English.

Brutus’ concern to make and emphatically maintain that distinction is importantly well taken.

I hope that they’ll steer clear of some supremacist way of marking the difference - from what I hear of “37 words” I’m not sure if it’s in their personality to manage that…

Obviously we can defend ourselves better if we are not fighting each other - 88 - and have alliance with other European nations/peoples.

The coordination of genus (race) and species (national kinds) of European peoples is not too difficult an intellectual task for Brutus and others to manage.

Perhaps something like English/14

German/14

French/14 and so on…

...to mark the species divisions of the genus.

I will not insist on people using the 14 words, but they work quite well for some, especially diaspora when separated from the 88 - 14/88

The other day, while contemplating the paper I am writing for submission to PA, I came to the realisation that while the argument for democracy must (a) work and (b) be restored to our people is central to the demand for a referendum on our future in our own homeland it is actually quite tricky to navigate the civic nature of the beast.  The civicism itself is an active element in our disenfranchisement, meaning that we cannot make a straight, positive case for the referendum.  It ineluctably becomes a negative claim.

I asked Daniel what he thought about that and received some consideration which I think I have incorporated.  But I am still uncertain as to whether the case is made - it is certainly weaker than I would like and weaker than the other arguments for the referendum that are in the overall draft so far.  So I am posting a draft here if anybody is interested in commenting and strengthening the claim.  All constructive contributions gratefully received!

Any demand for a referendum is necessarily an appeal to (a likely resistant) authority for self-determination by the people.  There is solid support in international law for the principle of the self-determination of peoples, specifically in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly on 16 December 1966 and entered into force 23 March 1976.  It states:

Part 1, Article 1.1
All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Of course, it’s all in the definition of “people”.  Only if we were living in an ethnic democracy or an ethnocracy¹⁹ – two of around twenty models of democracy which academics have identified – would the people and the demos definitely and always overlap to a degree useful to us.  Given not only that current citizenship law is anything but restricted to us, and the gateway to franchise²º is wider by an order of magnitude than citizenship itself, our referendum demand would fall foul immediately of the absence of any recognition or point of reference for ethnic self-determination within the system²¹.  It would be all-too-easy for politicians to dismiss our demand just by saying: “In our vibrant national democracy every individual of eighteen or over, regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation, possesses the same human dignity and rights, and enjoys the same access to the democratic process.  You do not have the privilege of using the process to attack or disadvantage your fellow citizens.”

However, since such “liberal” opinion is relying upon novel and extra-ordinary change in the demos, brought about without recourse to the democratic process itself, it is a statement of force majeure and fait accompli - the former because, obviously, state power has been employed to sweep away all dissent and utterly change our ethnic home, the latter because the politicians, having striven to make it (as they believe) impossible to undo their handiwork, now instruct us with steepling arrogance that we have no choice but to submit to the consequences.

Such thinking has strayed so far from accountability it signals that a usurpation has taken place.  Democracy is non-operative, at least in the matter of our people’s survival and continuity (which is the most vital of all matters of state, and from which arises the general recognition that defence is the first duty of government).  The political class as a whole has made itself unaccountable.

Usurpations are not about tolerance or liberty or equality, or any other prostituted liberal principle that politicians and power elites routinely ascribe to themselves.  Usurpations are always about power.  The drive of the political class for a multiracial Britain is a power play intended to leave us, the British people, and our constitution and democracy far behind.  The Britain we knew and understood was a union under a single crown of three traditional nations, indeed three landed descent groups with intertwined histories, each sovereign under the constitution.  That state of contentment has been replaced by a proposition nation populated by individual human units gathered around liberal civic values.  The politicians have set their face against our native reality and relation, and assured themselves and us that we natives are but one social group and one culture among a multitude of civically equal groups, each of them exactly as British as we are regardless of the fact that we are children of the soil and they arrived, relatively speaking, at Heathrow passport control yesterday morning at 9.00 am.  The demos has been universalised, erasing its prior ethnic content and rendering it as an equalitarian company of uncharactered individuals connected to other living creatures only by political and socio-economic choices.  What actually matters about us has been put outside, and in that much we have been disenfranchised.

That’s the complaint.  Let us now dig down for some solid principle.

Revolutionary change in the nature and meaning of the demos brought about not by democratic means but by the use of force cannot, by definition, be democratic.  In a time of peace when the nation is secure, unconquered, and self-governing, any outcome procured through coercive governmental action against the known will and natural interests of the sovereign and native people is procured illegitimately.  That was the case on 22nd June 1948, before the Windrush sailed into British territorial waters, and it is no less the case now.

The passage of time does not grant legitimacy to the wrongs done to us, whether or not those wrongs are capable of reverse.  A fait accompli does not grant legitimacy, and it does not prohibit or de-moralise reversal, or make it any less necessary.  Abusive and unjust, untrammelled power does not justify its trespasses and treacheries by the claim of irreversability.  Only the interests of the people are irreversible.  Only the people possess the constitutional right to be governed according to the will of a parliament reflective of, and faithful to, their interests.  As the people, that right was ours alone before 22nd June 1948, and it was taken from us without warning or explanation or public debate, and awarded to strangers.  It must be our choice, and no one else’s, whether that situation obtains into the future.

In simple, force majeure is not a democratic value, and not an ethical value of any kind.  An appeal to it is a demand for our weakness and submission.  Those who make such a demand are not democrats and not ethical people.  Their arguments are flawed, arrogant, self-serving, and prejudiced against us.  Correction is due and we are bound to seek it, not least because that’s how a healthy democracy is maintained.

William Shakespeare never conceived of a betrayal more monstrous than that of our politicians, or a fate for his people and ours more completely final than the one they have engineered.  The phrase “We were never asked” is not counted among the scores of familiar Shakesperian quotations.  But perhaps one might argue in the native manner of Hamlet to Horatio that the ecumenicalism of British democracy, as it evolved from Magna Carta to the Windrush, was “a custom more honour’d in the breach than the observance”²², the breach being the implicit understanding of English peoplehood and right on the soil.  Certainly, if politicians had dismissively lectured the Englishmen of Elizabeth’s reign that Africans and south Asians and the rest have just as much ownership of this civic space and as much civic right upon it as them, that opinion would not have survived the sudden appearance of perfumed heads on pikes atop the city walls.

As it is, after the Windrush the rules of succession in our democratic Elsinore became those of the Claudian usurpation: citizenship on the nominal basis of jus soli but the effective basis of universalism squared, duly excused and commended by Brownite racial apologetics, aka civic values²³.

But the palace is still haunted by the ghost of Prince Hamlet’s murdered father.  We native British might have had all manner of poison poured in our ears but we still know this land to be our sacred ancestral home and not merely a civic space or a market economy or a race experiment²⁴; and we cannot permit it to become any or all of those in perpetuity.  Democracy must function again.  Our people must decide.

READ MORE...

This is the third section of the scene-setting, opening division of my referendum paper.  It is probably the last section I will post here, at least at this very early this stage in proceedings.

The religious and philosophical antecedents of the political struggle aside, what are we to say about the contesting forces and their respective causes?  Is it even necessary to measure the motivations of a repressive class against the rights and interests of the people it represses, or the expansionist interest of a coloniser against the defensive and life-preserving interests of the people of the land it colonisers?  Would any fair observer dismiss the victim people as consumed with hatred, and label their cause illegitimate on such self-evidently specious and confected moral grounds?  If we do not dismiss the victim people mechanically and out of hand, how can we not find for them?

But such objectivity is entirely missing from the picture.  That entity which the Tories, lost in their petty economism and managerialism, call “consumers”, “tax-payers”, “voters”, and which the Labour Party, lost in its absolutist ideology of sameness, used to call “the workers” and “the masses” but these days calls “racists”, and which nationalists call “our people” (which, of course, is what they are) … that entity bears all the violations … the child-rapes and racist murders and terror outrages, the abuse from creatures damaged by racial self-contempt, the antipathy, betrayal and deceit of successive generations of politicians, the crass social engineering, the totalitarian omerta in the media, the official assault on “ white male hegemony”, the abandonment of white boys in education for the sake of the Other, the catch-all lie of dissent-as-hate, the “service” from the police, employers’ impertinent obsession with what we say outside work, the African faces pushed at us through our TV screens every few seconds, the sheer unrelenting and unlimited extent of the change to our towns and cities ... all this they ... we ... bear with tact, grace, and an obdurate stoicism.

These are true signs of who we are.  They are not the signs of a disparate crowd of individuals indifferent to anything that has no pecuniary reward attached to it.  They are not the signs of some too too hideous monster from the history of empire, whose moral nature is shot through with irrational hatred and who has to be got out of the way, basically⁸, so non-white victims everywhere can be freed into the utopian forever-future of racial justice⁹.  Most importantly, they are not the signs of a people buckling under the repression and blanket propaganda.  They are the signs of a people of the highest moral quality.

For sure, tact and grace are receptive feminine virtues, and do not contain the reactive and assertive energy, the recoil, to make change.  But stoicism is a male virtue, and it signals that many blows have had to be absorbed but not a single backward step has been taken¹⁰.  It is a quiet and unfussy, prominent part of the native character.  It is the modern equivalent of a shield wall.  It produced, for example, the two greatest feats of endurance in British military history, which are the British Army’s long, costly defence of French soil in 1914-18 and, in relative terms, the even more costly offensive of Bomber Command in 1939-45, which for two years after Dunkirk was conducted as the sole means by which this country could carry the fight into the enemy’s home, and which produced negative crew survival rates during the great battles of the air of 1943.  Still they flew.  It is the quality on which we, today, have fallen back in the present unequal and undeclared conflict, while the attack against us grinds onward unopposed and we wait for the means and moment to reply, and to carry our voice, our will, our kinship, our native right, our interests, back into the realm of the political after an absence of several decades.

That is what a referendum, as a clarifying and reforming mechanism, is really for: our reclamation of the political.  That is what those who populate politics today are so afraid of, and with good reason because they cannot defend their own project against our people’s demand for life.  The abstract values they have inhaled from the liberal air, and which they hold to be absolutes, instantly collapse in contact with it.  Likewise, the malign and intellectually featherweight, self-serving ideological ejaculations of the anti-racist left turn to dust¹¹.  It is to be expected.  The demand for a secure existence and a sovereign and free life for our people issues from their possession of life itself and from life’s unquenchable appetite for continuity.  Everything, even the principle of power, even that of human freedom, is secondary to it.  There is no higher cause than this, which is the cause at the heart of ethnic nationalism, and no instance of that cause more just than when the life in question is that of the children of the soil.

And what, in contrast, is the moral quality of the cause of the Establishment, in whose politicians’ gift the granting of a referendum resides?  What moral defence is there for any part of its race project?  Can any Establishment speaker even explain the presence of replacement populations in our home?  Perhaps that was possible in the beginning, when Bernard Montgomery was demanding a standing Army of the Rhine of 500,000 of our young men to confront Soviet expansionism in the west, because labour shortages at home were already chronic.  But in those days we were assured that the imported labour would be returning home as soon as practicable.

That all changed within a single generation.  With Enoch Powell safely marginalised and race relations already an obsession of the political class, we started to be instructed that the West Indian and south Asian populations were now our permanent new “ethnic minorities”, and, in the words of the Conservative Party manifesto for the general election of 1979, “... there can be no question of compulsory repatriation”.  By the mid-80s Roy Hattersley, then Labour deputy leader, was touring local radio stations to announce that this was now a multicultural country.  Not a sound from the Thatcher government was heard.  It was all agreed.  Prior to the London terror attacks of 7th July 2005, when fifty-two people lost their lives, nearly every senior politician of all the parties would solemnly inform us how “Diversity is our strength”.  That lie rarely passes their lips now, unless they are addressing a non-white audience.  They dare not tell that to us.  They have fallen strangely, uncharacteristically silent.

Indeed, throughout everything no one of any party troubled to explain why this was happening.  There has never been a formal explanation.  Politicians preferred to present the whole thing as some irresistible force of modernity which had to be managed as best it could.  As to its fundamental cause, that could be a gift of the jet engine, as some have argued, or of some timeless and unstoppable, Nature-given human practise of people “moving around the planet” (the current UN and EU narrative of the migrant who, mysteriously, cannot be shut out of European lands, like floodwater at the door), or it could just be the world’s refugees righteously seeking “safety” or asylum, or the world’s poor and the world’s brain surgeons seeking betterment.  It could be any cause, frankly, but that of destructive elites deliberately mixing-up the world’s populations in our home in pursuit of objects too shameful to be allowed into the light.

For the benefit of clarity, these peoples whom they force upon us are, first, replacement populations invited here to settle in our home without end; and, second, transformative populations brought here to gene-kill us by miscegenation.  Their status in our home is not that of an authentic ethnic minority, as we are instructed to think, but a coloniser.  They are not an oppressed victim, either.  An “oppressed minority” which enjoys the unremitting and total support of the government and opposition, the liberal Establishment, the media, the corporate sector, academia, law, and Third Sector is not a victim.  It is a pawn.

Who the chess-player is, exactly … if it has a single identity at all ... we do not formally know.  We can only make educated guesses.  But it’s not the politicians.  They are no better than hired help.  They get a good deal.  As irredeemably self-important beings, they have what they want, which is power over the political life of the nation and potentially a lucrative post-Westminster career.  They have the trappings of that power, perhaps even an office of state and the responsibility that comes with it.  If not, well, there are regular opportunities to display “humanity” before the cameras, perhaps in a refugee camp or in the children’s ward of some inner-city hospital at Christmas time.  Or Eid.  It’s the proven method by which one attains social elevation and the good public opinion of one’s liberal peers.  The speeches in the chamber, the clamour of journalists, the in-fighting, the late-night cutting of deals, the freebies and boondoggles, the whole venal mess … it’s intoxicating and exciting.  It’s a good life for an eager PPE grad from Oxbridge or London South Bank, or wherever.

It is also the true condition of any mediocre individual who lives so much on the surface of things.  The surface, of course, does preclude an holistic sense of the age, and because these people have no holistic sense of the age they are its unquestioning creatures.  In consequence nowhere are there free and creative agents, men and women of a stature sufficient unto the day.  On one side there is a great surfeit of pliant, principle-free drones, small thinkers and careerists given by character and ambition to the management of small things.  On the other there are repressive ideologues with no ideas of their own, creatures of passionate intensity¹³ at war with their natures and ours.  Powerful they may be - as powerful as we are weak.  But this generation of politicians are afraid to look our people in the eye.  They will not speak our name.  They do not ask any question of us.  They do not want answers, because answers would require decisions and decisions actions about matters of concern, matters of existence itself, which they have abjured themselves from ever acknowledging.  It is one of the reasons why their denunciation of nationalists is so rabid and unreasoning.  They are pushing away their own insupportable guilt and hypocrisy.

This is the dysfunctional political class we would have to lead towards giving our people the last thing in this world they want to give us, and to do so in the knowledge that it would likely rock their political lives to their core.  It is a seemingly impossible task.  But now let’s take a look at the matter in detail.

READ MORE...

This is the next passage in the referendum paper I am preparing.  It is commentary on the historiography ... the ideological ancestry, if you like, of all the negatives which nationalism seeks to address, and the “genetic defects” which that ancestry transmits to the current mainstream political generation.

Long before the late 17th century development of the urban industrial centre, and the conflicts of class and labour which accompanied it, the life of our people was already subject to challenging and pervasive transformational currents.  The class system itself, as a rigid socio-economic impost, entered the bloodstream of England with the Norman Conquest.  The capitalist landlord then emerged from the system of indenture and the bond of debt which was medieval serfdom.  The ideas of the 18th century Enlightenment owe their development to Descartes, Hobbes and Locke (Karl Marx actually said “We are all Hobbes’ children”), and they, in turn, to the intellectual canon arising, on one hand, out of Western Christian intellectualism (with its non-biblical roots in the Greeks and Islamic scholars) and, on the other, out of Renaissance humanism.

Not one of the Enlightenment philosophers was anti-Christian.  On the contrary,  they were conventional Christian gentlemen of their time writing about Man, not God.  The secular nature of their writings in no way precludes a broad and uncritical acceptance of Christianity’s own conception of Man.  The very model of the unfettering will derives from the proposition that is the Christian soul seeking salvation by the grace of the god of Abraham, and that, in turn, derives via Paul from the Judaic conception and treatment of the gentile.  It is a conception and treatment born out of the humiliation, after numerous other tribal humiliations, numerous other physical and psychological exiles, of the Roman occupation of Jerusalem from 63 BCE; and it works by weaponising the self-same alienations and estrangements of the Jewish exile and inflicting them upon the perceived existentially hostile gentile Other.

Thus with the conversion of the tribes of Europe to Christianity our ancestors acquired as their most abiding and formative moral and cultural artefact another morality and another culture integral to it and inseparable from it.  It is a culture of imposture, and of the existential critique of self and others.  Inevitably, its effects in time have been all too profound, colouring and characterising all that followed, instilling a sense of humanity sans bounds, a novel sense of individual identity, and of what our connection to others is for.  These three altogether estranging moral gifts, simple in themselves though they are, run uninterrupted through the greater part of the Western intellectual canon⁶ and the political, social, economic, and cultural life … our political, social, economic, and cultural life ... which flows therefrom.

The situation – always dangerous, of course - has gone critical in our time.  Our natural identity and our natural relation, both of which wholly belong to, and should go wholly unquestioned by, every European, are all but missing from the lived life.  That life is impelled onward not as our creative expression at all but as that of an always dynamic and developing struggle for human artifice and caesura in direct opposition to our human authenticity and belonging, and to the native principle itself (the principle of blood on the land, and the natural rights and interests pertaining thereto).

To re-emphasise, because it is important: the most fundamental contest of our age is that between artifice and authenticity in the European life and person, the former giving power over us to others, the latter giving us power over ourselves. 

Those on the political right who are held captive by the former look upon us, the native British, and see very little but interchangeable units of economic cost, unmindful of anything more human, more enduring than the consumption of ever greater quantities of goods and services.  The denizens of the modern left, meanwhile, consumed by the most absurd moral vanity, likewise see not our humanity but the endemic and indelible stain of hate and prejudice (usually “racist” hate and prejudice) in the white-skinned oppressor who alone bars the way to the post-racial utopia of radically equal beings, and who can only make recompense by an unending self-abnegation.  If these pathologies are taking peoples of European descent out of existence today – and they are – then it is, ultimately, because over the centuries we have determinatively accrued the substantive moral and intellectual framework of our own fracture and debilitation, and on that framework dangle all the 20th century philosophies and reductive human models⁶ which deliver us into artifice and to the will of others.

In the absence of effective philosophical and political analyses British nationalists spent most of the period between the end of WW2 and the end of the millenium asking themselves the wrong questions (rooted not in our politics at all but in the humiliations of an adopted “defeat” in WW1 and the challenge from communist revolutionaries to the continental European liberal democracies): how do we tell everyone about the JQ … how do we live the life of glory, what do we do to model greatness ... how do we re-kindle the spirit of our race … how do we beat the left on the streets … where is the leader?  Our people, meanwhile, were left with just one active defender: their own instinct.  Opinion polling suggests that it has stood up pretty well to the decades of Establishment social engineering and projected racial self-contempt⁷.

Finally, at the turn of the millenium, the main body of British nationalists began a turn of their own, away from post-fascistic Nietzschean thinking and towards an inchoate and largely unwritten nationalism of our ethnicity, being, and identity.  Two decades later that turn is still underway.  Patriotic Alternative, for example, evinces elements of the old thinking and the new.  But the party and the movement as a whole is facing towards the universal politics of life which is ethnic nationalism, and now can, if the understanding is there, articulate it as a total and profoundly moral refutation of the hypocritical elitism, coercion, lies, hatred, unnaturalness, and ethnocide on offer from the Establishment parties, activists, and media.  Further, we can make the most positive offer imaginable to the people, restoring their land, no less, to their own children, and a life of freedom, belonging, security, peace ... and boundless potential.

We will always appear weak when comparisons with the Establishment cohorts are made on the basis of the prestige of office, corporate funding, organisational structure and manpower, campaign professionalism, mainstream media reach, and so forth.  That cannot be a surprise.  Said cohorts have been the beneficiary of history, as explained above.  But it is a history of political crime and philosophical error.  We, on the other hand, are the upholders of what is right and just and true, and the expressers of our people’s real interests and instinct for life.  As with the Leave campaign in 2016 we do not have to rely on grotesque lies and bullying.  With the offer of England to our people, a big enough coalition and on-going help from the other side’s extremists we must have a fighting chance.

READ MORE...

I have set aside my philosophical writings for a time while I work up a full paper on the political benefit, methods, and viability of campaigning for a United Kingdom referendum on securing the future of the four native British peoples.  It is a suggestion I made recently at Patriotic Alternative’s site, and the subject of a limited correspondence with Laura Towler.  I’ll be publishing some sections of the paper here, but the full paper will be sent to Laura in an attempt to kick-start nationalism in this country.

Introduction

On 23rd June 2016 the voters of this country went to the polls after a four-month national campaign to render to government and parliament their decision in the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum.  It was the latest of fourteen referendums held since Edward Heath’s Northern Ireland referendum on Irish unity of 1973.  A pointless and ill-conceived exercise though that was, it nevertheless set the precedent by which British governments have since resorted to referendums on constitutional matters ranging from parliamentary voting reform to devolution for the north-east of England.  In that time also, two further referendums were planned.  But circumstances intervened and they were never held.  Although in British politics referendums still constitute an extra-ordinary process of consultation (many, including most nationalists, would argue deference¹) they are now firmly established as the democratic instrument by which enduring national questions over which parliament understands itself not to possess constitutional competence are passed to the people to be settled.

That said, we should not run away with the idea that this is ever done from politicians’ dedication to high principle, and quite without the worldly stain of political calculation.  The politics of referendums is very plainly beholden to the politics of keeping or getting of power.  In all but one case², referendums in Britain have either been resorted to by government in response to a long-running public campaign³ or have flowed from the election of a new government which, in opposition, had adopted the campaign’s cause⁴, invariably for its own electoral purposes.

Political opportunism and self-interest, therefore, are material considerations for any government asked to hand the people definite and direct control over a great constitutional question.  Accordingly, governments can and do refuse to turn to the people even when doing so may be morally unimpeachable, just and strictly logical, and the cause popular.

A striking example is the point-blank refusal of successive governments in the wake of Scottish and Welsh devolution to grant the electorate in England a vote on England’s representative inequality within the Union.  The formal discussion has been of the constitutional disruption⁵ a parliament for England and a government of England would produce.  But one’s overwhelming suspicion is that the real issue is the craven self-interest and careerism of the Westminster class, which will brook neither challenge nor change.

This being the case, how much less likely is it that any Westminster government will cede a demand from, by its own estimation, politically irrelevant British nationalists and “populists” for decision in the matter of our respective ethnic survival in the lands which bear our respective names?  The political class is only too well aware that the population change it has deliberately wrought upon the natives of this land has never been legitimised by our consent, and it is only too well aware why.  It has, in consequence, done everything in its power to close its ears to our voices,  sullying itself by sullying that voice; and this it has done, and will go on doing, for the sole purpose of erecting a justification, as it supposes, for its total betrayal of us, its total betrayal of our children.  Why, after the setback that its internationalism suffered on 23rd June 2016, would it call down destruction upon its head by ceding to us control over its demographic weapon and, thereby, over its own fate?

This paper will explore how Patriotic Alternative, acting as the wellspring of native opinion, might set about breaking the illusions of representation and respectability with which the political class clothes itself, and by which it commands the political stage, and our people with it.  In essence, what are the difficulties of actually engaging with government and making the demand for a referendum on the survival and continuity of the four native peoples of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.  What are the difficulties of making such a referendum necessary for government … any government ... to grant or at least to attempt, in the glaring light of day, to publicly refute and refuse?  How could those difficulties be overcome?  What are the benefits for nationalism of fighting the fight anyway, win or lose?  And how might it be possible for the nationalist cause to triumph against all the odds, as the Leave cause triumphed against the exact same forces a little over four years ago?

To each of these questions this paper will attempt to provide an answer.

READ MORE...

In brief:

The DNA Nation concept is a means to coordinate people of European extraction - i.e., on the basis of genetics: genus and species (European race and national kinds) worldwide; thereby facilitating organization of 1) our European genus and species in diaspora together with 2) our native European people to maintain their distinct native genetic kinds and national interests; including the aim to secure their national borders; and to 3) coordinate our European diaspora and native Europeans together in genus and species to establish sufficient economic base, power base, organizational boundaries and territories worldwide to defend and advance our kind.

.......

(((Sponsored))) “Black Lives Matter” rioting, arson, looting, property destruction and assault has been repeated in more than 30 U.S. cities followed by European cities as well.

With race riots having broken out in cities all over the United States (and elsewhere), it should now be clear to even the normiest boomer-civnat that Whites are under attack as a race, i.e., as a group - we (White men, in particular) are low man on the totem of the progressive stack of intersectional victim groups. We obviously have to look after our own.

Dallas man tried to assert himself and defend his property alone against the hyper-assertive black element.

While the more sensible among us have observed the destruction to our precious Ethnic Genetic Interests for decades as a result of liberalization of our national borders and group boundaries, the Covid-19 pandemic signaled a paradigmatic shift to broad consciousness that malign factors may cross national borders and interpersonal boundaries; and the state response of closing borders and requiring social distancing revealed that border and boundary maintenance can be done, even if this permutation was not done expressly for the protection of our European genetic kinds.

But we have a more flexible means for protecting our kinds, where the state and those in power are antagonistic and block the means to secure our European kind, sicking aliens and out-groups upon us to no end, and that is the perennial form in which a people fight off oppressive, exploitative and destructive elites: We may unionize our people for the sake of the aforementioned three purposes - otherwise scattered diaspora, our discrete species of native nations and the over-arching power of our genus. The time is ripe to promote this organization in defense of our interests; the need should be clear to all.

Take advantage of C-19 lockdown to squeeze-out the middle class as they might, as they would, what is the proper response to elite oppression? It is unionization (or some analogous means of organizing our people). Then we can begin the course of marshaling our nations and economy to serve our interests as opposed to elite parasites.

Yes, unionization, social organization, is traditionally considered to be a leftist concern (about a broad union of people, with power largely managed by accountability to deliberately delimited boundaries as opposed a “magic hand” wielded acutely, narrowly against the group, supposedly warranted as “purely” and as much without debt to their people as you’ll let them get away with asserting), but unionization of the group is not necessarily an anti-nationalist concern at all. On the contrary, social responsibility, accountability through unionization of national boundaries fit together like a hand and glove - unionization equaling delimitation of group border, providing accountability, providing correctability, which is practically synonymous with group systemic maintenance - corresponding with homeostasis, self corrective systems, autonomy, self governance, sovereignty (what we want and what our enemies try to destroy).

It should dawn on people why our enemies are pushing the anti-left narrative so heavily - they don’t want us to organize against their elite hegemony, the right wing sell outs and licentious liberals that they enlist to their side. And why they altercast “third positionism” as a means of backdoor infiltration and/or destabilization; as opposed to allowing us to define left ethnonationalism for ourselves, to include private property, individual liberties, free enterprise within reason and other means of integrity that Europeans expect within a basis of social accountability.

Boomers bend the knee to Jewish sponsored black power (right wingers taking the pay-off or the flattery to their self sacrificing “objectivity” while liberals take the license and flattery to their indulgent “objectivity”).

A generation of boomers are still in power, not only holding position (bending the knee in deferential acquiescence to blacks and their backers!) presiding over our liberal destruction but also in power over the reactionaries to liberal destruction; particularly represented by STEM types in intransigence for the relative success afforded by their STEM predilection (marketable skills) and the fortune of post war boom years, where the anti-social story of individual human potential could allow them to burn the social capital stored by the conservatism of prior generations, to remain rationally blinded to their indebtedness to their social capital; and they will tend to think that we simply need to get back to their liberal/objectivist, anti-social ways - it just needs to be applied harder. They are all too ready to believe that the very correction to their over-grazing and irresponsibility is the problem: those “lefties” who seek to create a unionized system of social accountability. But STEM types are notorious dupes to manichean devils.

STEM types, markedly Europeans evolved mostly in response to natural challenges, Augustinian devils, are famously great scientists and engineers and notorious dupes to the Manichean devils coming out of the Middle East, those whose primary challenge was other groups, who thus evolved accordingly, wielding Manichean trickery and deception.

Now, science and empirically rigorous, close readings of our peoples deep, emergent nature, requirements for the maintenance of our being, is indispensable. There are several invaluable concepts that GW and Bowery have put forth from that rigorous end of inquiry; e.g., GW’s “being-of” is a great idea, an important centralizing position in hermeneutic process (and not mutually exclusive to the platform that I set out).

However, if the end of rigorous verification is to have orientation and relevant account, it must function within working hypotheses. I like to go with Shotter’s idea of calling these “specificicatory structures”, partly finished concepts which may be elaborated, acted-into and corrected with others. Our borders and boundaries can’t be taken for granted and don’t fall into place in a seemingly perfectly natural way that borders and bounds do for the Japanese, because we have been subject to an array of manichean tricks, for millennia now, to rupture our borders and bounds.

Furthermore, as the STEM predilection is attuned to precision, binary either/ors and to look for “the one little sublime thing” that might make the circuit go or not and at same time might eliminate redundancy as inefficient, it can be a good habit for engineering, but a vast disservice to the complexity of praxis, the social world, rupturing its organic holisms and multiple agentive interfaces, such that slightly ambiguous concepts, specificatory structures, serve better for their flexible interfacing capacity. Comfortable thus with working hypotheses and not over-valuing precision so much as to misapply it, one is not liable to make a bewilderingly retarded mistake such as hearing that Gregory Bateson “is Jungian” (not true) and therefore that he can be dismissed entirely as otherwise redundant for that one thing (which isn’t even true!). 

And as I’ve pointed-out before, STEM types have had a leg up in advancing their perspective in the internet age, thus delaying corrections to anti-social perspectives that may tend to adhere to their predilections.

It is the other end of orientation - calibration and unionization of our group to provide relevant accountability to our ancient social capital and its future trajectory - that the manichean adversaries of European interests have been assiduously at work against.

The concept of the group, particularly as unionized, is the opposite of liberalism (the no-account, toxic ocean in which we swim) because you are conserving what is within and providing, through its “union” structuring, the means of accountability to our group system, which corresponds to correctivity, which is approximately synonymous to group systemic homeostasis (self corrective systems) - which is what we (should) want as a people - functional borders, boundaries to provide autonomy, sovereignty. This structures consciousness as deliberate; you have to love the departure from objectivist, no account liberal whateverism - it is deliberate.

Black daycare worker suffocates 8 month old, CCTV shows dying child thrashing her legs to escape

Specifically, Europeans are under attack as a group (a race is a group). Generally, the humanities, not harder sciences, are the disciplines which develop means to analyse human groups.

Psychology generally focuses on the individual, and as such it is limited in its utility to our group concerns in interaction. While sociology takes the group as its unit of analysis and communicology takes interaction as its unit of analysis.

As instruments thus, sociology and communicology are better suited to our concerns - we are under attack as a group in interaction by characteristically antagonistic and manichean (trickster/deceptive) peoples. And as sociology is being weaponized against us, that is all the more reason to take control of it for our interests, not to abandon the group unit of analysis as “Jewish.” That’s ridiculous. Talk about an ostrich putting its head in the sand.

Now then, there are many necessary means for understanding and organizing our people that I call White Post Modern in order to distinguished these resources/means from what has been put across by the YKW and their liberal minions as “post modernity” - the many red cape misrepresentations and distortions of the concepts to wield against White interests and to turn White people off to the underlying concepts altogether, crucial though they would be to understand and deploy in White interests.

“Will you commit to defunding the police? - No? Then get the fuck out of here!” Minneapolis Mayor (((Jacob Frey))) is doing all he can to acquiesce to black demands.

Black Lives Matter is just one of many anti-White organizations sponsored by (((YKW)))

Particularly as they attained greater hegemony than ever in 2008, Jewish power and influence has been determined to maintain those distortions of the humanities weaponized against Whites as representing “THE Left” and “THE Problem” to be solved primarily by Whites joining them on the Cartesian end of pure science, universal truth, facts, Abrahamic god beyond nature, etc. Rationally blinded to what the YKW are doing, in pseudo objectivity, detached from the disingenuousness of our own elite sell-outs, the naivete of the masses who go along with this (((Madison ave))) marketing campaign against “The Left”. Anything but the social accountability and social justice, anything but left ethnonationalism, as its concept of unionization facilitates - no, can’t have that. It’s a threat to Jewish power and influence; a threat to right wing sell outs who take their pay off; a threat to liberals who take anti-social license.

The abuse of the humanities has been so profound in its deployment against Whites that you can hear particularly STEM type Whites in reaction proclaim “Sociology” a false religion. Well, the abuse of sociology into an anti-White religion can be. But to criticize sociology as a discipline as a “false religion” would be like calling a telescope, “bad.”

Again, the social group, which is the focus of sociology, is as relevant as any neutral unit of analysis can be given that we are under attack as a group - a race, attacked by anti-racism. Thus, if sociology is being abused against us, that is all the more reason to take control of the instrument for our interests.

Our enemies have devised red capes of social organization throughout the years, Marxism (international a-racial unionization), Cultural Marxism (anti-White unionization), and recently since 2008 have cultivated a characterology of “the left” which they would try to attribute to anybody who tries to apply salutary concepts of the left to White interests, viz, to the ethnonation, saying that you are trying to take away private property, trying to take away unequal outcomes according to merit, that you seek centralized planning etc..

What you really want is to be right wing, because that would suit Jews in their hegemony, don’t want any union of the masses seeking social justice; at least you could show your theoretical sophistication by being neither right nor left? then you could stay obligingly disorganized; failing that, be third position along with knucklehead Keith Woods, so you can introduce Hitler and natural fallacy to help rid the Jews of their mischling problem and put the White unionists to death in war, oblige Jewish provocation as such, for the introduction of that destabilizing element, courtesy the knucklehead.

Rather than organizing, unionizing White interests against Jewish power and influence, you can keep on with the program of diverting reaction to the right wing sell-outs the YKW enlist, the liberals the YKW enlist with increasing license.

Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office has released shocking video of hundreds of looters breaking into a Tampa Walmart on Saturday, May 30, 2020, at 9:10 p.m.
(Courtesy ABC Action News and Hillsborough Sheriff’s Dept. 11 June 2020).

(((Curtis Yarvin (mencius moldbug)))‘s whole “Dark Enlightenment” was effectively an op against STEM types to further misdirect them from the proper findings and deployment of the humanities.

Worse, to dismiss the humanities, the more hypothetical end of inquiry in balance to harder scientific rigor, is to dismiss the most relevant units of analysis for the challenge that we are up against, for anti-racism is anti group classification and (likely necessary) discrimination thereof; while communicology is the study of interactions, e.g., group interactions which may break down group systemic maintenance (a human ecology) or serve to maintain it. And it is to dismiss resource from the humanities unnecessarily, as they should not be looked upon as in conflict but complementary to the more rigorous end, equally indispensable.

However, while I make perfect sense to myself, I have been up against Jewish/Abrahamic interests, the right wing reactionaries they enlist and buy off with low account stories of their independent objective merit, while the liberals, with the same line of independent, objective merit, are bought off more cheaply, i.e., provided more straight forward license (licentiousness) to indulge.

Those who react in indignation while not being willing to act against our people’s interests (at least not intentionally), take the right wing altercasting into purity spirals - a wish for “that’s just the way it isnness” to find relief from Jewish rhetorical deception and other manicheanism in the social world (praxis) - but at the serious cost to group organization, accountability and agency.

Landen Hoffman

That would be “leftist’ ..can’t do that.” 

And so when I, an early and quintessential Gen-Xer, seek to correct the rational blindness of Boomers, particularly of the STEM kind, with necessary concepts of social unionization to facilitate accountability to our historic and future genetic capital, given the hideous abuse they have witnessed by means of the red capes of the humanities, given that the Jews want them to continue in their misunderstanding and to identify as right wingers, easily maneuvered, or self destructive, stigmatizing, dividing and disorganizing as such, given the mean and insane anti social reaction that many have gotten into as right wingers, I have been up against far more resistance than I would have expected and far more than I should have gotten.

Now, this has been a bit of digression but I needed to take it on because I haven’t gotten the help that I should have from the boomer STEM types; in fact, I have gotten horrible resistance. The general strawmanning that I’ve been subject to has been absurd, while the platform that I offer is coherent and equipped with important concepts.

The idea of unionization as I advocate it should never have met with the kind of resistance it has; and this resistance is likely to be an expression of reaction to abuses of the concept deployed as anti-White or indifferent to White EGI, as with other social concepts organized against Whites; mis-perceived as being inherently anti-White and unusable by Whites therefore, which is absurd; but in truth, the anti-Whitism has been laid-on thick; people’s reacting against “the left” is understandable - it was my reaction until I began to make inferences along with some founding WN fathers turned against the right; and if I had not been privy to the source of inner theoretical workings, i might not be able to penetrate the ostensible either.

DNA Nations functions something like a union of unions; coalition of unions; federation.

This is not superficial philosophy. It is not mere politics which requires to be put aside indefinitely for some “deeper” science or philosophy. Aristotle takes praxis as the first order of business and Aristotle is the most respected single figure among European peoples for reasons of outstanding judgment in regard to human nature and our requirements. If Praxis, group organization, is out of whack, all other endeavors are liable to be futile. And crucially, in line with Aristotle’s advice, to over apply science and physics (pleroma) to the biological and social world (creatura) of praxis is the classic epistemological blunder which has precipitated some of our worst historical catastrophes.

            Warsaw after WWII (left)                        Dresden after WWII (right)

Nor do we need to distrust all words, as we are not trying to persuade our enemies but rather seek to make things clear for our people.

That is the essence of the post modern project, to call back our people from Cartesian estrangement into a centralization of our group of people (praxis), a unionization delimitation facilitating accountability to ours and coordination with other groups of people and environment that Cartesianism’s objective estrangement can be oblivious-to.

READ MORE...

Paradigmatic Shift: A paradigmatic shift of epoch world view is emergent with the implicative force of the pandemic.

From Modernity, International Liberalism and Pandemic to Pervasive Ecology Managed through the Coordination of Ethnonationalism’s Paradigmatic Conservatism.

Paradigmatic Conservatism is an idea put forward by Gregory Bateson, endorsing strong national borders which, in turn, allow for broader individual liberty within the nation. He maintained that the prevailing epoch has stupidly reversed that equation - with borders having been allowed to run wild while individual liberties are pegged.

....

A paradigmatic shift in world view is instigated with the global pandemic, from the prevailing liberal internationalist paradigm, to one of paradigmatic conservatism – strong borders which can ideally and practically facilitate a wide breadth of individual liberty within, securing the integrity of the authentic, emergent qualities of our genome.

The global pandemic evinces a long overdue ecological corrective to the modern epoch’s impervious liberalism. Its universalizing reach wielded obliviously over interpersonal and international boundaries, where not naively adopted in the rational blindness of its pseudo objectivity, detached from relative group interests, then disingenuously weaponized by the powers-that-be, buttressing that halo of innocence with suspended disbelief in arbitrary experimentalism for the promise of limitless progress and growth, even if in the hereafter.

Modernity has been a driving extension of the most determinedly evangelical forces of globalization, with that linear belief that change and arbitrary experiment lead necessarily the way of progress, ostensibly warranting the hubris of vulgarly pragmatic narcissism to run impervious rough-shod over indigenous peoples – their destruction by its means, after all, written-off as a mere functional hazard of progress and being where the critique of Modernity gained moral traction/warrant with anthropologists.

There is an irony in this post modern correction, the reflexive effect of the pandemic revealing both our systemic inter-relatedness and thus interdependence on sovereignty, as the inhabitants of earth are shown most clearly how mutually interdependent and thus responsible that we are for the discrete border control and population management that nationalism facilitates.

This shared circumstance that we are all now confronted with along with the national responses of border control and social distancing, confirm the profound importance and the very real possibility of maintaining national borders and social bounds. Functional possibility of border and boundary control that the liberal powers-that-be would undoubtedly like to continue to deny.

And of the culmination of this Modern epoch post World War II, the idealized prohibition of group classification by means of Lockeatine Civil Rights no longer taken under the epoch’s fulmination as a simple mechanism at individual discretion against impediments to individual liberty, forward thinking and progress, but given a potently weaponized form of “Civil Rights” against forecast abuse of social classification by suspect groups, viz., as “racism”, a stunning and stigmatizing concept to wield by even the most crass against those deemed likely to abuse the concept of human taxonomic classification, easily ruining them, Bateson remarked in one of his very last speeches, nevertheless…

“I don’t have to tell you about the tyranny of patterns, that is the rubric under which we meet. What you may not know, is that you have to accept them.”

The rubric of the “tyranny” cited by so called progressives to be sheerly liberated from, of course, is the formal classification of patterns – including human ecologies – while Lockeatine rights, anti-racism and so on, are what is taken for granted as the perfectly innocuous liberation, the remedy to this “tyranny.”

The inevitability of systemic correction inherent in patterns, whether by stasis or homeostasis, is their tyranny.

This long overdue correction to modernity’s Cartesian universalism nevertheless presents the opportunity to move from post hoc reaction against the inevitable stasis – and by reaction against the stasis, we mean the non-deliberate physical and biological responses to corrections coming from outside of the system, sometimes confronting it in the form of disease, such as this virus - to one of social systemic homeostasis, deliberate correctivity: the autonomy of self correction, self corrective systems.

Nationalism, particularly ethnonationalism, structures a systemic world view optimally for homeostasis, i.e., in praxis - the socially self corrective paradigm as it facilitates accountability, coherence, agency and warrant in the management and coordination of human and pervasive ecology.

Whether disciplined by the overseers of homeostasis, or by brute stasis, a paradigmatic shift from Modernity and liberalism is implicated.

This international affliction that we are experiencing and the national responses of border control and social distancing confirm the importance, possibility and reality of maintaining national borders and interpersonal bounds.

As such, it prompts consciousness of a paradigmatic shift from the prevailing internationalist liberal paradigm, to one of paradigmatic conservatism - ethnonationalism.

......

However, the perennial libertarian concern over abuse of state power is vying to reassert itself as the most important rubric.

State measures to control the virus, ranging from shutting down small businesses, to fining people for walks in the park, to tracking-apps monitoring people’s whereabouts through their I-phones, to limiting freedom of travel for ordinary people, are looked upon as liable to lead to further centralization of wealth and power to the anti-ethnonationalist elite, along with a greater capacity and ostensible warrant to clamp down with a police state in their interests - not ours.

Particularly if this concern is upheld as paramount by influential voices who do not experience themselves as having a strong vested interest in ethnonationalism, a temptation especially for those talented enough to nerd their way around (think Styxhexenhammer666) and get their share (for now) despite the growing casualty to our species, personal priorities such as theirs can tap into a broader audience of right wing reactionaries, flatter their “intellectualism”, tickle conspiratorial horror scenarios and maneuver the broad base of our people right back into the laissez faire liberal-sphere - a co-option which would suit the powers that be just fine - the liberal powers that be, who’ve gotten us into this broad wreckage of our human and pervasive ecology, who obviously care even less about us and our concerns for the preservation of our kind and habitat, and would be just fine with seeing us blended away where we do not die-off outright.

Hence, the correction could be diverted through over reaction as the exercise of state power rouses concern of police and surveillance state, whether paranoically imagined or very real, as incipient ethnonationalists certainly have cause to be concerned about that through their experience of censorship and persecution.

However, most of those worried about these possibilities tend to be the same people who do not have the freedom of being grounded in good will; not being ethnonationalists, the people they feel duty bound to see as something like brethren-ends-in-themselves are not, in fact, their people, or do not conceive of themselves as such; and thus, they rather stubbornly cling to their right wing, anti-social security blankets – the socially unaccountable natural fallacy of ceaseless power struggle, or outside of praxis on the other side, outside of nature to an unaccountable sky god or the “magic hand” of the market that would ordain the charlatans who would use state power to oppress them indeed.

Nevertheless, the significance of achieving national autonomy for our people through state sovereignty on our behalf, is so clearly important that how state authority is to be achieved reigns supreme and how to rein-in state authority over potential abuse a detail – an important detail but one which should be far more manageable as we all know, if we are “bowling among ours only.” In fact, issues of potential state abuse, corruption and accountability (particularly keeping accounts requested to a minimum) should be far more manageable trough ethnonationalism and all the more reason for us to take charge.

Putnam’s studies, published in Bowling Alone, indicate that the heterogeneous, proposition nation is at the other extreme with regard to trust facilitation. Thus, we have less to fear from the homogeneously populated state – i.e., ethnonationalism.

And ethnonationalism is most open in the broadest sense as well, as the people are one in the union, from elites, to rank and file, to marginals, accountability is most likely to best serve the interest of all, thus kept to a minimum, let alone going rogue to police and surveillance state.

With that is another silver lining to fear of the police state: try putting yourself in their shoes - what are you going to do with all this data? Where would you begin? Are you afraid that you might be required to get a vaccine in order to travel or move to a nation? Is that a new practice? Haven’t Small Pox and Polio vaccines been required for a century now? But I digress.

Yes, China has a pernicious social credit system in operation, but that is a function of a narrow elite rigidly in power for their sake, not an ethnonational superstructure. China would have to be broken into several nations to have ethnonstates; as opposed to something more like an empire over-reaching divergent interests, attempting to suppress and control them.

Let us put trust where most people intuitively find trustworthiness, and where the science tells us that people find social and political participation worthwhile regarding state/union organization – if it is ours, in and about the interests of our homogeneous people, it is at very least a trustworthy start.

Further, consider what convulsive, over reaction can bring indeed - the quest for pure warrant, the exception beyond account, ethnosupremacism and genocidal imperialism as opposed to ethnonationalism.

Paul Tillich:

“The existentialist protest against dehumanization and objectification, together with its courage-to-be as oneself, has turned into the most elaborate and oppressive form of collectivism that has appeared in history.”

Although arguments have been put forward that he was speaking of the Soviets, it is actually pretty apparent that Tillich was speaking of the Nazi regime.

Even so, this platform isn’t about preventing self actualization and achievement, but rather looks to make the individual quests more possible by putting them on socially supportable, emergent grounds, facilitating an optimal circularity of needs in quest in order to stabilize them within the union, harmonizing them with homeostasis of the union as well.

This is why social constructionism has been recommended, in order to sensitize us to our human connection and indebtedness in Praxis, which is a fact and a responsibility, a necessary focus particularly for we, the more individualistic peoples of European evolution.

In fact, we are not making things up, out of thin air as weaponized forms of purported social constructionism would bandy.

This international affliction that we are experiencing and the national responses of border control and social distancing confirm the importance and reality of social grouping, and the possibility of maintaining national borders and interpersonal bounds.

As such, it prompts consciousness of a paradigmatic shift from the prevailing internationalist liberal paradigm, to one of paradigmatic conservatism - ethnonationalism.

In fact, in some respects we are experiencing the dark side of self actualization, a modernist story in dire need of social hermeneutic correction (as I have discussed many times), a story told of our individual potential and social boundary transgressing liberty maximized and weaponized against our group interests through the context of America’s civic nationalism; its civil rights weaponized as anti racism against any social classification that would serve European homeostasis facilitated by ethonationalism; thus it is an anti nationalist weapon, decidedly un-ecological but given to us as the rubric under which we function since World War II. Since then, Nazi imperialism and supremacism, its natural fallacy, have been disingenuously labeled nationalism by those antagonistic to our people being due any account, as we would by means of a sufficiently powerful group, the ethnonation, and able thereby to require accounts in return.

To be clear from the start, we are marking a distinction of ethnonationalism from ethnosupremacism, the epistemological blunder, the natural fallacy of Nazism, which was supremacist and imperialist, as Hitler believed state borders were a fiction that were merely enforced by brute force and should be violated by the powerful people, imposing their will to power in accordance with his natural fallacy – this is not nationalism, nor socialism for that matter. His natural fallacy followed a logic of meaning and action beyond (or below, as it were) the accountability and correctivity of the praxis of the social world, to runaway – to destruction. Our aim is the systemic autonomy that the social construction of ethnonationalism facilitates, and preservation of human and other natural species which borders assure, not a race struggle with the aim of annihilating those who do not want be subject, subsumed and eliminated in a battle for supremacy.

Ethnonationalism is the opposite, defending species against supremacism and imperialism.

As opposed to this runaway quest of modernity, clinging to subhuman nature in struggle for supremacy and imperialism, the turn to ethnonationalism wields the power of common interests to cooperate, thus security over anxiety, death, emptiness, meaninglessness, guilt, condemnation, subsuming these existential dreads into the meaningful context of our social capital, its history and future.

The ethnonation gives verifiable structure to the history and systemic breadth that hermeneutics critically affords - the historical narrative of our people, our broad systemic perspective in coherent meaning, contextualizing and transcending mere facticity, beyond duress of betrayal and the natural fallacy of momentary or episodic struggle.

Nationalism, true nationalism, that is to say ethnonationalism, requires a paradigmatic adjustment in the narrative we go by – not to deny the place of self, but to place its relevance within the meaning of a large, but delimited group – the nation (species) and the race (genus) along with its regions being about the largest practical unit of analysis to stave off the abyss of indifference that confronts the limits of our natural parameters.

There is an irony here as the epoch of Modernity is brought to a conclusion, its universal quests, its obliviousness to differences that make a difference, it’s impervious internationalism brings home the interdependent need among the nations for border control to facilitate human and pervasive ecology.

That is, national border control provides the apparatus for population management - the correctability of Praxis, which is approximately synonymous with social systemic homeostasis, the deliberate management of human ecology only practical through the alleged artifice of nationalism and its coordination among ethnonationalsm, without which there will be stasis, brutal stasis such as the virus.

We should have been able to do this before the disaster hit, but liberals…they are just too cool for the rest of us, aren’t they?

Now, you don’t have to look at things that way, you can go back to the blindered perspective of self actualization and the magic hand which you think owes very little to your ethnonation, but I don’t recommend it and I’d have people take a look at people like you when the nation’s people are down on their luck.

Ethnonational management facilitates the establishment of control variables and the biodiversity, the flexibility for an ecology that will best assure our survival and advance.

We are speaking of very real human biodiversity, more horizontal in nature, not the red cape, singularly lateralized Steve Sailer sham of comparative I.Q. that he has the nerve to call “human bio diversity” - the lateralism that you rightfully fear, having power to wield all that modern apparatus and same old narcissistic Abrahamic world view indifferent to the difference of your human ecology as might thrive in a diversity of ethnonationalism.

This international crisis demonstrates how interdependent we are on borders and interpersonal bounds, to protect the ecology of our genome, i.e., on not being forced to be so inextricably enmeshed with one another and not be subject to the coercive social engineering, the artificial halo of sainthood of no account, self righteous, imposed pan mixia to the destruction of ancient genome in this universal, most evangelical religion of modernity - which some would call secularized Abrahamism, a tag of which I could agree.

This world view takes us to a new paradigm from the Judeo/Christian, its enlightenment reaction of Descartes and Locke, to a world view centered existentially through praxis, and not misdirected from that centering by the red cape abuses of the concept by the YKW; rather we hold fast to this paradigm, the social connection of our embedded, emergent groups, race, nation, sub groups, family, and to responsibility, to ourselves in coordination with outgroups for our common interest, manageable by group – the nation being the optimal unit of power to maintain ourselves against out-group antagonism, indifference and brute corrections like the virus.

This international affliction that we are experiencing and the national responses of border control and social distancing confirm the importance and reality of social grouping, and the possibility of maintaining national borders and interpersonal bounds.

As such, it prompts consciousness of a paradigmatic shift from the prevailing internationalist liberal paradigm, to one of paradigmatic conservatism.

The Post Modern, hermeneutic turn, is a turn from the Caresian estrangement of Modernity to a centering in Praxis, our people, which is entirely consonant with ethnonationalism and its coordination with fellow ethnonationals.

The ethnonational state in particular, is an existential entity. That is, it facilitates the re-centering of our Western world view in Praxis – social group – taking us out of Cartesian estrangement, runaway and reaction to brute corrective stasis, to a centraliztion of ethnonationalist social groups, with their capacity to structure systemically corrective homeostasis by means of accountability; which also facilitates coherence, agency and warrant to coordinate with other human ecologies and pervasive ecology.

In this paradigmatic shift we are taking the post modern turn to praxis – the social outlook, the centralization of our world view through our people groups, most powerfully by nation, as opposed to the non-social, i.e. non human modernist reaction to sophistry and its abuses of the social realm, which shuns our capability for interactive, agentive correction and seeks relief from that responsibility by claims of narrow, if not pure warrant at either end of the Cartesian extreme, beyond nature, or below human nature, in natural fallacy – either way, beyond correction, beyond accountability, with impervious claims of objectivity free of interests and accountability, and liable to runaway, to disaster, such as befalls us and has befallen us.

In quarantine of our shut borders and social distancing, we may experience the time to dwell, to dwell in our emergence, among our emergent habitat and folk, to hold fast, maintain and evince our truth.

It is a time to slowly look at our situation in its broad concern, take what we need in essence and give thanks – thankian.

This anti Cartesianism, call it social constructionism as you should, is about focusing attention on our interrelatedness, re establishing the capacity to unionize our interests, not a matter of some esoteric and vast undertaking of psychological transformation, but a highly pragmatic act, an ordinary, straight away available act of unionization in our genetic interests, recognizing and reminding one another of our inter relation, indebtedness to one another and thus accountability – but with that comes the aforementioned reward of coherence, agency and warranted assertability.

There is an irony being revealed in this crisis, of the interdependent need for border control to facilitate human and pervasive ecology.

The irony of interdependence means that we are interdependent upon the discrete border control and population management that nationalism affords.

Hence the Paradigmatic shift from the globalizing liberal hegemony is set forth. Thanks be to the forces of pattern.

READ MORE...

Introduction

This is the first of three planned new essays - none of them very lengthy or (I hope) too obscure.  This one is the very first I have offered at this site for some time.  Together with the Sibelius essay I posted getting on for two years ago now it marks an end point to my work on foundation and the perspectives for ethnic nationalism that it affords.  The objective in this essay is to revisit and clarify the earlier work, to philosophise it rather more formally, and fit it to the task of moving forward.

The second essay in this trio, which I have not yet written, will deal with a foundational epistemology, specifically the dynamic scheme I called the Ontological Transit, which I hold to be the ground of our perception of the essential.  After that visit I hope to be able to offer – probably wholly unwisely and almost certainly not originally - a (very) tentative gesture towards a theory for the central problem of all philosophy of Mind, that problem being how our subjective experience arises from the electro-chemical activity of the brain. 

Thus, for example, for ethnic nationalists that includes how we beings of Nature and of the material universe witness the flood of mind-mediated information (qualia), know and value self and relation, being and the freedom in being, and truth, good and love, and know these to be vivifying and our experience of them as real, in their way, if not as solid as the hardest of reality we can perceive; and, therefore, as necessitous and essential for the political ordering of society.

A nationalist, therefore, is seeking not merely a technical (or ontical) description for the mind’s rendering of this thing we call reality.  He’s hunting for a basis in human truth, a natural, qualitative order which cleaves the political, as it does all things, and sets down the cause of the people’s life and life-interests in the light, above and beyond the generalities and vicissitudes of the day.

And we begin that hunt, naturally enough, in the beginning.

The founding vita

What does foundation mean?  Well, for me it certainly does not mean the mystic’s a priori ground or plane of pure being from which we mere human beings, sunk in our ordinariness, are famously exiled, and to which return is a moment of rapturous union with the All.  Minus the manipulation of brain chemistry it is never more than theory, and an anti-evolutionary theory at that; and is too often proposed with a religious certainty inevitably unappealing to a materialist.

Also, notwithstanding my materialism (and naturalism) and despite what follows, neither am I interested in the empirical evidence for the parental possibilities of oceanic ribonucleic acid.  As everyone knows, how life came about has not yet been explained scientifically, and may never be.  But in truth, the ontical sense of it will only ever be an account in quanta anyway; which cannot suffice for us.  For it cannot contain or model the human vitality we, as philosophical enquirers, seek to understand, interpret, intellectualise, and re-present in answer to the great question of how to live.

For the same reason I am not attracted to the dry philosophical practise of determining over-arching systems of ontological categories or classes into which the knotted skein of being might be teased – even those like quanta and qualia I am inevitably using myself!  There are two hundred and seventy of them in Hegel’s categorisation, all of three in various others!  It’s work on a cadaver, like rendering down speech into dictionary definitions, or the grand enterprise of a business concern into the annual accounts.

No, I am looking for the living ontological history, to be got from the stuff of existence as an artist draws the human truth of his model.  Methodologically, perhaps that would be an intellectual art, resistant to formalisation, therefore probably unteachable, therefore, probably not academically respectable.  But academia cannot model the politics of the blood any more than science can.  It has been missing something.  Or if it ever found a trace under its scalpel, it killed it all over again on the mortuary slab.  Let us avoid that.

So, by “foundation” I mean origin as a creative event which is self-perpetuating and, thus, functions as the universal primal order of life.  As befits mere beings of flesh and blood (and modernity, of course), let us address this admittedly large, not to say godlike subject in fleshy microcosm.  Accordingly and always mindful of our own extreme transience, we might hunt for the foundational in the occurrence, after perhaps a billion or ten or twenty billion infinitesimally brief cellular sparks in a mechanical universe (governed ceaselessly and absolutely by Time and Entropy but also by Happenstance in the sense of random events, processes, and interruptions) of an anomalous event of integration such that there was, this once, a founding vita, however spare, however primitive.

Obviously, we do not speak here of anything recognisably “personal”, or anything at all beyond a bare sequence of information in auto-catalysis.  But within that first, faint trace of a separation from the disintegrating lay a trace, fainter still, of the essence for continuity, interposing itself in the universal fabric, elaborating itself in whatever way will secure the light.  By elaborating, the whole may change and even divide and by dividing increase; and then, from changing and dividing and increasing, perform the saving trick of giving up phenotype to disintegration, yes, but withholding genotype for continuity.

Everything that comes after (so, nervosity, oxygenation, the sensing of heat, light, movement and of quora, the incorporation of energy sources, sensitisation to environmental change, the giving and receiving of chemical signals, the bias towards strong signals, etc … all the way to complex forms of sapience) is elaboration forced by the disintegrating action of the mechanical universe.  Stasis is not an existent reality.  For one of the sides to this drama … the side of life … there is never a possibility of rest or final victory.  Always, Time and Entropy drag this life back towards discontinuity and disintegration, and the cold state of mechanics.  Always life’s essential, voracious appetite for continuity, born of that initial happenstance, impels it forward and proves itself, within its own confines and by its perfect integrity, as equal as equal can be to the vast forces without.

Looking sideways at it, so to speak, and doing the ontology, one is necessarily sifting through and time-ordering the organism’s always elaborating grip on being.  I would reiterate that we do not speak here of the organism’s biochemical structure and interaction – an agglomeration of things dead in themselves.  We speak of its life-essence emerging unseen from difference elaborating as ever greater difference; and from confine, therefore, and the reflex, impulsion and movement which elaboration entails; and in what, broadly speaking, Martin Heidegger called sorge (care or concern), Frank Salter called interest, and we might call the sole imperative of the will to continuity; and, thereby, in the qualities of ownership and instinct which imbue that will; and in the procreativity which it imbues, and in the discrimination and opportunism which arrive with the light-seeker, sapience; and thence increase, inter-dependency, and belonging; and, ineluctably, death but also, triumphally, death’s deferment.  For all of this characterises the essential struggle, and all of this stands in absolute opposition to that cold state of mechanics which the ontological investigation of the universe logically must uncover.

The profound order

By its sheer salience and novelty, all this vitality contests the metaphysician’s standard theory of a recondite and static, continuous plane or ground of existence by which the being of things living and things not living is if not caused certainly situated.  In the standard theory existence itself has no nature, indeed is prior to all nature.  It is one and its value is 1.  The existence of everything that is has the same value of 1, and the being of All has the value of 1.  There can only be this austere and unlit, singular, factic thereness of a thing, and of all things under the governments of Time, Entropy and Happenstance.  It is existence as absolute homogeny, existence as raw, imperishable precondition.

What deities have been imagined to precede and exceed it, equipped with all the magical baggage of design, are themselves only the designs of men who found the prevailing mechanicity an intolerable affront to love, meaning, purpose, and hope of life and hope in the sublime.  Their gods, their spirits, their mythos, their very faith need not detain us, for the ontological order we are unearthing is not the object of their discontent, but the fundamentals of their repudiation of it.  To be precise, and – again - from the beginning:

Integration necessarily has locality and therefore confines, for confinement alone gifts separateness from the prevailing All.  In separateness there is necessarily resistance to the claim of that which is separated from, which is a claim to absoluteness.  In resistance there is the tendency and leaning towards continuity; and in that leaning already lay the seeds, at least, of a “something” which is essentially different, and which preserves its difference only as long as it engages in a Manichean struggle with the blind and profane, homogenising forces without.  But that engagement limits homogeny’s realm and the priorness of existence is universal no more.  Within its own bold confines essence is now prior, for so long as essence differentiates itself existence is made contingent upon and a function of it. 

So now we have, for the purposes of this investigation, conferred upon the general existence its sign and character of the “austere and unlit, singular, factic thereness of a thing, and of all things”, and we have defined essence not only as that of a vita differentiated from those existent things, but also as the differentiating constant of that “which preserves its difference only as long as it engages in a Manichean struggle with the blind and profane, homogenising forces without.”  Further, we have given the disintegrating and homogenising action of those forces the ontological character of mechanicity.  Ineffably un-differentiating in themselves, they become themselves because essence is itself differentiating, for only in their relation of difference is their respective character unconcealed.

Because this mutual unconcealing is a gift solely of essence’s genesis in continuity, it demonstrates that by that alone light has entered the universe, and a sweet anarchy by which the absolute is made relative and the profound order is re-established: no longer a singular, unbroken, universal reign of forces but a landscape of confined multiplicity, of the particular, and of the qualitative; and more than that, of the constantly differentiating and refining into an ever more specific and elaborate multiplicity.  In other words, there is a value of 2, and there are values within 2.  Essence is, essences are.

So we have our foundation in the essential principle and, specifically, its origin and prior relation to existence: a solid, immutable operative order which not only underpins the organic existence but pervades its instincts, ordering, conditioning and permeating their dynamic creativity.  Thus is its effect in all living organisms, and in the human organism also, to which everything must belong with nothing added and nothing taken away.