Majorityrights Central > Category: British Politics

The keynote speech at the annual Patriotic Alternative conference three weekends ago was delivered as always by Mark Collett.  Over its forty-minute length he set out a crystal clear statement of where we British natives are headed demographically and socially.  He stated plainly that the loss of living space and ancient family lines will continue into the future, and the oppressive control of the state will develop likewise.  Violence against us will be commonplace.  But Mark also asserted that visible and invisible constraints upon us will arrest any counter-development that might lead to a liberation from our travails.  Based on the failure of the BNP, in which he was so active, he eschewed hope for the political path.  He also had no time for talk of an eventual armed resistance (understandably so – no one should lightly wish war on his own people).  Instead, he held out hope for a greater and greater awakening and a gathering together in the face of all the escalating travail.  Unsurprisingly, as a “ground-up” theorist and activist he focussed on the “white working-class” who most bear the burden of the British Establishment’s seven-decade race project.  He is, then, driven by a realism which it would be wise to heed.  Even so, significant issues arise; three of which I will address.

First, for reference, here is the speech.  And here are the issues:

READ MORE...

The English “can trace their roots back over generations” and have a history which is “the legacy of our collective identity”. This should be an uncontroversial claim. When the Venerable Bede wrote his Ecclesiastical History of the English People, almost 1,300 years ago, he felt no need to define the English, and even described “the English nation” as existing in the 6th century.

The first King of the English, Æthelstan, was crowned in 927AD, and it was during his reign that the word “England” was first written down, by Ælfric of Eynsham. The English have been a people, and England a country, for a very long time. We are what the Bible calls an ethnos; a people and a nation.

Making a point nationalists have made for decades, and in the same general language, someone named David Shipley, of whom I previously knew nothing, was allowed by the Daily Telegraph to write the most positive (albeit pay-walled) statement of Englishness I have encountered in the MSM for as long as I can remember.  It followed the reaction from certain quarters to a video interview of the steadily right-migrating Matt Goodwin with the former Conservative minister Michael Gove, who is now editor of the DT’s sister publication The Spectator, .  You can see it here:

As Shipley puts it, Goodwin drew:

a distinction between Britishness, a wide, cultural identity, and Englishness, a “very distinct identity… which goes back for centuries”.

Shipley then names four of the many spitting blood at Goodwin for this heresy, none of whom, in truth, have any business telling a whole people it may not exist.  Three are Jews.  The other is a former backroom boy in the Blair government named John McTernan.  He describes himself as “Irish” and “never English”.  “The concept of the ethnic English is truly evil”, says McTernan, which is an astonishing and hateful claim.  “Is it racist to recognise that the English exist?” asks Shipley of his readers.  In his closing paragraph he answers his own question:

It seems that this anger and horror that the English might identify as an ethnos is grounded in a prideful self-loathing. To suggest, as McTernan did, that it is “truly evil” to even conceive of the English as an ethnic group, is to deny our right to describe, recognise and understand ourselves. That is the true evil.

Well, it’s actually a modus operandum of the true evil that is the erasure of our ethnicity and peoplehood.  But the journey of a thousand miles, they say, starts with a single step.  Let that be it, and let the impudent scheming of the British Establishment and its agora of hostiles like McTernan be dragged into the light of day.  Let the final step of the nationalist journey bring us home as a native English people seething with the life and energy, positivity, and natural spirit that manifested itself right up to 1945.  Let each charactered part, each person, know what it is to belong to the whole and to be steeped in mutual recognition and mutual acceptance, therefore; each given to care where now there is indifference, and to feel generosity where now there is estrangement and withholding; and let each and every one of us be imbued with a sense of the venture and destining of the all.  These things made concrete make the land and home of an authentic “ethnos, a people and a nation”.  Sunk in the estrangements of liberal modernity though we are today, for each Englishman and woman to be able one day to know this lived truth again, and to be able to name it, and speak that name with love, would be enough.

That headline is a pithy riposte from a Telegraph reader - one Harry Bloke - posted on the thread to a piece by some Tory loyalist.  Tory loyalists are, of course, in ferment after Thursday’s much truncated elections, and greatly divided on how to respond to the predicted yet astonishing break-through of Nigel Farage’s latest insurgent creation.  Reform UK is now a grievous threat to the two-party system and the Establishment which rides its back.  The hitherto insurmountable electoral barrier of First-Past-The-Post looks to have been torn down.  The outlook for the legacy parties looks settled.  There is little they can do to stem Reform’s progress:

Reform UK’s real-time membership tracker tonight.

... indeed, Starmer has committed to doubling-down on his unwanted and authoritarian programme of economic managerialism, climate delusion, and social engineering.  As ever, the far left of his party are itching for the chance to put the knife in his back and give their (presumed) captive voters “real socialism”.  Farage would rejoice.  Meanwhile, the lacklustre Kemi Badenoch has dismissed those among her MPs who want to ape Reform policy-wise.  She is at one with the Tory Establishment boys, the City boys, the europhiles, the closet liberal democrats … all the creatures who Reform voters deride for being egregiously self-serving and not remotely conservative.  The fourteen years of their puffed-up and obtuse sense of political and personal entitlement is the very reason that the party is dying on its expensively-shod feet.

No, the near miraculous stealing of, in Runcorn and Helsby, the Labour Party’s sixteenth safest Westminster seat, and the near wipe-out of Conservative county councillors in those shires where voting took place speak of history unstoppably in the making.  At this still early point one has to agree with Farage that the next general election really could see a Reform government, with himself in Downing Street.  The notion that it might be Starmer seems very questionable.  The notion that it might be Badenoch seems plain eccentric.

Of course we would welcome Reform in government, not least for the freedom of thought and speech it would/should bring to us as to everyone, and the contest of ideas which could then follow.  Otherwise it is difficult to see how we might ever speak to our people.  However, with Reform in power and freedom of expression restored we could contrast our vision with those who, at bottom, want no more than that the liberal system is driven and directed neither by a Davosian cadre nor by hostile leftists.  Revolution is anathema to mere reformers, and then a revolution for life is incomprehensible to mere liberal individualists.

Still, let us recognise the extraordinary deeds of this man Farage, a uniquely gifted populist politician who has struck electoral gold in a moment of huge promise long in the making.  It is a shame that it could not be nationalists who have done that.  But our job is to bide our time and take our chances later.

A medley of DT headlines for 4th January 2024

Since the July general election the The Daily Telegraph has grown increasingly rebellious.  The editorial stance didn’t shift further to the progressive cause, as was the case in 1997 when, after eighteen years of Tory rule, Tony Blair’s party was positively welcomed into power with palm leaves laid at its feet.  No such change of tone for Kier Starmer and his hapless ministers.  Indeed, not just the Labour government but the entire liberal Establishment - no doubt as embodied at The Times and The Guardian – has quickly become fair game for the newspaper formerly derided as the Torygraph.  It seems that Donald’s Trump’s triumph in November has tipped the scales,and the DT’s owners and senior editors spy a radical shift in the polity and a chance for a revitalised commercial future.

Never has this been more apparent than today when the online site has overdosed on moral outrage at the decades-long political complicity with, and inaction against, Muslim child prostitution gangs.  One should, of course, bear in mind that prior to this the DT has had little interesting to say about the scandal.  It was The Times chief investigative reporter Andrew Norfolk who broke the omerta with coverage of the crimes committed in Rotherham.  The Times, it has to be said, has fallen silent on the scandal now; as the DT was until now.  But better late than never, the DT has published a clutch of pieces - at least five - in the wake of Labour Minister Jess Phillips’ rejection yesterday of a national public enquiry into events in the Lancashire town of Oldham.  One of the articles, which are all pay-walled, actually uses the term anti-white racism to describe the actions of authority.  That would have earned a DT commenter an instant ban not so long ago.  But now the native cat is out of the bag, and it won’t be put back.  The nationalist cat will be looking to follow!

The most impressive of the articles is titled How the grooming gangs scandal was covered up.  It is a joint effort by Sam Ashworth-Hayes, a leader writer and business columnist at the DT, and Charlie Peters, a National Reporter at GB News – a cooperation which itself shows the direction of travel at the DT.  The article is the best piece of journalism on the subject that I have seen for years.  It concludes with the following excoriating sentiments:

The state must leave no stone unturned in its efforts to root out this evil. As one victim told GB News, “a government inquiry is the only way to hold Oldham Council and Greater Manchester Police accountable for their huge failures that led to hundreds of survivors being mistreated and not listened to. A Telford-style inquiry will give answers to survivors but it won’t give justice to those who deserve it.”

As shadow justice minister Robert Jenrick recently wrote in these pages, “a national inquiry is just the start: we need justice for the victims”. In his words, “this appalling scandal continues today because perpetrators still walk free and the officials who covered it up have been let off. The individuals who turned a blind eye to these crimes – and fed the most vulnerable women to the wolves – should be in jail.”

Reform UK’s Rupert Lowe has called a “full, free and fair public inquiry” that will “show the British people the facts, and let them decide”.

“No stone must be left unturned” in holding the guilty to account, “including those who acted to cover up these atrocities”. For the guilty, Lowe’s prescription is simple: “deportations and prosecutions, lots of them”.

“Any man or woman found to be complicit in these crimes should be deported, including dual nationals who should have their citizenship stripped away. That includes family members who were aware of what their husbands, fathers, sons and brothers were participating in. Swift and brutal justice is required”.

And above all, concerns over multiculturalism must no longer be allowed to outweigh the need to keep the public safe. As Dampier points out, we “need an end to two-tier community relations and the application of the law equally to all”.

Robert Jenrick agrees: “to sustain order in multicultural Britain, the state considered it necessary to apply the law selectively. For decades the most appalling crimes from diaspora groups were legalised and actively covered up to prevent disorder. The rule of law was abandoned to sustain the myth that diversity is our strength, destroying the lives of thousands of working class white girls in the process. This scandal starts with the onset of mass migration. This appalling affair is the final nail in the coffin for liberals who cling to the argument that Britain is an integration success story. Mass migration must end immediately and the foreign nationals prosecuted for their monstrous crimes must be deported - no ifs, no buts”.

It may sound strong. But strong measures are required. The British state’s soft touch approach left this problem to fester and rot.
Children were abandoned to suffer in the name of community relations, an unforgivable price. And it was a price that brought nothing: harmony based on lies doesn’t last. Public fury is swelling, and there is more to be angry about than if the cases had been dealt with swiftly at the time. Indeed, abuse may still be taking place because the state failed to act properly before.

It’s time for a new approach. The truth must be brought to the light.

The political techtonics are shifting beneath the feet of the liberal Establishment.  The age of lies is coming to an end.

Laura Towler and her husband Sam Melia, who was recently jailed for two years for “intent” in possessing flyers which the prosecutor admitted broke no law.

Michael Gove, a clever-cunning, allegedly Conservative government minister known for stabbing Boris Johnson in the back during the balmy post-Referendum period, has done the inevitable and included Patriotic Alternative on his “little list” of extremist organisations.  Apparently, making this list is part of his duties as Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.  Specifically, it is a duty forced on him by the somewhat challenging pro-Palestine marches which have hit the headlines since the IDF launched its assault on Gaza.  This standard Establishment boilerplate (from his announcement to the House of anti-white racists otherwise known as the Commons) is how he saved face with the Muslim “community”:

I’m sure that we would agree that organisations such as the British National Socialist Movement and Patriotic Alternative who promote neo-Nazi ideology, argue for forced repatriation, a white ethno-state and the targeting of minority groups for intimidation, are precisely the type of groups about which we should be concerned and whose activities we will assess against the new definition.

The activities of the extreme-right wing are a growing worry, the targeting of Muslim and Jewish communities and individuals by these groups is of profound concern requiring assertive action.

I have never heard of the British National Socialist Movement.  I doubt if anyone else has either.  I would not be in the least surprised if it is comprised of a corpse, a couple of thirteen year olds and six MI5 officers.  On second thoughts, it may well not have the two thirteen year olds.  But Patriotic Alternative … a body of very courageous people demanding democracy and freedom ... is the largest and most energetic of the nationalist groups actively defending the native peoples of this land (in real terms, the English).  Its leader Mark Collett is too politically old-school for my taste, but he is also honest and will debate the Jewish Question and Islam with all-comers.  Of course, that’s too much for the guard-dogs of the Electoral Commission, who have blocked PA’s six attempts to register as a political party; and it’s too much for the ardently Judeophile and Islamophile political Establishment, which just can’t wait to apply every one of its favourite, brain-dead hate labels to the group.  Obviously, the natives are not to be permitted the freedoms of speech and association, free representation, shared interests and right on the soil (including the right to defence of homeland), real political understanding, or anything emerging therefrom.

Hence Mr Gove’s hugely reviled, dead-beat government has to find PA guilty of “neo-Nazi ideology” and “targeting of minority groups for intimidation”.  As for “a white ethno-state”, here is the Oxford demographer David Coleman - not known for Nazism and intimidation - writing in Standpoint Magazine in June 2016:

Even without migration … the White British population would cease to be the majority in the UK by the late 2060s. However, should current high levels of immigration persist for any length of time, that date would move closer to the present. Britain would then become unrecognisable to its present inhabitants. Some would welcome a brave new experiment, pioneering a wider world future. Others might say Finis Britanniae.

No one ever voted to dissolve away our white ethno-state, as it existed quite by force of Nature in every past century.  Necessarily, then, the Establishment’s wild and abusive, politically engineered demographic change has been brought about without the slightest recourse to the democratic process.  It is a statement of pure force majeure and fait accompli.  Now politicians 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 not 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 theft 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 that demand are not democrats and not ethical people.  Indeed by their rigid control of the party system and of the political discourse, enforced through a compliant media, they are killing democracy itself.  A healthy democratic culture cannot be maintained without the freedom to challenge injustice or even to speak of it in the public square (which freedom is inherent to our democratic nationalism).

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 experiment; and we cannot permit it to become any or all of those in perpetuity.

Democracy belongs to the people.  The power to will change by peaceful means belongs to the people.  We have earned it in on the battlefield and in the public square.  Our people must decide.

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.

The next time you see or hear a British politician speaking soft and honeyed words of of democracy and rights, be sure to remember that you are beholding the lowest of liars and hypocrites.

Back in pre-Covid times, within a month of Boris Johnson’s great Brexit election victory of 12th December 2019, the globalist monster began to assert its will on the new United Kingdom government.  From that first moment of hope betrayed it’s been downhill all the way.  The present crisis afflicting Liz Truss’s government, if one can call it that without heavy irony, is the lowest point so far.  The country’s first African Chancellor of the Exchequer is out on his ear, guilty of cutting taxes without cutting expenditure.  No one believes that Truss herself can survive more than a month.  The candidate she soundly defeated for party leader, the Indian midget Rishi Sunak, is now widely expected to replace her in a coronation event, without a further vote among the party members in the country.

Isabel Oakeshott has set out the coup in all its audacity at The Spectator (paywalled):

The first step of their plan involves market turmoil on Monday morning. Sunak and his supporters hope that more financial panic will be enough to force Truss to quit – whether voluntarily; or via a threatened change in the party rule book that theoretically protects her for a year; or via some other mechanism they have yet to come up with.

Step two involves the coronation of King Rishi, the argument being that he is the only figure that can at least semi unite a furious and fractured parliamentary party. Jeremy Hunt may fancy his own chances, but is unacceptable to many MPs who backed Sunak. The idea is to keep him where he is – in No. 11 – while offering the other big Tory party leadership contest loser – Penny Mordaunt – another of the great offices of state (Foreign Secretary).

Step three involves convincing a mutinous parliamentary party that this new set up is better than the alternative: Truss/Hunt attempting to play political Siamese twins, when he has just publicly junked her entire economic agenda and she is Prino: prime minister in name only. Nobody really believes this macabre charade can last long.

Step four is something all sides can agree on: resolving to do whatever it takes to avoid a general election. Sunak’s outriders – already busily working the phones – will argue that their proposed solution restores some political stability, deferring the terrible day of reckoning that looms at the polls. Two years is an eternity in politics, they argue – perhaps in the interim, something will come up?

So, what is one to say when such schemers and deceivers are in the ascendency, disposing of the party rule-book and the voice of the membership in the country.  There is no respect, no fear, no dignity, no sense of right and wrong, or of fair play.  There is just ambition and opportunism, and much arrogance.  To an outsider, the overall impression is of something dead or dying, in a poisoned world of many dead and dying things; a sentiment rather accurately expressed by a commenter on the thread to Oakeshott’s article, Demosthenes by name:

Demosthenes • 6 hours ago
Pathetic, cowardly, cuckolded, snivelling empty husk of a once proud political party. When they’re turfed out at the next election they will have nothing to show for their decade and a half in power but bigger government, higher taxes, diminished personal freedoms and unrelenting, pitiless, unprecedented levels of mass immigration year after year after year.

Whitehall see themselves as the true masters of this country, and frankly I have to agree with them. While conservatives may frequently be in office, it is the liberals who are permanently in power. That’s just the politically-correct, morally-relativist soup they all swim in.

It’s said that dead things can go with the flow, but only alive things can go against it. There are many dead things floating along with the currents of modern Britain, not just the civil-servants. Indeed, virtually every public institution I can think of; the BBC, ITV, the Police, the NHS, universities, judges, lawyers, the charity sector, even the army… all our cultural elites in fact, are as dead as any other rotting carcass.

You are a fool if you believe the so-called Conservative party is any different. It took the biggest voter turnout in our nation’s history, and the prospect of electoral armageddon, for the Tories to be dragged kicking and screaming over the Brexit finish line, pathetically diluted and delayed though it was, and carving out a large portion of our country to live indefinitely under foreign laws… Celebrate that if you really want to, but on every other issue that truly matters; mass-immigration, climate apocalypticism, political Islam, anti-white racism, historical masochism, etc. etc., the Tory Party is just another dead thing going with the flow towards the fast-approaching waterfall.

If the plotters succeed in installing Sunak at No.10 it is inevitable that a terrible punishment awaits the Conservative Party at the next election, scheduled by December 2024.  One awaits the next word from Nigel Farage, perhaps in the ear of Oakeshott’s live-in boyfriend Richard Tice, who runs Farage’s former Brexit Party under the title Reform UK.

Why do corporations whose business model is constructed on mass production and mass consumption think they can continue to survive in an age of reduced and reducing population and “sustainability”?  Who will buy Fiats and Fords when no one owns a vehicle?

Owning a car is outdated ‘20th-century thinking’ and we must move to ‘shared mobility’ to cut carbon emissions, transport minister says
Owning a car is outdated ‘20th-century thinking’, junior transport minister says
Trudy Harrison, 45, said the UK should move to ‘shared mobility’ to cut emissions
Almost 80 per cent of UK households own at least one car, latest figures showed

Owning a car could become a fad of the past, a government minister claimed this week.

Junior transport minister Trudy Harrison, 45, told a sustainability conference owning a car was outdated ‘20th-century thinking’ and the country should move to ‘shared mobility’ to cut carbon emissions.

Ms Harrison, who is also a former parliamentary private secretary to Boris Johnson, said the UK was ‘reaching a tipping point where shared mobility in the form of car clubs, scooters and bike shares will soon be a realistic option for many of us to get around.’

She told a virtual audience at shared transport charity CoMoUK what the country needed was a move away from ‘20th-century thinking centred around private vehicle ownership and towards greater flexibility, with personal choice and low carbon shared transport’.

And so the deceitful drip-feed of the bad news about the future continues.

Car-owning is just one area of dispossession slated for the little people.  According to the infamous (now deleted) WEF article everything ... even the clothes on our back ... will be rented from a corporation.  Consumption will crash.  Manufacturing will die.  So why do no major manufacturers or industry bodies resist?

Well, the car manufacturers, certainly, seem to expect continued high-volume sales of their products to the rental markets of the smart city pod-scape and the blob-on-a-bed of the metaverse.  As some deluded management geek wrote at Forbes:

Customer loyalty will gradually move from brand and dealerships to integrated and convenience-driven services and associated mobility options. New business models of pay-per-use and subscription-based mobility will be the way forward.

But there isn’t any customer loyalty to the manufacturer in pay-per-use.  The pleasure of ownership leads to an entirely different qualitative expectation from that of mere utility, where competitive pressures and the absence of customer loyalty will inevitably lead to low-quality, throw-away products with minimal profit potential.  So why are the car producers - or, indeed, any of the quality-oriented life-style mass-producers - eagerly going along with a fake “sustainable” market system that they can’t survive?  They’re not mad environmentalists.  Their chief executives are not paid to crash the company.

One wonders if the real reason is peer pressure at the Davos forum and the other nests of globalism, and cowardice and fear about standing out from the lemming-herd does the rest.

Native Man, Pragmatic Man, Nietzschean Man ... but Revolution Man?

On 22nd June 1948 a vessel owned by the Board of Trade but leased to the New Zealand Shipping Company quietly docked at Tilbury.  It disgorged 494 fare-paying black Jamaican passengers: migrants who, at the invitation of the ship-operators, had taken it upon themselves to turn up in our country to improve their lot in life.  This small and novel event precipitated what would quickly become a permanent revolt of the political class against the sovereign people of this land, which itself set off a chain of race/ethnicity-based political, legal, social, and economic actions and reactions.  Inconceivable seven decades ago, these have reached down into every corner of British national life, and have proved absolutely cataclysmic for our people.  They have been conjoined with other immoralities, other political betrayals, each heralding other disasters, such that, in these days, the gravest darkness and uncertainty hangs over even our immediate future.

Any man or woman who finds even some of this troubling and begins to question it already has one foot placed on the long road of understanding that leads to some form of nationalism.  It may take months or even years before the seeker detaches from the old, safe hostilities of left and right, and formulates the notion that the entirety of politics, culture and economics is made horribly, equally destructive by some inhering force or combination of forces.  It will likely take longer still before said seeker also asks what we, as a people, must do to remain not just free or democratic or Christian, or whatever, but who we are.  But then he or she has turned a significant corner.  The people and the people’s everlasting home have been reclaimed from the estrangements of the old ways of thinking, and will not be lost to sightlessness and uncaring again.  With that understanding comes a critique of many other things in this world, such that the whole constitutes an awakening from a deep but general slumber, and a liberation into a new sensing of truth and an intense sensing of identity … of our ethnic person ... of belonging and, most of all, of an existential care.

For the vast majority who accomplish this return it is done alone and osmotically, like a salmon leaving the ocean to return to the place of its arising.  It is a journey of the instinct to an honourable estate, but not a whole nationalist estate.  It is not got from real-world contact with nationalists or any prior ideology of British nationalism.  It is invariably the product of time spent on-line, and had this not been the internet age little of this awakening would ever have been possible.  As it is, the resulting amour propre is nationalism to its possessors, though that singular element of care defines it more exactly as nativism. We might, therefore, justly apply to these good folks the soubriquet “Native Man”.

READ MORE...