Majorityrights Central > Category: British Politics

..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...

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...

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...

Who The English Are: correcting the definition and the warrant by Laura Towler

Vivian Veritas presents Millennial Woes with a special Christmas Yule gift for amalgamated HuWhites of (((Dissident Right))): crayons, coloring books - color the enemy, “Left.”

Millennial Woes and all of his Carolers received a kosher gift from their Jewish friends; it not only has the kosher seal of approval, it confers the kosher seal of approval - blame “The Left” - a gift to share, providing you with: crayon memes to “counter them”,  to fill-in a coloring book of stereotypes of “the lefties” (distortions and misrepresentations that our kosher friends purveyed in the first place, but never mind). You now have the kosher seal of approval to color these marketed stereotypes thereof; while identifying more or less to the right.

        *  *  *

It’s two weeks before Christmas and all through the house, not a creature was stirring not even a louse; then appeared (((Ruth))), to him, nude*, wearing nothing but a Santa hat, and boots, presenting Millennial Woes - very polite - with a very special Christmas gift - twas a dream come true to Woes ... e-celebrity by following its simple rules - a Millennial Yule package - of crayons and seventy two copies of the same coloring book, to color the enemy of HuWhites - “The Left are the bad guys, while White and off-HuWhite are our side, the good guys.”

(((Dissident Right))) (((Dissident Right))) Holy infant so tender and (((HuWhite)))

The carolers are called-in, one by one, all seventy-two, for an hour each, to color their book with “Woes” - no need to look outside the box of crayons, “The Truth Will Live”, she simply doesn’t have such nature’ to deceive, these are my ideas, yes my ideas, all the problems of Whites are formulated there, by the crayons and coloring book, to make sure and look - You Know Where - to the Left! it’s there! that these sincere and relatively intelligent White people get the word out, that we care, to make the right choice, not there, but for the right; while our enemies, we know, get us crayon one: they’re against empirical reality, believing in groups and the like hypotheses, unionization and projects for social justice, they are, on the left.

Millennial Woes! look at “the left!”, how “childish!”

... they don’t deal with reality, our crayons and coloring book says so, and the carolers agree, coloring their coloring books with glee… ‘Truth, Right, White and Objectivity, they all rhyme..

...its a universal foundation, you see!

Vivian Veritas, ah Woes dream, “she doesn’t have such nature” to do anything bad like engaging the casuistry of terminology which would misdirect Whites - “take down my link to Majorityrights! for criticizing her, for thinking she should not be able to do that!” She’s come to me on Christmas morn, a dream, spreading the cheer of a new title, “dissident right”, wearing nothing but a Santa hat and boots - she’s right! ... facilitating great fame to my Millennial Yule for this year and years to come, on behalf the right - of the evolving kosher marketing campaign…. its childishly clear: here, she presents me this coloring book, it’s called “the left is the enemy” (because we have no use for it since 2008 - in fact, downright worry about social organization, unionization against our “objective” achievement of niche power and influence - not that we gained it though assiduous and disingenuous concern of our relative group interests)...

....now we’re the “dissident right” because that “sounds cool.”

Yes, it’s the reality of Jewish power and influence…

....shake hands Mr. Right.

(((Dissident Right))) (((Dissident Right))) Holy infant so tender and (((HuWhite)))

You’re a big boy now, colored this picture all by yourself!

After the yule we can play a new game outside the house, called chase the red capes - the red capes are our gross distortions, misrepresentations and reversals of left conceptualization, social responsibility, agency and unionization, an internationalist left, knowing no real union bounds or the like, ethnonational borders, except that which “should not be”, that of Whites, for them the empirical reality, jousting charges against red capes so distorted you’d think that’s all social agency and organization ever was and could be… We’ll have the goyim sheeple continue to chase after the red capes of distorted misrepresentations and reversals of terms and concepts useful to social organization…

Weeee! Millennial Woes, a celebrity!

Posted by Millennial Woes on Wed, 03 Jun 2015 12:27 | #

Ruth, who has the channel “The Truth Will Live”, is a close friend of mine. She and I speak regularly about the key issues of the alt-right, including the JQ, and she is on-board with all of it. In particular, residing in a Somali-heavy area of the US, she has to deal with their shit just like the rest of us do, and she hates it and opposes immigration from the Third World as wholeheartedly as any of us do.

To repeat, she is a close friend of mine and I know that she is a good, kind, decent person. I think it is wrong of you to besmirch her unless you have some evidence that she is a fake.

PS. And no, she didn’t ask me to write this post! AFAIK she doesn’t even know about this article.

Posted by Millennial Woes on Fri, 05 Jun 2015 11:41 | #

DanielS,

I understand your position, and I do understand the danger. However, I cannot stand by as my close friends are bad-mouthed when they have done nothing wrong whatsoever. (Note that you conflate Ruth’s statements with Rachel Haywire’s, when they are two very different people.)

Though I am grateful to your site for linking to my channel this last year or so, I ask you to remove that hyperlink now. I do not want to be associated with a site, however worthy it might be, that insults and dismisses my own friends.

Thank you,
MW.

P.S., I do not conflate her with Rachel Haywire. What Ruth has done consistently is to propose “the left” as the enemy and try to be a part of some trendy sort of marketing type scheme for a “cool” paleocon “alternative” for Whites.

One thing Millennial Woes doesn’t understand well enough is that Jewish people who are advancing poison ideas are not necessarily unlikable or clearly ill-motivated. Whether its Nicholas Katzenbach, Frank Meyer, Paul Gottfried or even Ruth, they are often amiable, intelligent people who can be enjoyable to talk to. Again, just because I don’t think Ruth should be able to participate in defining our terms, let alone weigh-in heavily on definition, doesn’t mean that I’m persecuting her or think that she should be persecuted.

Posted by Millennial Woes on Fri, 05 Jun 2015 20:26 | #

DanielS paraphrasing Ruth: “One extreme (of White behavior) is to do the Christian services bit, helping Africans to no end. The other is to not care.” To which she says it is wrong and extreme because they cannot take care of themselves well enough and it is the White man’s burden to help them.

This golden rule is one of the most Jewy things imposed on Whites from the Bible. - DanielS

MW: That’s very strange, because it was I, a non-Jewish, non-religious, British-native white guy, who introduced Ruth to the idea that the White Man’s Burden is a real thing - having arrived at this belief myself without any help, Jewish or otherwise. I came up with it, of my own volition, based on my own observations of my (white, non-Jewish, non-religious) people.

If you are that defensive of these women then we would view your link as a bum steer anyway. - DanielS

MW: I don’t even know what that phrase means. All I’m asking for is decency. Without a shred of evidence, you are ascribing a calculating, deceitful nature to a woman who simply doesn’t have such a nature. If defending her makes me “defensive”, so be it.

...and if, as a matter of casuistry, Ruth repeats an idea that is bad for Whites, even if it came by way of Millennial Woes’ “pure, not (((Christian))) influenced thinking”, that hardly means the idea is beyond reproach or that her tribal interests are not motivating misdirection.

This post may be adding “crayons” as times goes on….

Lets start with this crayon:

Another (((YKW))) controlled moniker to get Whites to identify with the right wing, along with them (((the YKW))), against anybody who gets any Left wing ideas such as unionization and left ethnonationalism against (((them))) and their complicit right wing sell outs.

Anyway, if it’s good enough for (((Vivian Veritas))), a.k.a., (((The Truth Will Live))), a.k.a. (((Ruth))), who thinks the (((Alt Right))) should re-brand itself as the “Dissident Right” (1:19:15 - 1:19:32), thinks that it ‘sounds cool’ (and recommends it for White right wing reactionaries and their misguiding kosher allies), then its good as gold for Millennial Woes to identify as “dissident right.”

Next Crayon: Deride “post modernity” as so much “da da” nonsense, because the goyim might find that it provides a key to defending themselves against modernity’s runaway pursuit of experiment (not exercising judgment to know when to willingly suspend disbelief), pursuit of universal objective truth at the hazard of relative group interests, running rough shod over inherent forms and ways, qualitative differences between peoples.. and on the other hand, as it would liberate them from the chains of unhelpful traditions ..allowing them to deliberately take the best of modernity and tradition/inherited ways… indeed to maintain inherited genetic forms.

Next Crayon: Deride hermeneutics as word-smithering gibberish, because it would allow for historical perspective, to rise above the arbitrary of mere facticity into personal and group coherence, accountability, agency and warrant.

No! Next Crayon, “say they all want equality” and its a sham! Next crayon, say that they are all delusional social justice warriors, seeking compassion to our full group of people, because they don’t want to be misguided and ruled by the YKW from the shining hill….

Next Crayon: deride social constructionism since there people find agency, group connection and consciousness to defend against YKW.

Next Crayon: deride pragmatism -i.e., accountability to the admission of fallibility and thus correctabity - including correctability of a social system being destroyed, as Whites are.

No! We must be about objective truth, facts, we must join our good Jewish friends on the right, yes, against equality (never mind that pursuing equality was never something that occurred to you) against social justice!

Next Crayon: The only truth is in the bible!  Yeah, that’s it, bind the goyim minds with self sacrificing, self destructive, group disinterested (except for the YKW and its) fables…

Not that one for you? (((Paleoconservatism, er the Alternative Right, er, the Dissident Right can accomodate that too)))...

Next Crayon: Change Human Biodiversity from a highly moral, lateral ecological concern and exchange it for a vertical matter of vain comparisons - I.Q. tests as a quantitative measure to stand in for the qualitative and often incommensurate differences and niches in and between racial groups regarding the matter of human bio-diversity.

Yeah, that’s it.

Not covering enough of the picture?

Next Crayon - give this one to Big Cat Kayla and Mark Collett to color in “The Greatest Story Never Told.” —yeah, that’s it… they can all learn how Poles killed 58,000 Germans in interwar Danzig, even though that never happened - but if Goebbels said it, must be true…

We’ll kill two birds with one stone - we’ll instigate western White animus toward those White nations that are still doing well to cling to their Whiteness and perhaps kill off some of our traitorous YKW who’ve out-married and prefer to mix-in with the goyim.

The Alternative Right, last year’s catch-all for right wing reactionaries to be steered, united and corralled at Charlottesville, was just phase one of our amalgam with the White right, culling them down…

Next Crayon: Cuckservatives - ok, so we gave you a pretty good one there…

Next Crayon: “Optics” - yeah, that’s it. We have our close contact from the Madison Ave. marketing firm working on that one. Mr. Mike Enoch. Yeah, he’ll be the “bad boy”, the real bad optics, Daily Shoah and so on… “Optics” and “Optics cucking”... He’ll start us off with the stiff arm salutes to show that we’re not optics cucks: “Hail Richard Thpenther”...

You see, you get it Big Cat and Collett, what “optics” means for the “normies” is that you don’t want to be showing swaska’s, stalhelms and stiff arm salutes, for them we have to optics cuck; but for those of us in the know, like at an NPI conference, we (wink) know that Hitler, the Kaiser, they had it all down pretty good in essence.

“Optics cucking” .... it’s not that Nazism was an epistemological blunder, it’s just that the normies won’t understand swastikas, stahlhelms and roman salutes.

Next Crayon: Anything but the White ethnonational Left!

...because that would underpin unionization of the full people, creating accountability to historic social and genetic capital, social group bounds and borders, including of the ethnonation.

The Carolers join in, and Greggy lisps a special hymn   ... with “Woes” ... the gayest sounding chorus, Richard Thpenther, Davith Aurini join-in: “those degenerate lefties! they just can’t deal with the reality of the pure empirical objectivity of our greatness!” ...look, even our Jewish friends agree!

* This is a joke, as if a dream that she appeared “nude.”

READ MORE...