Majorityrights Central > Category: British Politics

To define the political against politics may seem only to be of interest to a few geeks and wonks who are unsatisfied with the usual utilitarian definitions.  “The stuff politicians do” ... that sort of thing.  But, actually, an understanding of how the political delimits politics, opening in any given time to the new, is key to its historical dynamic and also to people like us who wish to subvert and even replace that dynamic.

Perhaps the first thing to note is that, “great men” aside, politicians themselves are almost never the source of change.  As we saw with the long and disgraceful Remain rebellion, politicians of all mainstream parties are conservative in matters of their own position and persuasion.  They don’t welcome instability in their own political careers, or anything that might result in them being found out and forced out.

Because the class is self-selecting, its politicking from parliament to parliament, from generation of MPs to generation of MPs, tends always towards something vested and, in the longer term, alienating from the voters.  That self-selection occurs in no small measure on the basis of the possession of certain canonical values and beliefs which themselves refine and radicalise as other influences are brought to bear - for example, the agenda of those who actually fund political activity in this country, and all those who, at once or perhaps twice remove, participate in the process of developing (in our time, radicalising) “the stuff politicians do”.  Thus ...

i. Formal advisors have, of course, been a staple of government since the Pharoahs, and probably earlier.  The breed populating Westminster and Whitehall these days is the SpAd, dozens of whom provide ministerial teams with political strategy options and a very few ... Dominic Cummings being the notable case in Boris Johnson’s government ... with blue-sky thinking.  SpAds fill the party-pris space between ministers and their civil servants, whose terms of service include party-political neutrality.  They tend to come from, and eventually return to, the policy institutes and PR firms which have likewise thickly populated the political scene over the last few decades.  But while they are “in the thick if it” at their ministries or in Downing Street they are as much part of the political class as the honourable members and noble lords of Westminster.

ii. Immediately beyond the Westminster class is the oft-termed chattering class, the professional reporters, commentators and critics of the legacy media, all of whom have daily access to politicians, and whose relationship with them is symbiotic.

iii. Also very close to the politicians is the huge array of quangos, policy institutes, charities and organisations such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, and pressure groups such as the British Board of Deputies, the Muslim Council of Britain, Stonewall, and Hope Not Hate.  Their contact to MPs is more formalised, since information really only flows one way and MPs don’t need many of them as such - excepting left-of-centre MPs, of course, who can find gainful albeit chrony employment among the forest of Blairite quangos, international panjandrum bodies, and what-have-you when the Westminster career is done.  Much like Blair himself.

iv. The most cordial of political relations are those between Conservative MPs and corporate and banking interests.  Of course, said interests have to become party donors to gain access to ministers and actual influence over policy.  But it’s always money well spent - and valued by the politicians much more highly than, say, the loyalty of voters.  Career-expired Conservative ministers who have proved useful can expect to rack up a fine collection of non-too-taxing, two-afternoons-a-month non-exec directorships and consultancy arrangements.  Keeps the wolf from the no longer ministerial door, doncha know.

v. Beyond the clamour from all these entities is the source of the most fundamental input to the political process, and that’s the professoriate: the political philosophers, the political scientists and theorists, the economists, the sociologists, the historians, the jurists, and so forth.  It is their historical function to shape the future.  There are some instances where the political connection is direct.  Freidrich Hayek, for example, shaped Thatcherism.  Anthony Giddens shaped Blairism.  Even archly pragmatic governments such as David Cameron’s have their intellectual gurus (in his case the rather more humble Steve Hilton, an original member of the Notting Hill Set).  As a rule, though, the most historically re-defining government is informed by the most philosophically re-defining intellectual.

vi. Way out in the distant margins are the radical street activist groups such as Black Lives Matter and Unite Against Fascism, publicly toxic because of their extremism, but not so toxic that politicians can’t slavishly follow every demand they chant.  And that’s without these groups having any formal contact with them.  In these cases, of course, it’s not always about political cowardice.  A significant fraction of MPs, and not all of them in the Labour Party, very likely agree ideologically.

So these are the six sources of “the new” which feed the political class.  They define the boundary of the political not via their broad output (books, papers, lectures), much of which may never attract MP’s attention or interest, but via their input to Westminster and Whitehall itself, however restrictive that might be, however that may come about.  The political is the totality of theory in metamorphosis and theory already metamorphosed into practise.  The political is all that can be talked about in party political circles. 

We should note at this point that this essentially technocratic arrangement came to real prominence not in Thatcher’s time but a decade later with the drive by Clinton, Blair and Shroeder to fix for all time the then regnancy of the progressive left all across the West.  In part that was to involve ideological radicalisation.  The formal institution of culture war, anti-racism, and political correctness moved wholesale from the American campus, where they incubated in the 1970s and 80s, into national party systems; and at the same time Third World immigration was massively ramped up.

So it was that in his famous and very candid article for the Evening Standard in October 2009 Andrew Neather, a previously unheard-of speechwriter for Blair, Straw and Blunkett, reported “coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended - even if this wasn’t its main purpose - to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.”

The other weapon in the progressive toolkit was the system of appointments to Third Sector bodies at all levels.  John Major’s government had installed Tories in 57% of these appointments.  But Blair completely changed the ideological balance. By 1998, Labour supporters made up 75% of appointees and Conservatives only 13%, a trend which carried right through the years of Labour rule, Gramscian style, and onward to that of Theresa May.  They were the years of the networker in an ideologically progressive, state-funded managerial system allying not in their hundreds but in their thousands with like minds in government.

Blair’s intention - to render right-wing opinion politically inoperable and thereby dominate government in perpetuity - was never achieved.  But he did succeed in insulating party politics from the more inconvenient opinions of the people.  In place of the steering hand of the voting public MPs had all the expert advise and creative thinking they could possibly need.  Politics could function for four or five years at a stretch without once taking account of what the people thought.  And why not?  The votes still rolled in on election day.  Blair won three general elections.  Brexit notwithstanding, he made politics safe for politicians.

For nationalist parties trying to mount electoral challenges dependent on unbridling the will of the natives his dispensation presents a near-insuperable barrier.  How do you make a breakthrough when your own arguments are simply, cleanly excised from every area of the political, and all anyone ever hears of you is the usual mechanical abuse and condemnation?  How do you make a breakthrough when you don’t really understand why the political is so impossible to penetrate ... not just ideologically because the Establishment and the media are hostile to nationalist thought, but literally, because the political is filled to the brim with the unholy marriage of economically hyper-individualist policy and socially hyper-egalitarian policy.  There is no room for kinship when all is individualism.  There is no room for particularism when all is universalism. 

The question, then, becomes one about how to drive a nationalist wedge into the rockface - or, perhaps a better analogy, how to strew the political ground with nationalist seeds.  The good news is that it is possible.

Culture war advanced from the neo-Marxist left is, by its careful targeting and its singularly existential consequences, race war against us native Brits.  But it’s a race war that need never declare its true nature and meaning publicly.  Its constitution is such that the leftist race-warrior can break every moral bound and act towards our people as oppressively and hatefully as licence allows, yet still claim to be acting culturally and in the interests of an equalitarian and universalist human freedom, ie, excising “racial oppression” and “hatred” from this land.

It is only the latest in the long, doleful line of utopian struggles to rid the world of all conflict.  That it denies Nature and human nature and the Darwinian principle of fitness and selection ... that its demand for the obliteration of identity and difference is anti-human ... that it is a genocidally destructive process for us, as the native people ... that it commits all this trespass simply doesn’t enter into it.  Quite the contrary, any action in defence of our people’s precious life, however culturally we frame it as our people’s way of life or by the proxies of “Christian values” or “Western civilisation”, immediately draws down upon us all the same old barely contained violence and hate-labelling, like Orwell’s vision of a boot “stamping on a human face forever”.  There is no conversation to be had with the owner of the boot.  The owner, ultimately, is the universalising, equalising, homogenising dynamic of utopianism, and it is deaf and blind to us.  For all its rejection of racialism, UKIP found itself stamped on in its day.  Already, Laurence Fox is finding that the boot needs must stamp on him, too.

So while it is fair to say that there is no culture war at all, and never was ... that everything was always about our ethnicity and race, always about obliterating us by any and all political means, because our obliteration is both the goal of and the latest way to the utopia of sameness ... while that is all true, nonetheless the rules of the political game are that everyone must proceed as though the left is indeed innocent of all sin and, far from being pathologically, hypocritically anti-human, is the proper moral arbiter on nationalists and nationalism.  This is how the left, as the client of the British Establishment, the corporate Establishment, has achieved the marginalisation of nationalists and forced the culturists, civicists, and conservatives to walk on the thinnest of eggshells.

All this serves one purpose only: to remove the life-cause of our people from the debate and practise of politics and confine it in moral quarantine as far away as possible.  Our job as advocates for our people, whether we are nationalists, culturists, civicists or traditional conservatives, is to put that life-cause back into the political, with all that implies for discrimination against the human Other - the Establishment’s tool of our replacement and dissolution.  Discrimination for the life-cause of one’s own genetic kind is necessary, natural, and good, and is the true human universal.  Discrimination for a greatly abused and discriminated-against, colonised people is likewise wholly moral and necessary.  Our people must live, for that is what Nature commands; and, besides, that life is a higher cause by vast orders of magnitude than the utopians’ pathological and obsessive, profoundly unwanted dream.

Nationalist politics in this country went into crisis from the moment in autumn 2009 when Nick Griffin was humiliated on Question Time, and the revolt by senior BNP activists began. By the time that Griffin stood down as leader - all of five years later - the party was vitiated. Membership had collapsed and nationalism had lost all political momentum. Online activists took up the slack, growing their audience as the social media platforms grew and adding a degree of thoughtful analysis to the general diet of polemic. But this year, again, we have seen a setback in the form of the programmatic, “wokist” purge by those same platforms of even the mildest non-liberal opinion, all conducted under the specious, self-defining rubric of “hate”. In the longer term it is entirely possible that the new free speech platforms will render the “mainstream” social media a boring irrelevance. But we are a long way from that today.

This has been happening, of course, while politicians, public sector managers, journalists and the police have been patronising Black Lives Matter, and thereby facilitating a paradigm shift in wider Establishment attitudes. The race dicta has moved within a hair’s breadth of the general judgement that “white” equals “racist”. It certainly equals “unconsciously biased” - a novel pathological condition that can, apparently, be “trained out”. For now this is the Establishment position. But the possibility of “training” alone holds back the judgement that white lives don’t matter. This is where we now stand, even as we are being replaced in our towns and cities by populations which have been taught to hate us.  Something truly terrifying is being prepared, and the forces driving this do not have a moral stopping point.

There is, let it be said, some cause for renewed hope in the appearance of Patriotic Alternative under Mark Collett and Laura Towler, whose refreshingly novel activism has caught the imagination of many. There is, in consequence, a renewed momentum in political nationalism (which explains the all-too-typical hit-piece published in The Times some days ago). As and when PA wins party political accreditation from the Electoral Commission it will be a safe bet that the other micro-parties who lay claim to an ethno-nationalist philosophy will be hard-pressed to justify their existence - Britain First has already been forced to add repatriation to its policy list. Further, PA claims to be pulling support away from the non-racialised parties of dissent. Its website traffic already exceeds that of the For Britain and UKIP sites. There is, in addition, a reasonable possibility that by the end of the year, or perhaps early in 2021, PA will pivot in a new and original direction which could have far-reaching implications for political nationalism in this country.

We must also note that there is some positive action, too, in the political mainstream. This government, under the influence of Dominic Cummings, is doing something at last to fight the culture war - the first time any Conservative government has even acknowledged its existence. There is push-back against the deep-seated, liberal patrician or mandarin culture of the civil service. The BBC’s equally ingrained urban liberal values are also finally coming under attack. It is reasonable to expect that, in time, other quite weighty blows will be landed by Cummings on the progressive edifice that is maintained at the tax-payers’ expense. Education, arts and culture, and the quangocracy are likely targets.

But elsewhere there is only deterioration. The race dicta in government very much reflects the standard globalist conjunction of neo-liberal economic policy and neo-Marxist social policy, the latter perfectly open to colonisation by BLM’s marxistic and anti-native politics. The corporate demand for basement-level labour costs and non-unionisation, high immigration and an ever-expanding population, all of it got by campaign donations to the Conservative Party and the promise to ministers of lucrative non-executive directorships when the Westminster career is done, always supercedes election-time promises to the party faithful. As a result, Boris Johnson’s government is driving immigration blindly onward, threatening to import half of Hong Kong, seeking to advertise jobs in vast swathes of the British economy anywhere that potential migrants with “points” might be found. Further, an historic liberalisation of the planning system, sweeping away the local power of decision and so attacking the principle of consent and the democratic process itself, is being engineered with the obvious (if not aim then certainly) by-product of colouring the rural Home Counties and the south.  We English - many, in this case, who have already fled from urban “diversity” - are having the last vestiges of our control over who we live with stripped from us.

Add to this the Brexit marathon, add the Covid epidemic with its effect on social and work practise, its impact on liberty, its debt economics, and a picture emerges of a nation in a time of flux and struggle, a nation being pushed towards the unfamiliar and to the extremes in every direction, with nothing remaining in its place and no realistic or immediate prospect of stability.  But that’s not to say that it’s a one-way journey to hell.  The political parvenu and ex-actor Laurence Fox’s embryonic but nevertheless reactionary, culture-warring party Reclaim, with £5 million to spend but no politics as such, is clear proof that anything is possible in this historical moment. As moments go, it is at once the worst of times if you are one of our people, but by no means the worst of times if you are a mainstream political activist. Yet it is also as good a time as any for us to act, and act we can.

Within days I will set up a website to advance the best in White advocacy/nationalism as it is known to be - a place for the resource brought to bear, for its cultivation by those who recognize the crucial value of this resource.

I will endeavor to maintain a presence at Majorityrights in order to correct any misrepresentations of my positions and to challenge any perfidy which might make its way back, hoping for my riddance.

Some may think that I might be disheartened with the marketing campaign and those beholden to it having held sway over me thus far, but it is not the case.

Some will mock me as having spent my time in futility, but I think not; especially as compared to the likes of those who spend $10,000 only to die on the side of Mt. Everest.

I have achieved what I set out to do, which is to summit (what I am satisfied to be) the most vital and necessary in theory for the advocacy of European peoples. Similar as those not understood for having undertaken a quest of Mount Everest, it was my objective. Something that I had to do. But unlike their project, mine was not so personal or futile; rather it was in service to my broad understanding and to our people (and, ok, if I am to be most honest, perhaps as much against antagonists and those who do not care - their practices which are objectionable for the destructive impact they are having upon us), and against those who time and again mislead the theoretical trail; by contrast, I have left clear maps on trail for the sovereignty of European peoples: I know that I have brought the best in truth and in depth; while some may be determined to deny this truth out of custom, habit, tradition, their prejudices or vanity - or in red caped misdirection, as I have particularly shown - all one has to do is take a look honestly at my efforts which I will carry over to the new site to be disabused of pseudo justification for antagonism to the platform which I bring to bear.

Whether the new site achieves popularity or not right away is not an issue; any more than popular approval might not be first in mind for the guy who dies on the side of Mt. Everest, singularly focused in his aim, irrespective of how futile and impractical popular opinion may deem his quest to be; however, by contrast, the objective of the new site is not vain nor impractical, nor destined to be unpopular or out of the mainstream as those who do take a look will see; as the perspicuous overview from this summit has shown what is most relevant; a manifestation of the most necessary resource for our people.

In a recent podcast, Dangerfield ran clips from an English village in the 1970’s celebrating The Queen’s Jubilee.

Dangerfield remarks among his derision of “Post Modernity” read (((post modernity))) as opposed to White Post Modernity, and “The Leftists”, read international, red leftists as opposed to White ethnonational left, that these “Leftists” will denounce the celebration of “The Queen’s Jubilee as right-wing reactionary nostalgia.”

This is not really quibbling on my part. Rather, it provides a good example of why it is important to understand Post Modernity correctly, viz. White Post Modernity as opposed to its (((red caped))) misrepresentation along with other language currency counterfeiting the depth grammar of left and right.

Dangerfield says, “these leftists want to say that these English villagers celebrating the queen’s jubilee” is an expression of right wing reaction.”

However, Post Modernity proper, viz. White Post Modernity/left ethnonationalism, would say, on the contrary, that it can be fine and good for these English villagers to celebrate the Queen’s Jubilee. Unlike the rule structure of Modernity, a practice (and a people) does not have to be different and new in order to be good; and should not be put at risk to uncontrolled experimentation.

If it is a healthy tradition, one can feel free to participate and reconstruct the practice/people without the pangs of self loathing for the appearance of conformity (as opposed to modernity’s paradoxic mandate to the individual: “be different so that you can fit it”); one invokes a willing suspension of disbelief in the hermeneutic (liberated from Modernity’s mere facticity) and one does so understanding when it is healthy for one’s people (while one is free to Not participate and can give way to Modernization when a tradition is not healthy for one’s people).

You begin to see why it is important to have a clear understanding of Post Modernity, viz., White Post Modernity.

For one clear example, for capacity that it provides for Optimal Competence, as per Aristotle’s description of performance requirements: minimal, satisfactory, optimal.

A minimally competent person could not participate in the Queens Jubilee appropriately, because they would not understand it well enough - thus, not understanding how to reconstruct the practice normally, or adjudge where the practice might be right (despite modernist derision) or where it might be going wrong (despite its having been tradition).

A merely satisfactorily competent person can ONLY participate in a rather verbatim reconstruction of the practice. But given the disorder of Modernity, lacking the stability that once underpinned the practice with assurance (e.g., The Queen has our interests at heart and would never decry those against immigration as “racist”, nor lord accountability to the universalizing Jesus over us, as opposed to accountability to our native people, nor have a grandson married to a Mulatto), there is no such thing as the kind of stable criteria for one to reconstruct; one must have more understanding of the context.

Hence, given the disorder of Modernity, especially (((weaponized))), as it were, there is no stable traditional order to practice satisfactory competence, one is either minimally competent or optimally competent.

* Aristotle’s discussion of minimal, satisfactory and optimal competence uses the example of fairness in exchange and knowing the difference.

Satisfactory competence can only make an equal exchange.

Minimal competence doesn’t understand an equal exchange, might make an equal exchange by accident, or give less than the appropriate value or more than the appropriate value, not really understanding it.

Whereas optimal competence knows the equal value of an exchange but can exchange less without being niggardly in truth or can give more without being ingratiating in truth.

It is not only necessary for English and all European peoples to understand Post Modernity properly, but it is also quite possible, not too hard at all for the vast majority of our people to understand its performance requirements; minimal/optimal. Hence, we must not be deterred by Jewish red-caping of terms and concepts.

Related at Majorityrights:

White Post Modernity: corrects reactionary chase of (((red capes))) fucking up necessary pomo ideas

White Post Modernity

..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...