The sky over northern Israel last night.

Some say 200 drones, some say 300.  But however large it was no one can say that Iran’s attack on Israel last night was provoked by the CIA.  Or Nuland.  Or Biden.  Which is a relief.  One injured girl is said to be the cost to the Israelis.  The Iron Dome worked brilliantly well, although it was not faced with Iran’s ballistic missiles.  Netanyahu, having said only yesterday that Israel will reach out and hurt those who hurt Israel, can now justly say that the hurt is not what it might have been, and leave it there.  For its part, the Iranian government has said that honour will be satisfied by the one attack, which follows Israel’s strikes on Iran’s consulate in Syria a fortnight ago.  That latter killed eleven people, including Mohammad Reza Zahedi, who was the General in command of Iran’s elite al-Quds force and in charge of Iran’s network of proxy militias in Lebanon and Syria.  The militias can now reflect on the, of course, great honour of their patrons in Tehran, and tell themselves that Allah’s will has been done.  Assuming the Israelis don’t feel the need to make a point, there is no advantage to anyone at this point in escalation.

But a line has been crossed.  For the first time Tehran has attacked the hated Israelis from its own soil.  It has also learned that to be anything more than a nuisance a missile attack must be ballistic.  The quiet which should now obtain will be uneasy.  Israel will not be restrained from targeting Iranians in Syria, because they see that as self-defence.  There would be little point for Tehran in responding to another death like Zahedi’s with a few hundred pin-pricks.  But a ballistic response, if it gets through, would mean outright war with every possibility of America being dragged in.

That’s more or less where we are this morning.  The world of nations is slowly assorting itself into two camps broadly interested in, on the one hand, a world of rules, global corporations and money and, on the other, a world of force and empire.  One might conclude that one side now consists principally of Poland, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Baltic States, the Czech Republic, Holland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Italy, Spain, Australia, Canada, Saudi, Israel, Japan, South Korea.  The other side consists of Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, North Korea, China, Iran and its various proxies, South Africa, and, in the west, Slovakia and Hungary.  Not yet forced to choose, or likely to remain as much as possible on the sidelines, are Trump’s America, India, Brazil, and Turkey.

I would certainly contend that this grand divide is now the principal geopolitical framework, and nationalists like ourselves are going to have to adjust to this reality.  As I wrote earlier, in a more limited context of the western elite’s drive for The Globality:

It might be too early to write off the western elite’s geo-economic model.  Russia might be humiliated by Ukraine.  Putin might be assassinated by his own circle of Siloviki (or “men of force”).  China’s drive for global dominion might be blunted for a time by a reinvigorated America, even under Trump.  To one degree or another these things are all possible.  But short of such a miracle, it is now beginning to look like Götterdämmerung for the vainglorious class which deigned to destroy our world, and who for their hubris will now see it, as well as themselves, destroyed by an Other.

It is clear that our elite class committed the sin of assuming they had won, and their desired goal was historically inevitable.  They lost all interest in nationhood, and therefore in the defence of the nation, thirty-five years ago.  Now their project is failing.  There are signs everywhere.  But the contempt they displayed towards us … the decay they have wrought upon us mere economic men, mere racists and moral dross … has gone too far, and leaves them without a fighting tradition, a unified and motivated people, to call upon.

This can bring opportunity for nationalism if a point of balance is reached whereby the elites’ many-sided assault on the European life is undermined by history, and the national principle and the native principle are even grudgingly respected (because only these can confront eastern force).  In other words, the west must survive but not Davos, and the east must not come to us in any shape or form, be it by geopolitics or military action or colonisation.

So, Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan; the three unlikely pillars of western security.  Do nationalists want to defend them or desert them?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No one ever voted to dissolve away our white ethno-state, as it existed quite by force of Nature in every past century.  Necessarily, then, the Establishment’s wild and abusive, politically engineered demographic change has been brought about without the slightest recourse to the democratic process.  It is a statement of pure force majeure and fait accompli.  Now politicians instruct us with steepling arrogance that we have no choice but to submit to the consequences.

Such thinking has strayed so far from accountability it signals that a usurpation has taken place.  Democracy is not operative, at least in the matter of our people’s survival and continuity (which is the most vital of all matters of state, and from which arises the general recognition that defence is the first duty of government).  The political class as a whole has made itself unaccountable.

Usurpations are not about tolerance or liberty or equality, or any other prostituted liberal principle that politicians and power elites routinely ascribe to themselves.  Usurpations are always about power.  The drive of the political class for a multiracial Britain is a power play intended to leave us, the British people, and our constitution and democracy far behind.  The Britain we knew and understood was a union under a single crown of three traditional nations, indeed three landed descent groups with intertwined histories, each sovereign under the constitution.  That state of contentment has been replaced by a proposition nation populated by individual human units gathered around liberal civic values.  The politicians have set their face against our native reality and relation, and assured themselves and us that we natives are but one social group and one culture among a multitude of civically equal groups, each of them exactly as British as we are regardless of the fact that we are children of the soil and they arrived, relatively speaking, at Heathrow passport control yesterday morning at 9.00 am.  The demos has been universalised, erasing its prior ethnic content and rendering it as an equalitarian company of uncharactered individuals connected to other living creatures only by political and socio-economic choices.  What actually matters about us has been put outside, and in that much we have been disenfranchised.

That’s the complaint.  Let us now dig down for some solid principle.

Revolutionary change in the nature and meaning of the demos brought about not by democratic means but by the use of force cannot, by definition, be democratic.  In a time of peace when the nation is secure, unconquered, and self-governing, any outcome procured through coercive governmental action against the known will and natural interests of the sovereign and native people is procured illegitimately.  That was the case on 22nd June 1948, before the Windrush sailed into British territorial waters, and it is no less the case now.

The passage of time does not grant legitimacy to the wrongs done to us, whether or not those wrongs are capable of reverse.  A fait accompli does not grant legitimacy, and it does not prohibit or de-moralise reversal, or make it any less necessary.  Abusive and unjust, untrammelled power does not justify its trespasses and treacheries by the claim of irreversability.  Only the interests of the people are irreversible.  Only the people possess the constitutional right to be governed according to the will of a parliament reflective of, and faithful to, their interests.  As the people, that right was ours alone before 22nd June 1948, and it was taken from us without warning or explanation or public debate, and awarded to strangers.  It must be our choice, and no one else’s, whether that theft obtains into the future.

In simple, force majeure is not a democratic value and not an ethical value of any kind.  An appeal to it is a demand for our weakness and submission.  Those who make that demand are not democrats and not ethical people.  Indeed by their rigid control of the party system and of the political discourse, enforced through a compliant media, they are killing democracy itself.  A healthy democratic culture cannot be maintained without the freedom to challenge injustice or even to speak of it in the public square (which freedom is inherent to our democratic nationalism).

But the palace is still haunted by the ghost of Prince Hamlet’s murdered father.  We native British might have had all manner of poison poured in our ears but we still know this land to be our sacred ancestral home and not merely a civic space or a market economy or a race experiment; and we cannot permit it to become any or all of those in perpetuity.

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

There is solid support in international law for the principle of the self-determination of peoples, specifically in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly on 16 December 1966 and entered into force 23 March 1976.  It states:

Part 1, Article 1.1

All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

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

Although it’s not really my area of interest, I’m going to venture a few remarks on Oswald Spengler’s famously pessimistic and a-biological model of civilisational decline.  Al Ross raised the question of historicity and political agency.  It’s a good question.  Is there a metaphysical force acting on human sociocultural processes in Time, the effect of which, very basically, is to mirror in them the form of the individual human organism from birth to death?

The ineffable and energetic male spirit of the early 18th century high-point of Western culture, as imagined by Ridley Scott in his wonderful directorial debut from 1977, “The Duellists”.

Oswald Spengler’s grand historical conception is attractive to many students of western decline, especially from the critical right.  It supplies a seemingly conclusive, “dust to dust” certainty that may satisfy the pessimistic tendency.  But is it really the case that all grand historical forms of the lived life of men must inescapably trace one absolute arc?

Methodologically, Spengler appears never to have remorselessly interrogated history for the raw causalities.  He was a creative interpreter of the historical.  His base assumption for the aforementioned mirror automatically resulted in civilisational facts fitting around his morphological thesis.  These days one could easily imagine that he would be dismissed with the technical truth that even if all the facts did accord with the thesis, correlation does not prove causation.  Indeed, the Hungarian-Jewish Marxist György Lukács is reported to have done exactly that in 1954, charging Spengler with “substituting causality for analogy”, that latter being Spengler’s own standard for inclusion in the model.  Of course correlation does not rule out causality either.  But then the fact that civilisations can follow a certain path does not mean that they must do so.  There are variables vis-a-viz the internal and external moral, political, economic, and military dynamics of said civilisations; and then there is the non-variable of the blood and Mind, (to which we will come).

Ontologically, Spengler’s morphology relies on a somewhat assumed universal law of the disorganisation of systems, the assumption being that it can be freely shifted from the organic temporal form to history.  There are questions:

READ MORE...

The full complexity of east-west relations according to Western reactionary opinion

There are times when the absence of an ethnic nationalist worldview in those who proclaim themselves nationalist (but not specifically, say, National Socialist, or traditionalist, or fascist) really limits communication.  What, after all, is our common frame of reference?  David Lane’s minimalist Fourteen Words accurately summarise the existential essence of all nationalism.  But the formulation is reductive, and can in no way function as an holistic ideology functions, ie, it cannot situate us in a pre-existing, broad-scale system of life-affirming truth by which a people may orient itself in Time and Space.  It is because of the systemic nature of an (actually very rare) epochal philosophy that it can, first, unify a political constituency and, second, energise a mass re-organisation.

But we do not possess that philosophy today.  We are, in consequence, caught in a pre-revolutionary cycle that cannot complete.  We have no unifying ideological standard around which to rally.  Along comes a large but perfectly uncomplicated political question, and we lack the framework to determine where justice lies.

Today such a question is: Do the people of Ukraine have a right to fight the violent imposition of Russian empire, and to struggle for national autonomy?  No ethnic nationalist should have a moment’s difficulty answering that.  But, instead, a substantial majority have lost their heads completely in contemplation of a second question: How dare America and the West challenge Russia’s security needs?  Of course it is a false question.  A need for expansion is not a need for security.  The theft of natural resources, farming produce, and even children is not a requirement for the creation of buffer zones.  It speaks of ancient tribute.  But Muscovy is an empire with an origin in its own payment of tribute to the Asiatic aggressor, and thus even into our time it has remained an empire with an historical culture of entitlement to further empire, and the wealth thereof.  That, not security, is the well-spring of Russian foreign policy.

Explaining this to the holders of “right-wing opinions” is a challenge.  Indeed, it feels like I’ve been challenging the dominant and reactionary pro-Russian sentiment and anti-American prejudice of on-line nationalists and trad-cons since the very first jolt forward of the first T72 in Vladimir Putin’s fateful full-scale invasion of 24th February 2022.  They don’t like it.  They don’t listen.  Their judgement is overwhelmed by anger at the globalist machinations of the Western hierarchy, and they don’t look any further.

READ MORE...

What does it mean when a mind which can only conceive of economics, which only desires and schemes and labours for an empire of economics and a social order constructed solely upon economics … what does it mean when that mind is confronted by another, with an implacable will to violence and power?

Perhaps not in America so much, but on this side of the pond the message now seems to be filtering into the mainstream media:

... the democratic world needs to confront its own deficiencies if 2024 is to prove more successful than 2023. Chief among them is a tendency to prioritise the short term and to neglect vital matters such as defence spending and military-industrial production capacity. Countries like Britain will also have to be more confident about adopting a more assertive international role if other powers step back.

Over the past few years, the Government has made a good start, leading from the front in the early days of the Ukraine invasion, and signing innovative new partnerships such as the Aukus pact. But the time for complacency is over.

The sixth Jewish–Arab War and Iran’s Houthi rebels aside, it is - very obviously – the war in Ukraine which has generated this naval-gazing among the political and chattering classes of the West.  It’s not that Putin’s Russia is especially strong.  To put it mildly, its military has been unexpectedly average in Ukraine, certainly in offensive terms.  It has only really excelled at missiling train stations, markets, and maternity hospitals.  As an occupying force it has proven adept at stealing children – a crime against humanity for which the international court has issued an arrest warrant for “the chief” himself.  Diplomatically, his best friends are the mullahs in Tehran, the dear leader in North Korea, and Hamas.  Which speaks for itself.  Politically, the Russian state is under the spotlight in a way it never was in the prior thirty years of its kleptocratic existence.  It is revealed to be the worst kind of police state – indeed, an autocracy sustained by routine repression and lies, corrupt courts, and extra-judicial murders. 

The economy’s performance under sanctions has been better than expected in the west.  But we shouldn’t kid ourselves, or believe the Federal Treasury stats.  It’s no triumph to lose western markets and to be forced to flog cut price energy to India and China.  At a time when Russian airlines can’t keep planes in the sky for want of spare parts, and over a million of Russia’s brightest and best have fled abroad to avoid a meaningless death in an unwanted foreign war, government has just sanctioned “grey market imports” (ie. smuggling).  Now, with the announcement of a military spend for the next financial year of 6% of GDP, the chief has been forced to move the economy onto a war footing.  The last but one Russian value, which economics must serve, is thereby exposed.  It is power demonstrated by violence (for power without demonstration does not know itself, and those who have no power of their own cannot know it).  Only the chief’s position and reputation are more fundamental to the national condition.

No, it’s not that Russia is a force to be reckoned with, or even that a Russian geopolitical strategy must necessarily be a danger in itself, if contained within certain operational bounds.  Rather, it’s the too solid fact of the unbounded Russian value of power demonstrated by violence which is causing sleepless nights in the financial and governmental capitals of the West.  Why?  Because key to the western elites’ path to the future is a gentle and graceful relinquishment of American monopolarity and even of the dollar’s reserve status.  They have to transcend the politics of nation statehood, which is simply the wrong interest-base and a restraint on the global vision itself.  In its place they seek to drive forward their desired Re-Set not via the power principle, which is too costly and unpredictable for their taste, but via the money principle.  More precisely, they want to lever economic power as it exists today into geo-economics ... a singular and universal but, of course, immane system for the perpetual ascendency of the financial class (upon whom the whole western elite structure parasites and attends).

READ MORE...

... has been running nightly for a fortnight and I’ve only just woken up to it.  But here is the programme.  Here are the podcasts to date.  Here is the trailer:

... and the prologue to this years event.  Which seems bigger and more comprehensive than ever.  I don’t know how he does it!

As usual, the final guest will be on 30th December, and it will be Morgoth - usually a five-hour event in itself.

Three Russian dolls and one other emerging but not yet not fully in view.

We mere citizens of the West, we voters for the Uniparty, we victims of propaganda do not get to hear the words spoken in the highest geo-strategic reaches of the US State Department, or in the Pentagon, or in the CIA, much less in the rival bodies in Moscow and Beijing.  What trickles out of the mouths of presidents and ministers is the usual finessed, platitudinous semaphore by which vast power structures publicly communicate with one another.  Sometimes a “government source” or someone “close to such-and-such” will add vital context, on or off the record, which is presumably then pored over by analysts a world away.  But precious little of the resultant analysis ever reaches the mass of Americans or Russians or Chinese.  Every leader’s statecraft and long and short-term geopolitical strategies are locked away in the black box that is government.  Basically, the masses are only required to think one simple thing at a time.  We must support our leaders in “difficult” (ie, costly) decisions.  We are to be compliant workers and consumers.  Under no circumstances are we to make domestic difficulties.

If opacity is necessary in certain (obvious) respects, nonetheless it is a primary cause of the fine mess which is “right-wing” opinion on Moscow’s war in Ukraine.  Many, many people still operate from the mechanical assumption that, no matter how inhuman the Russian military’s deeds, “the West” … meaning Washington + NATO …  is the real evil-doer in this world.  So Moscow gets a free pass.  Scarcely anyone troubles to analyse the geopolitics.  Russia as an historical geopolitical dynamic … expansionist Russia, therefore … the Russia which has bloody borders, and whose small neighbours can never be entirely safe … that Russia goes unexamined while the past excesses of American power are held up for ritual condemnation and blamed for everything.  It’s a wilful blindness.

READ MORE...

This fourth (long and rather detailed) essay in the series is both a conclusion to Part Three’s examination of the causalities of human being and an introduction of the role of attention.  Whilst this is not an essay on epistemology, it runs an epistemological course from, in biblical terms, Eden to the Fall to salvation, which correlates with the ontological one from the Primary to the Secondary Structure of causality.  It needs to be understood that there are two distinct processes here, one of those at the very foundation of the brain, and the other in a declined quality of cognition.  The latter explains all the sorrows of life which are of Man’s wilful error.  It is eminently ameliorable, as the next essay, exploring the accidental effects of NSDAP on German peoplehood, will endeavour to demonstrate.

BETWEEN DASEIN AND DARWIN

The twice lost garden, a place not only of confusion, but of lethargy and passivity.

In an age of official hostility, coercion, hypocrisy and lies, and the fear and dread which these inculcate in the innocent, the truth is at a very great premium, for it is the sole means of deliverance.  Let us begin this perfectly non-religious essay, then, with some political as well as ontological truth from St Paul, KJV, 1 Corinthians 13:12 ...

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

We will now think with - and past – Paul, and do so ontologically but always with one eye on the political.  For this is, in part, an essay about power and powerlessness, and although it begins in matters far from worldly concerns, ultimately the ontology must show us where power truly abides.

Each one of us stands raw and constantly renewing within this immediate world in all its own raw and constantly renewing wholeness, which encompasses us as it encompasses all things organic and inorganic, and from which neither we nor anything else can except itself.  “For now” in this hyper-material, primordial reality, this singular congruence no wider than a razor’s edge, we do not stand with any cognition of ourselves as beings separated out by self-hood and by the fateful time-lapse of our own thinking, or even that of our feeling or sensing in any form.  We are naïve as we are raw, and both of these only while cognition trails but a few milliseconds adrift.  Once we join with it everything changes.

This, then, is the biblical Garden of Eden, and although the holy scribes and seers of the ancient world understood that, by the serpentine order of things, processing information about it expels us from it (ie, it cannot be experienced indirectly as information in the mind), they only had poetry and myth to represent the fact.  They did not have the benefit of modern science or evolutionary theory or even Western epistemology to know why or to explicate the totality of the caesura.  They could not know that Mind emerges first from the enzyme catalysis, light- and heat-seeking, and quorum sensing of simple cells which they never saw and never suspected to exist.  They could not know, therefore, that such a defining and constitutive origin renders our cognitive process today, with all its dissonant temporality, as imminent and inextinguishable as any tribal god they might cook up.  They could not know that Mind and divine truth, should such a thing exist, rightfully have contrary dynamics.  If there are truths in the paradisal garden which are divine, they are forever beyond Mind’s necessary, disjunctive filter.

Put another way, even the most intense and elevated liberational event by which mystics self-verify Union with the All ... even that remains informational for us.  Yes, the thinking mind’s relentless, drenching chatter can be stilled, at least for a brief while.  If the subject is a serious individual, fifteen years or so tanning himself on a Californian beach while, of course, bent in the regulation lotus posture, and following every breath into and out of the body (in other words, actual prayer, not the church pew thing), then a certain equilibrium might restore itself for a time and a certain detachment might yield real profundity.  But the totality that is the cognitive Mind remains operative and absolute, and in the final analysis such efforts represent no more than a reaching towards the unreachable.  So it is that one of the two great causes of every religion - Union with the All – remains a literal impossibility in this life at least (and we need not let eternal salvation in the next detain us).  What, then, is actually taking place?  How are we to bring this entire dispensation into the ontological daylight, and order it?

As ever, there is some clearing away, some housekeeping to be done.

READ MORE...