Majorityrights Central > Category: European Nationalism

Any novel and genuine politics of change must possess a set of interlocking core principles derived from a theory of Man’s reduced condition and a countering and inspiring vision of what he properly is.  That latter must be reflected in the ultimate value advanced by these politics, and the whole must be eminently communicable, indeed politically virulent; and for that people have to know that it is true.  One shortfall in any of these respects and historical purchase will not be possible, even when the prevailing system is grown stale and unproductive, and the people yearn for a relevant and fresh, hopeful way forward.

So poorly mapped out is ethnic nationalism, so poorly has it been served by thinking nationalists, and so unsympathetically, oftimes deceitfully, by liberal academics, that all three of these necessities - structure, ultimate value, and truth - are scarcely addressed at all in any formal sense.  Properly resolved they would advance our nationalism considerably towards becoming the holistic and original philosophy we desire it to be. 

But they are not the only unresolved issues.  The problem of becoming, or human purpose, and the problem of the individual and his freedom also cast a long shadow, as does the problem of the sheer scale of the revolutionary endeavour.  With all that in mind, then, we will now try to make some progress, or at least some useful observations, commencing in this essay with the problems of structure and of becoming.  Value, truth, and the individual must await a part four, and even five.

The problem of structure

As explained previously in this series, we routinely profess ourselves to be ethnic nationalists, espousers of a communicable philosophy.  Really, though, the most that can be said of us is that we are nativists.  Nativism at least has a structure to it.  It is defensive and survivalist.  It is the politics of the place of arising ... home, the source of the people, the parent of their distinctiveness.  It is important.  But it can never rise to the station of a positive, organising system for living ... never get beyond defence of the people’s life and land.

Descriptively, a nationalism of ethnicity must be holistic, naturalistic, existential, authenticising, universal (in the sense of true of all peoples), defensive before it is expansive, and preserving before it is conserving.  As the political expression of the native principle, it is the politics of ethnic genesis on the soil and so of the natural right ... the native right ... to defend kind and home.  It is, then, the active politics of genetic interests, of the kin relation.  As the politics of all settled peoples it is the politics of peace and the complete antidote to liberalism’s post-Christian and anti-European universalism.  It is the politics of consciousness of being.  It is the politics of the authentic in us individually and, therefore, collectively, because consciousness in a people, like natural wisdom in a crowd, is accreting. 

But what are the principles underpinning all this?  How do they articulate socially?  The following (tentatively proposed) structural scheme may take things forward:

It exhibits a rather extensive collection of base principles and, in the upper range, a row of states leading to triads of active processes.  All are arrayed across three distinct but interlocking dynamics, shown here as rising columns.

READ MORE...

Yesterday, after trailing his skirts for several months, Eric Zemmour finally announced his candidature for next April’s French presidential election.  He did so with a brilliantly crafted speech, which I reproduce below.

Nationalists, meanwhile ... real ones ... have likely already discounted the possibility that a Jewish anti-Islamist and culturist would, if elected, deliver a nationalist outcome.  Yes, he says “The Third Worldization of our country and our people impoverishes it as much as it disrupts it, ruins it as much as it torments it.”  But he also says, “So that the French will feel at home again and so that the latest arrivals assimilate to their culture and appropriate their history.”

Then there is much confusion caused by his adoption of Renaud Camus’s grand remplacement terminology (which Marine Le Pen has not taken up).  Does that signify adoption of the theory as such?  Is he at all hostile to non-Muslim foreignisation, if those foreigners integrate culturally?  Yes, he says “we will not allow ourselves to be replaced”.  Yes, he speaks of “the minorities who never stop tyrannizing the majority”, but is he speaking only of Muslims, Islam and jihad?

The one certainty is that his language and his candidacy will push the future of the true French to the centre of the campaign, and force the traitor-parties to speak of the one thing of which they are most afraid.  If, as seems possible, Zemmour beats Le Pen and the other challengers to proceed to the second round against Macron (presumeably), the Great Question of nationalism is very likely to become the great question of French politics, win or lose.  That much this man can do for true nationalists.

Here is his speech:

READ MORE...

I would like to be able to say that, finally, one of us has been granted access to the golden temple of the respectable, and we’re going mainstream, baby.  But not yet.  Not quite.  James Delingpole, “libertarian-conservative” and freedom junkie though he is, hasn’t been entirely respectable himself for a few years now.  He is too much the enfant terrible of climate scepticism - a role he has honourably discharged for a dozen years - and, latterly as executive editor of Breitbart London, far too far right, doncha know.  His discovery of Davos and The Great Re-Set has, of course, tipped him over into Tin-Foil World, from which there is no coming back.  James is lost to liberal reason and the literati dinner party circuit forever.  He is about 40% “there”, from a nationalist perspective.  But one should say that none of us are sufficiently informed to be more than, say, 60% or 65% of the way, and actually none of us really knows what 100% would be, because the boundaries keep expanding.  Who knew anything very much about the Re-Set even two years ago.

Anyway, James gave a very kind and entertaining hearing to Morgoth, not diving too deep because that’s not the way these interviews work, but deep enough to satisfy.  A lot of typically Morgothian bases were covered ... Tolkien, Spengler (he was good on Spengler), lots of cultural analysis and analysis of the “power” in power elitism, the left, the Re-Set, the football.  Morgoth acquitted himself well and demonstrated that a Northumbrian bloke from a building site can parley with as much intellectual authority as anyone.  As James said, he stood up his arguments.

There was one slightly scary moment when Morgoth mentioned the tribe, and one could see James pondering his Breitbart earner.  There was one other moment when James just possibly revealed a liberal paternalist’s abiding contempt for nationalism; but it passed quickly.  But that aside, it was a convivial chat about hugely important matters, and I enjoyed it.  I just wish that the doors to the wider world would start to open now; but I suspect that in the present febrile climate they are probably closing on James too.

You can listen to the interview, all 1 hour and 2 mins of it, here:

https://odysee.com/@JamesDelingpoleChannel:0/morgoth:d

Today the Telegraph reported on an academic paper commending a new lexicography of race and ethnicity in order to combat very, very naughty racist thoughts by white men:

Dr Ewan Birney, deputy director of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory at the Wellcome Genome Campus in Cambridgeshire, is also a co-author of the article.

He explains that beyond dropping Caucasian, other terms should also be avoided, including ethnicity labels - such as “Native American”, “Hispanic” and “White Irish” - and cultural terms such as “European”.

Dr Birney and his colleagues advocate for scientists to replace these commonly used words and phrases with more complex language, based around a two-step genetic analysis.

As a result, he says this more technical language would see the label of “European” replaced with “The European-associated PCA cluster, which aims to minimise variation in non-genetic factors and genetic factors”.

Dr Birney is actually Prof Birney, and as well as holding other positions in the gene biz he is a co-director of the European Bioinfomatics Institute, the “home for big data in biology”.  Oddly, this rather large and, no doubt, exceedingly well-funded organisation does know what race is when it needs to:

As Europe’s premier centre for bioinformatics, our commitment to diversity and inclusion is critical to our success in delivering excellence in science. As a global organisation with employees from 80+ nationalities we encourage and empower our employees to be their authentic selves at work, embracing the unique combination of culture, race, ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity/expression, physical or mental ability and work-life situations.

Along with himself, Prof Birney credits five colleagues with the writing of the paper, which is titled “The language of race, ethnicity, and ancestry in human genetic research”.  They set out their case thus:

In the case of human genetics (by which we mean the genetic study of human biology and disease) this often involves terminology inherited from anthropology and population genetics, both of which have evolved significantly in recent years. Both fields now firmly reject longstanding ideas of race as a meaningful biological category and labels which were founded in racist perspectives of the 20th and preceding centuries. For example, it is now clear that while humans vary genetically, there is no natural or inherent categorization of human genetic diversity at any global scale. The genetic structures we find are tangled and complex, reflecting our history of worldwide migration, population divergence and admixture, both ancient and recent. While not without consequence for human traits, genetic ancestry and diversity are poorly reflected in the range of anatomical features used in older studies that sought to categorize individuals and groups, features such as pigmentation and cranial or post-cranial morphology. Hence, the racial and ethnographic labels used in such historical studies, and more fundamentally their categorizing approach, have little relevance for understanding human population genetics. Furthermore, the consequences of misunderstanding and misusing these categories, and the terms associated with them, are far from neutral: science, society and politics have always been inherently connected.

As geneticists, we believe that there is an increasing need to address one of the more uncomfortable aspects of this connection, where in the words of American Society of Human Genetics “the invocation of genetics to promote racist ideologies is one of many factors causing racism to persist” [1]. As the source of evidence which some ideologues misrepresent to fit their views of biology and society, the human genetics community has an obligation to revisit and, where possible, change its language to be both more accurate and less confusing or harmful in the public arena. In science, we always aim for precision in our language, but it is not feasible to completely eliminate the possibility of misunderstanding, wilful or otherwise.

Prof Birney also has a blog, which he has not used much, it must be said.  But his last but one post back in 2019 was titled “Race, genetics, and pseudo-science: an explainer”, and it explains that:

Racial categories, as most people understand them today, have some of their roots in the development of scientific thinking during only the last few centuries. As Europeans explored and colonised the world, thinkers, philosophers and scientists from those countries attempted to apply taxonomic structures to the people that they encountered, and though these attempts were many and varied, they typically reflected sharp geographic boundaries, and obvious physical characteristics, such as pigmentation and basic morphology – that is to say, what people look like. Research in the 20th century found that the crude categorisations used colloquially (black, white, East Asian etc.) were not reflected in actual patterns of genetic variation, meaning that differences and similarities in DNA between people did not perfectly match the traditional racial terms. The conclusion drawn from this observation is that race is therefore a socially constructed system, where we effectively agree on these terms, rather than their existing as essential or objective biological categories.

Some people claim that the exquisitely detailed picture of human variation that we can now obtain by sequencing whole genomes contradicts this. Recent studies, they argue, actually show that the old notions of races as biological categories were basically correct in the first place. As evidence for this they often point to the images produced by analyses in studies that seem to show natural clustering of humans into broadly continental groups based on their DNA. But these claims misinterpret and misrepresent the methods and results of this type of research. Populations do show both genetic and physical differences, but the analyses that are cited as evidence for the concept of race as a biological category actually undermine it.

Denying race is a form of professional lying, which is invariably undertaken by otherwise educated people “because racism”.  Prof Birney could as easily prove the taxonomic validity of race as disprove it - a fact my good friend John Standing thought he might demonstrate to the anti-racist Prof by way of some emailed questions, as follows:

READ MORE...

The following short article marks the close of my efforts to bring PA to seriousness.  I have said what I wanted to say.  There is no point in going on saying it.  Whether it will have any effect over the time remaining to PA itself, before it is proscribed, remains to be seen.  Where responsible and intelligent political advocacy for our people will come from, heaven knows.

Last week the Sweden Democrats announced that three of the four conservative opposition parties in the Swedish parliament were talking to them about entering a power-sharing arrangement after the September 2022 general election.  It signalled an end to the long-running consensus among mainstream conservatives that they would never cooperate with Jimmie Åkesson’s party.  Given the current unpopularity of prime minister Stefan Löfven’s Social Democrat government, it is entirely likely that the Swedish will follow their neighbours south of The Öresund in accepting the principle of a nationalist component to government.

Of course, the road to electoral relevance is never the same in any two European homelands, and nowhere is it bound to produce unending success.  Political fortunes wax and wane.  In Denmark, for instance, the experiment with nationalism in government has lasted only one parliament so far, between 2015 and 2019.  But if the Danish People’s Party can maintain its electoral relevance it may return; and that is as much as can be asked at this very dark moment.

The ideological keys to electoral relevance are pragmatism and moderation.  By their nature, democracies tend, over time, to encourage all serious political parties to moderate to the prevailing political consensus just to become and remain relevant.  In our time in our benighted country the weight of national security laws and the manner in which they are worked by the security apparatus of the state also place an absolute obligation on politically ambitious nationalists to follow the same path.  It’s not as if there is a real choice.  So the question, really, is how, not if; and for starters the how is to switch out of the negativity and reaction which has characterised the nationalist past ... the racism, the anti-Islamism, the WW2 guff, the anti-Semitism, the white nationalism and alt-rightism, and all the rest.  Yes, our people have the right in Nature to struggle to exist in this world, and we can advocate for it.  We can advocate for respect from government.  We can advocate for fairness and freedom.  We can prosecute our right under constitutional law and human rights law to come together and choose our destiny, if we so wish.  None of that changes, and in Sweden that coming together is a key ... perhaps the key ... nationalist appeal.  The front page of the party’s website reads “Välkommen till folkrörelsen”.  It means: welcome to the popular movement. 

The party’s wiki page opens with the following:

The Sweden Democrats or Swedish Democrats (Swedish: Sverigedemokraterna, SD) is a nationalist and right-wing populist political party in Sweden founded in 1988. The party describes itself as social conservative with a nationalist foundation. The party has been variously characterised by academics, political commentators and the media as national-conservative, anti-immigration, eurosceptic or far-right. Jimmie Åkesson has been party leader since 2005.

The party originally had its roots in Swedish fascism and white nationalism, but began distancing itself from its past during the late 1990s and early 2000s. Under the leadership of Jimmie Åkesson, the SD underwent a process of reform by expelling hard-line members and moderating its platform. Today, the Sweden Democrats officially reject both fascism and Nazism.

That, or something very like that, is how the Tyndall-esque movement we, in many respects, still are can develop into a real and responsible servant of our people’s life-cause.  It’s no great mystery.  Yes, we have to change mightily to do it.  But it’s not as if we have a choice.  It’s not as if those who would argue otherwise have any positive and hopeful, patriotic alternative.

Today, President Macron will lead a national tribute to the teacher Samuel Paty, decapitated in a Paris suburb last Friday by an 18 year old Chechen, born in Moscow.  This comes on top of the large spontaneous public gatherings in many French towns over the weekend, in the immediate aftermath of the killing.  Macron has already made a public statement to the effect, according to Charles Moore in the Telegraph, that:

Paty was teaching “the freedom to believe and not to believe”. Winning this battle is “existential” for France, because, as a secular republic, the principle is foundational.

This is cant.  The real and racist attitude of the French government towards freedom of expression was shown by the prosecution and conviction, in January, of the writer Renaud Camus, for the sin of making a very fine speech in Colombey-les-deux Eglises on 21st October 2017 to the National Council of the European Resistance, of which he is president.  The speech itself was generous to the Jewish community of France and to its holocaust narrative.  But Camus still found himself pursued by the disgusting quasi-governmental and notably Jewish organisations SOSRacisme and LICRA, and charged with “public incitement to hate or violence on the basis of origin, ethnicity, nationality, race or religion”.  He was sentenced to two months in prison - quite enough to be at danger from non-white inmates - commutable against a payment of 1800 euros to these two bodies.  He paid the blackmailers.  But how much will he have been silenced?  More or less than the French teachers who will not now do what Samuel Paty did, and show their pupils a couple of the cartoons which prompted the Charlie Hebdo massacre of 7 January 2015?

In his initial response to Friday’s killing Macron said the attack shouldn’t divide France because that’s what the extremists want. “We must stand all together as citizens,” he said.  In the spirit of standing together, then, below the line I reproduce the entire text of Renaud Camus’ speech.  It is worth the time taken to read it.  But be sure to say nothing like this yourself if you visit France, and do not under any circumstances refer to immigration, as Camus did, as an invasion.  You are not a famous French author.  You will doubtless get two years if SOSRacisme or LICRA gets to hear of you.

READ MORE...

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