Continuing the Morgoth theme, this video builds on an article written here, advancing it by the addition of Morgoth’s unsurpassed cultural-historical critique.  It even mentions the Craig series of James Bond films!

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

My old friend Morgoth has posted a timely video to his Odyssey account on the question of whether, amid this crazy push to have our daily life-experience Africanised to the max, we loyal and aware Englishmen should watch or otherwise support the highly Africanised England Football Association squad in its attempt to win the 2020 UEFA European Football Championship, commonly referred to as Euro 2020. 

Morgoth makes an operationally sound case for purity of principle and the outright refusal to watch England’s matches, which now means the final on Sunday.  But it is his critique of the political right and its effective acceptance of the white players’ sickening taking of the knee, as well as the multiracialisation of Gareth Southgate’s team, which most caught my attention.  Morgoth dismisses the typical excuses and explanations of the political right as an attempt to wriggle away from the pain of their own submission to the conventions dictated to them by the Establishment.  He may be correct about that - I cannot judge because I do not expect nationalist reflexes from non-nationalists.  All sleepers are equally lost in reverie.  Some ... the right-wing ones ... are actuated by the modern religion of the petty self.  Some ... the ones on the left ... by the postmodern religion of racial self-contempt.  None are really responsible for their own immersion in Time and Place.  They are not properly conscious human beings and they do not possess the means to defend their emotional and intellectual integrity from harm.  Only nationalists can do that.

I haven’t found a way to embed Morgoth’s video on this platform.  But the URL is:

https://odysee.com/@MorgothReviews:5/BLMEnglandSquad:e

... and I recommend listening to what the man has to say in own words.

That said, I want to add some thoughts of my own.  Actually, I want to take a somewhat personal wander around Wembley’s hallowed turf, and in the dark of the night take a couple of illicit practise pens.

READ MORE...

I have been waiting for some days for regular ConHome contributor Robert Halfon, a Jewish Conservative MP married to a Brazilian woman, and serving chairman of the Education Select Committee, to post a piece about his current report into the condition of white working-class children in the education system.  Halfon is a decent enough man as MP’s go, and his report does exhibit compassion and concern for this failing constituency.  It acknowledges, for example, that the system is guilty of neglect.  Halfon particularly deplores the current hard-left turn to Critical Race Theory.  He wants some rather obvious if also tepid action to assist the white child-victims of the education system.  But, of course, he can’t admit that the problem runs much deeper than that, and the condition of these children is more existential.

ConHome is edited by another Jew, the Catholicised Paul Goodman, who allows on the site any hard-left criticism of the Conservative government, and even milque toast, sub-Farage civic nationalist criticism of immigration.  But naming the native victims, now that’s one step too far and summary excommunication will follow.  Nevertheless, ConHome is the primary right-of-centre party-affiliated UK site which permits readers’ comments, so the war for freedom of expression has to be fought.  The circle of the say-able has to be widened.

Mr Goodman, or one of his gentile co-workers dedicated to the great Conservative cause of corporate whoring, will very shortly be rushing to narrow it again ...

Verry

It’s not simply neglect. It’s not even that the educational establishment and the teaching profession have sought to level to the ground what English children can know of their own history, culture, and peoplehood. It’s also that multiracialising the English homeland and life experience is a producer of the draining and destructive phenomenon of culture shock. Any native people made subject to colonisation, and then deserted and attacked by its own authorities wielding pure, malignant lies about equality and racism, will lose the golden thread of relation and meaning in its life. The resulting anomie, self-estrangement, powerlessness and hopelessness IS culture shock; and it will manifest in the education of the children and in their later lives, deepening with each generation.

You politicians have attempted murder.

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...

“GW, who, like other Europeans, has a non-existent grasp of American realities, leaves out many of the real problems of the American “movement,” which are discussed at this blog on a regular basis.”

So says JWH at his blog EGI Notes in what he titles a riposte to a comment I made here.

My comment made three rather fundamental points concerning the mountainous task which WN faces in securing the existence of America’s European folk and a white future for their sons and daughters.  I will not reiterate them all now, not least because JWH had little that was of interest to me to say on the last two of the three points.  But over the first of them - America is a Jeffersonian liberal project - he did build up a bit of a head of steam.  So ...

By that remark I do not only mean that Thomas Jefferson’s view of the constitution, democracy and the individual equipped with inalienable but equal and guaranteed rights has charactered the American political DNA; though I believe this to be so.  I mean that, contrary to McLuhan, the medium is the man, and the medium here is the person of the white American himself.  As the bearer and transmitter of that political DNA, he is ineffably also its human product.  The two are one.  Further, it is particularly powerful in him - more powerful, for example, than the 1798 revolutionary cause typically is within the person of a Frenchman.  Why, because while the Frenchman has a life on French soil measured in ages, the white American is ripped away into newness.  His existential condition is one of ethnic caesura, which denies him some considerable part of the natural, moderating counter-weight to all of the personality-forming influences of his time and place.  He goes further and more openly into the world which is about him.  To European eyes he is both a brother and a stranger.  For all his welcome racial familiarity, he can also exhibit an alarming and child-like absence of doubt in his convictions, of reserve in his enthusiasms, of forbearance of those who try him, of critical sight of self, and of irony and world-weary cynicism in his expressions.  Europeans notice these things and have opinions about them.  They ... we ... are not surprised that this separation of three and a half centuries and three and a half-thousand miles has consequences.

That said, these things are not mandatory or absolute in any sense.  Our white American brother is not just one political thing.  He is not Jefferson Man and only Jefferson Man.  But he is always European Man outwith European soil, and without European manners; and that liberalistic manner in which he is made, while it conditions him, no doubt, to the freedoms of the self-author, does not condition him so well to the turn to that which is closest and most fitting in his European relative.  Caesura leaves behind a divide which is not easily bridged, and raises the question: to what can this man turn?  Another question: is he anyway too completely enculturated in the liberal Weltanschauung to come to the knowledge that this present-to-hand medium of Americana is what he must, in a sense, kill (or die to)?  For his particular human authenticity is not that.  Liberalism’s consequence is that.

Now let’s finish with some context for this problem.  For there is a wider story which afflicts every European people, however rooted.  Yes, the operative system in which self-hood is modelled is liberalism and, yes, it leads us away into the artifice and self-estrangements of individualism and a socially-structured identity.  However, liberalism does not stand in isolation, but in a deep and ancient structure of confected human meanings.  Likewise, our race’s own genius has visited upon us existential challenges, such that wherever we look today we see our collective life shot through with dangers.

We can distinguish these in two streams which act upon us, and which we might term the historical and the historiographical.  We might then array them as follows:

All of the European peoples have mapped their particular journey to the present through these two structures, which always direct us, as their human product, towards artifice.  Everywhere we are, therefore, be it on my side of the Atlantic or on JWH’s, there is the same vast need for a politics of authenticity.

One of the very last email conversations I had with JWH, before he left MR many moons ago, was about the form of a salvational nationalism for our race; for today our nationalism is without an all-embracing life-philosophy that might stand in the stead of the liberal organising system.  As I recall, he hoped to combine Salterism with Yockeyism, and I hoped to find a way to make Heidegger workable.  From memory, I made some effort to explain why a Nietzschean politics cannot answer an existential question.  I wonder whether the passage of years has mellowed JWH’s philosophical quest.  Mine has only intensified.

As every thinking nationalist should know, the dominant modus of thought informing selfhood in the West is liberalism.  But one could be forgiven for thinking that its time as the epochal Idea, the organising system of the European life, is past.  Certainly, the will of the eponymous “individual” of Enlightenment philosophy, by name the Common Man, is no longer unfettering.  The Third Worldisation of the urban space, the marginalisation of European masculinity and the africanisation of the European genome, the homosexualisation of marriage, the trans-sexualisation of what it is to be a woman, the toxification of white skin, the forced mass vaccinations of the Covid era, the utterly shameless electoral fraud in “the greatest democracy on earth”, and shortly, we are to believe, the enslaving Great Re-Set ... all of this is happening only because the common will has been assiduously suppressed and the common opinion traduced and demonised.

No, the great arc of liberal thought has come to rest in the neoliberalism and the weaponised neo-Marxism of the Western political class and the corporate elites they represent.  These things never belonged to Europe’s peoples.  They only ever belonged to elites.  The only will unfettered by them is theirs.

Historically, these elites have by no means been monolithic in form or singular in their interests.  They are human beings, after all.  They shift generationally and, because they are opportunists and hustlers, always with the flow of political possibility.  There is a natural tension between worldviews, not least those of Jews, always mindful of their ethnic struggle for Olam Ha-ba, and WASPs totally unmindful of that or, of course, of their own peoplehood, and simply, mechanically given to modernity and a narcissistic, even sociopathic individualism extending no further than their own epidermis.

Importantly, there has, too, always been a tension between banker and producer ... between money-as-debt which, by its nature, seeks to extend its suzerainty over the loanee, to enslave and own him, and the principle of progress and techne, which seeks to free its own creative hand from such blind and selfish constraint.  This latter (which, in modern parlance, has been an ideological “thing” since the time of the Russian Revolution) has turned out to hold the winning historical ticket.  If only for the sake of clarity then, let us attempt to delineate it from the old money-based power of the Jewish banking families and the old Anglo-American Establishment, which may or may not have an attachment to tauroctony and masonic symbology, and which is in serious and seemingly final retreat.  Of course, we can do so most succinctly by defining it as a power centred (now) on Davos and grounding itself in the interests and potentials of science-led industries, the American social media platforms, hedge funds, asset managers and, increasingly, FinTech.

Asset-holding, it turns out, is this new elite’s means of eradicating the bankers’ web of debt.  Accordingly, there is an on-going tectonic shift of personnel and institutions towards Davos as it becomes ever clearer that the fiat system, as a guarantor of value and a bestower upon global elites of wealth and agency, will founder on the hard reality of asset-value.

We could say that banking parasitism is giving way to predatory corporatism.  Perhaps another way to look at it would be through the lens of personalities, so the Rothschilds and the European royal houses versus the Rockefellers and the US political Establishment.  Another would be methodological, so supra-nationalism and immigrationism versus the smart mega-city and inclusiveness (both pairs being destroyers of the natural human fundamentals as they express in nation, kind, home, love).  Yet another would be Marxism versus scientism; and another the New World Order versus Sustainable Development.  We might even identify one more in the priest-class of Judaism’s Olam Ha-ba versus Homo davosian, the wired transhuman of the fourth industrial revolution.  Or we could lighten up a bit, and contrast and compare the doomed Merkel and her sad little, pyramid hand signs with the business-like photocalls of the mischling technocrat Schwab.

While we are in a lighter mood, and following the heavy hint of the stage design, the Bregenz sequence from Quantum of Solace, written some time after 2006, contains elements quite specific to what would later become the Davos stratagem:

A conspiracy hidden in plain sight, the corporate language, the manipulation of Washington, the participation of the Deep State, the ownership and control of strategic assets- indeed, in this case “the world’s most precious resource” (and so wholly fitting to the real-world contest with fiat money).  It’s not a bad attempt at making an ageing spy movie franchise relevant to the modern age.  A little further into the movie we learn that to advance its criminal cause Quantum hawks a fake environmentalism, complete with talk of global deforestation and soil depletion.  It deplores corruption in government while corrupting government; and we see how “acting out of necessity” drives the other governments into an alignment of interests with it.

Well, something changed Boris Johnson from a breezily triumphant, newly re-elected prime minister in December 2019 confidently telling Downing Street staff he would not have them going off to Davos the following month “to drink champagne with billionaires” into a catatonic, serial witterer about the Great Re-Set, saying only a few days ago at the G7 conflab amid the delights of Cornwall that “We must build back better with a global economic recovery based on greener and fairer foundations.”

This is politician-speak for total submission to the Davos agenda, which is the UN 2021/2030 agenda, and which amounts to a bare-faced lie told to the weak by the powerful not just so the powerful can rule over them - even in perpetuity - but so that they can make the whole Earth and the future of everything their own.  They’re doing it, too.

The news that we are all destined to give up meat-eating for bug-crunching does not seem to be going down terribly well with the Telegraph commentariat.  Following a comment-free article dated 1st February titled The best insect snacks for environmentally conscious snacking and written by an avant garde environmental snacker-person called Jack Rear - yes, where do they find them? - the Globalist Tendency on the DT editorial team invited some Yoruban female with a few hours of journalism training to pose the burning or, certainly, roasting question on all our lips: When will insects be on our supermarket shelves?

Again there is a definite shortage of bug-happy commenters excited about the disappearance from their diet of a tender fillet steak or juicy lamb chop.  Instead, among the handful of Telegraph readers who can be bothered to comment at all there is this guy:

Carpe Jugulum 28 May 2021 10:28PM

I teach biology in a sixth form college and regard myself as being logical .............. until it comes to eating insects.
Food ‘security’ can foxtrot oscar. The day will not dawn when I find myself crunching a locust butty complete with locust intestine contents.
The authors of this nonsense presuppose and accept bug munching will be a consequence of an ever rising population. Perhaps it will be the spur to removing all procreation subsidies and unskilled immigration?
Threaten the public with Kentucky Fried Cricket or a Big McMealworm burger and I doubt you would find them receptive.

... and this one:

Joseph GRM B 28 May 2021 3:18PM
I’m saving the planet by eating my birdie num-nums, living in my pod, and consoooming my social media and my racial cuck porn. I own nothing and I am HaPpY. Clown world.

... and all the rest are decidely bug-negative.  What could possibly be putting them off a “food” they would normally prefer to squelch underfoot?  Don’t they want to cut methane emissions?  Don’t they understand that Net Zero is inevitable?

The idea that the planet will be “saved” if only we all do as we are told and eat wriggly, crawly, buzzy creatures with six legs farmed by the customary mega-corporations has been around for a couple of decades.  So it didn’t originate with the Davos set.  But it was certainly making headway in the private jet community by 2013 at least, when the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN stuck its sticky finger in the maggot pie.  Only two more years passed before we serfs could really celebrate protein diversity, as wikipedia informs us:

The World Edible Insect Day, being held on 23 October, was introduced by Belgian entrepreneur Chris Derudder in 2015 to raise awareness globally for the consumption of edible insects, with a focus on Europe, North America, and Australia.

This seems to be Climate Chris.  You know your hobby-horse has arrived when it gets a “World Day”.

The moral zombies who believe they should dictate the future of the world (because, well, they want to and they have all the wealth and own all the politicians) then moved on to the problem of how they are going to shut down First World livestock farming, carpet-bag the land, and force us all onto the required diet of Pygmy delicacies.  Last December they alighted upon pet food as a handy accustomising strategy.  Well, it’s not as if Fido will notice.  Not that they would give a damn if Fido did.  They don’t give a damn about any living thing but themselves.  And their agenda.  When we Talmudic cattle are being force-fed the bug-filth and are trying to squeeze the resultant gunk out of our intestines, they won’t be dining on it themselves, anymore than their travel to vital international conferences in faraway luxury resorts will be inconvenienced by the kerosene ban on the rest of us.

They are “leaders”, you see.  Fido’s doggy dignity is collateral damage.  You are surplus population.