So we have all got well and truly used to the idea that the left is out of office after thirteen long, hard years.  The political class generally has lost the trust of the people, and will not easily win it back.  In Europe the post-national project is in trouble.  The internal inconsistencies of the single currency seem set to tear the Union in two.  Power, it seems to me, is more fluid than it has been for twenty years at least.

Yet at the very moment that political nationalism in England should be rising irresistibly on the back of this and of its European Parliament success of a year ago, it is mired in self-doubt and introspection.  The Labour Party, shamed and defeated on Election Night though it was, out-thought and out-classed it in Stoke and Barking, and the usual squeeze on minor parties did the rest elsewhere.  The same old questions return again and again about the leadership, about the calibre of senior activists, about finances.  There is an inescapable feeling that the BNP has a narrow performance corridor in which it will, from here on, oscillate electorally, but from which it will never escape.  It is not going to shake the ground.  It is not going to destroy the Establishment.

The Establishment, meanwhile, may be tempted into returning to the legal fray to destroy it:

The British National party faces the prospect of renewed legal action from the government’s equalities watchdog over allegations that it has failed to remove potentially racist clauses from its constitution. The court case could potentially see the BNP’s leader, Nick Griffin, jailed or fined for contempt of court, or see party assets seized, lawyers believe.

... The BNP constitution was challenged in court last year by the government’s Equalities and Human Rights Commission. In March, Judge Paul Collins ruled that even after the BNP lifted a direct ban on non-white members, the revised document was indirectly discriminatory because it required applicants to oppose “any form of integration or assimilation of ... the indigenous British”, something the EHRC argued could not be endorsed by those in mixed-race relationships.

READ MORE...

The following is an excerpt from a book by the man who authored Seven Points of Agreement Between Individuals previously posted.  It explains some of the philosophy behind the seemingly “draconian” laws upholding sex differences with single combat to the death as well as capital punishment.

READ MORE...

Tom Sunic’s interview of Jonathan Bowden is available on his page at VoR.  I have not listened to it yet but, according to the emailed circular, it covers:

? Jonathan’s life and involvement in British Rightist organizations.
? The rise & dominance of the Left in Britain among intellectuals & artists
? British Rightist leaders Enoch Powell, Oswald Mosley, & John Tyndall
? Jonathan’s artwork
? Art’s potential to transform culture
? The centrality of spirituality, and spirtuality’s relationship to art

by PF

In the first Critique of Palingenesis we considered some aspects of the total phenomenon that is palingenetic nationalism. Some of these included:

- Centralization of social narrative / happy unity, and resulting tendency to groupthink

- Mythicization of concepts relating to national life

- Weaponization/militarisation of national life

- Cretinization of the ‘tough boy’ class by apotheosizing the weaponization of man

In the follow-up piece, The End of Teleology, we named and described the psychological mechanism which has driven so many statesman, philosophers, politicians and military men to don variously-styled masks of greatness, and seek to appear before us and themselves as Geniuses, Heroes, World-Architects, and Philosopher-Kings.

This illustrated the psychological antecedent of palingenetic politics, by showing how multiple interests act in collusion to ‘scale the heights of Olympus’ and win for themselves make-believe laurels, trophies, fame, etc.. The thinker reaches back to Athens and Shakespeare, and becomes a genius; the philosopher of history reaches back with transhistorical ‘decadence’ critique to the thinker and lacsadaisically to the hype surrounding Shakespeare, and becomes a world-architect, creating a vision of epochal changes; the statesman reaches back to the philosopher of history and lacsadaisically to the thinker, and becomes a philosopher-king; the soldier reaches back to a foggy understanding of all of these, elevated by the philosopher-king’s vision, and becomes a hero. Last of all comes the teleological WN blog commentator, who also thinks to clothe his nakedness by reaching back to these men. If you are able to look closely at real instances of this - occuring again and again with great regularity - you can see how these images of greatness conflict with one another and also with the nature of the men who sport them as costume. Time spent in dead earnest study of these men will reveal that a non-insignificant amount of lying went into crafting this charade, as it is hard for a man to become an image of perfection. One might even say it is impossible. 

Now we return to the investigation of one particular psychological aspect of Palingenesis. Not the teleology that precedes its formulation as a philosophical system, but the mechanism that precedes and justifies the uptake of palingenetic memes after they are formulated as a system and put on the political market.

READ MORE...

There really needs to be a new form of folk music for These Modern Times.  Music that reflects the actual experiences of our folk—their world view as it really is rather than as it was in “the bad old days” when folk music originated.  Toward that end I present more up-to-date lyrics for “Turn Your Radio On”:

READ MORE...

The scale of the change to British politics effected by the ejection from office of the Labour Party is now unfolding.  I am not just talking about the dawn of the pragmatic centre or the imminent demise of “the database state”, or any of the policy outcomes and accommodations that so preoccupy the media, welcome though some of these are.  We are nationalists and we have a higher purpose to which we are faithful, and it is in relation to this that the historical moment has meaning for us.

What is that meaning?  Well, there are plainly two emergent factors that pose challenges to the development of nationalist politics.  The first of those is the decline of cutting-edge race politics which has been such a feature of discourse over the last thirteen years.  Is it too early to conclude that such a decline is in train?  I don’t think so.  As a dedicated follower of political fashions on the liberal-left, and a CiF junkie, I am already suffering withdrawal systems from the paucity of anti-English racism on display at the aforementioned temple of correctness.  Amid the after-shocks of rejection and executive powerlessness, I can feel an inchoate horror among the politically fashionable that fashion no longer affords them the opportunity to visit their hate on the white of skin.  They know they have to recoup and re-invent themselves to survive, and the instinct for both will, among leftists, unfailingly involve an internalisation of the kind of Pacman activity that these creatures ordinarily project upon us. They are going to devour the old, fearful egalitarian aggressivity and regurgitate it as something else.  It is too early to say what.  A solidifying of ground gained, perhaps, in preparation for an anticipated new assault.  But nothing along those lines can be accomplished now, when all the talk is inevitably of “reconnecting” and “learning from the mistakes of the past.”

The Labour Party will likely be out of power for at least eight years.  Its critics repeatedly observed that the rise of the BNP was an inevitable consequence of government policy.  A symbiotic relationship existed, and now the balance has been disturbed in a major way.  Race politics is going to have to do a lot of adjusting to the new centrist reality.  The question is, will nationalism adjust also.  Or will it continue to lazily rely on the disaffection of the traditionally Labour-voting white working-class … a disaffection which Labour will certainly now endeavour to correct?

If the uncertainties in this scenario are too numerous for us to make any firm conclusions at this early stage, uncertainty is no less a factor in and around the BNP following the disappointments of election night.  There have been the regulation happy noises about increasing vote share and saving deposits, and the usual sage advice about setbacks along the road.  But none of that can soften the impact of the setbacks in Barking and Stoke at both national and local level.  They have punctured the illusion that, under Nick Griffin, the party is on an irresistible upward swing.  The PR debacles in the run-up to the election and the rumours about the role of Jim Dowson have “last straw” written all over them.  A future no more certain than that of the party’s symbiotic twin is beckoning, with the exception that the Labour Party has an efficient mechanism for replacing its leader.

These are not the good times nationalists expected at this point in the struggle to save the English people.  The change in the political game has caught them out.  The nature of the party is being tested and if it turns out, under Griffin and Dowson, to be something other than what the members always thought it was, it will die.

Ever since this blog launched I seem to have become a serial conversationist.  At present, one of my on-going conversations is with a writer and friend in New Zealand, Rod Cameron.  Rod is talking to me about his ideas and I am talking back, a little unfairly, about mine.  I suppose we shall eventually discover all our areas of agreement and difference.  I know these latter include Jungianism, of which Rod is an advocate.  But they seem also to include the question of an ontological nationalism.  This post is actually a reply to a long email from Rod which arrived yesterday morning, and which was itself a response to a much longer exchange over Skype Chat.

I apologise to everyone who is already tiring fast of angels and pinheads.  But I think this stuff is quite important.

Rod,

Obviously, there are scores of very fine commentaries on Heidegger on the net. They will tell you much more than I can about the man and his thought, and I urge you to search them out if you are seriously intending to incorporate even a passing reference to “the existential” in Chapter Five.  What I will do here is to reply to two issues you raised about my own very callow observations on same in the (possibly forlorn) hope that we can move towards a shared understanding.

You quoted my observation that “Everything begins with being. There is nothing prior, and only diffusion of thought after.”  You ask, “Can I take this as an Absolute statement?”

Yes, if you recognise that being is a practical experience, a state in Nature we are capable of achieving - indeed, equipped by Nature to achieve.  It is not simple this thing called Life, or some particular way of looking at our general experience of living.  Being is not general.  It is particular.  It is the existential exclusive.  It is a state that is difficult to reach and hard to hold on to, and like all things that take hard human endeavour, it has a high psychological value.

Nevertheless, everything really solid that we can talk about as students of the human begins with it, yes.  All the rest, all that we generally know and understand, and think, feel and do, and all that we are, suffers by comparison to the extent that it might be called unreal or a form of absence or exile.  Or, in the context of our collective European life, it might be called the postmodern life or simply our collective estrangement from ourselves and from one another.

The individual experience in being differs from the collective qualitatively only because of the scale on which the individual life differs from that of the collective.  The alcohol has a higher proof, for sure.  But they are not different in the moment that they reveal.  Being is unity in temporality.

Then you write:

READ MORE...

Jonathan has responded positively to my request for an interview, notwithstanding the warning “racism and hate - please see your librarian” that greeted his attempt to load MR on the monitored monitor he happened to be using at the time.  He tells me that, coincidentally, he has just recorded a VoR programme with Tom Sunic.  I will find out when that is going to air, but I am not overly bothered about the clash because, of course, VoR does not have the superbly inquisitive commentariat that we have.

So, you asked for him.  You have got him.  Now what do you want to hear from him?