This is the second part of my re-work of the original Journey posts.  A third will follow.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

The entrance to that part of the secret state
concerned with countering domestic threat.

The text on Jon Dunstan’s mobile read, “1.00 pm same place”.  It was initialled “B”.  He understood that this was not a request.  But the short notice rankled.  Obviously, they knew very well that he could have client commitments but they didn’t care.  They knew he would obey the call.  He would attend what was, in fact, a final briefing, given that Driscoll’s personal secretary had booked one of the first-floor private rooms at Rules - hardly the most chic of eateries - for dinner that very evening.  Still, the game was commencing and that was what he had signed up for.

He found “B”, a middle-aged woman of unremarkable appearance and cool demeanour whom he knew only by the pseudonym Beatrix, sitting primly in the sun on one of the benches by the tennis courts in Lincoln’s Inn Fields.  There were no niceties exchanged.  “Do you want to sit or walk?” he asked her.  She rose and the two of them began to stroll slowly around the perimeter of the Fields.

“We were disappointed to learn,” she stated, “that you will only be meeting with Driscoll.  How did that happen?”

Dunstan didn’t know.  “I sent you Driscoll’s text.  The Prof couldn’t make it, that’s all.”

“I doubt if that’s all,” she responded, “If Upton is distancing himself or not taking you seriously we want to know why.  We want to keep on top of things.”

Dunstan nodded dutifully although, in truth, he was not at all the dutiful sort.  “I’ll ask,” he said, “but I really need to stick to law as much as possible.  I’m not sure what else I can safely say to Driscoll if, as you say, he’s just the money-man.  It might be wiser to postpone altogether.”

“Postponing now would only make you look suspect,” she retorted, “We started with him, remember.  So it follows that you must want to see him.  About what, precisely, it doesn’t matter nearly as much as you think.  You’re on the same side.  You haven’t got to explain everything.  It’s more subtle than that.  Watch his face.  Sense his working assumptions about you.  Where they are positive let him run with them.  Where they’re not, throw in a redirection or put him off by cross-examining him.  Never allow him to cross-examine you.  Always be aware of the underlying power-dynamics.  It’s trade-craft.  Surely it must be second nature to any half-decent advocate?”  Something close to a smile yet not a smile, a schemer’s relish, played on her lips.  But it was gone without trace in an instant.

“Yeah yeah, OK,” said Dunstan, sighing wearily.  She had this way of beating him down which felt intentional.  Was that because she was “aware of the underlying power-dynamics”?  He was a junior of thirty-one, for Christ’s sake, and he knew perfectly well how to handle himself.  He was not charmed to be told otherwise, even by MI5.  He didn’t hide it well, either.

“Am I boring you, Mr Dunstan?” Beatrix inquired with quiet malice.  “This is a formal operation, in case you have forgotten.  It has a clear objective, a plan of action, a codename, and a budget.  What it does not have is room for cavalier attitudes from you.”

“No, I’m sorry,” he said, knuckling down again,“of course I will do as you ask.”

“You will have to,” his handler stated flatly, “You’re in now and there’s no getting out.”

READ MORE...

From time to time I endeavour to pull the old-style nationalist writers at PA away from their Nietzschean assumptions.  This is a typical effort, on a thread honouring the anniversary of Jonathan Bowden’s death, and specifically in response to the author’s defence of “the will”:

Nietzsche held nationalism in contempt, seeing not love, relation, sacrifice and creativity but submission to human smallness and weakness. He understood Man in another way entirely, as a being of cultural not ethnic definition and in moral not existential crisis. His presentation of the will, while it seduced the fascist mind and has perverted nationalism for a century, is fantasy. Human beings cannot declare themselves heroic possessors of iron intent without drowning in lies. No people, including our people, can become a figurative hero, was ever a figurative hero, and will ever be a figurative hero.

What the fascists could screw out of deluded youth was murderousness and arrogance towards the weak, which duly collapsed because lies will be found out. The fascist heroes were found out by humble Englishmen like my own father, who bombed the blazes out of them.

We betray our nature, we betray ourselves when we allow ourselves to be seduced by the fascist misreading of Nietzsche. How, anyway, can a creature seduced by such a deceit truly love his people. He can love only himself. Our people will never come to the side of such a man.

Enough. We do not have the time to continue in intellectual error. We must break with the failure of the past and think anew.

GW

The Coronation Oath Act of 1688, as it appears on statute

Having seen the front page illustration to the British Constitution Group website, making a big song and dance about how “The People Retain Authority over their Government”, our close friend John Standing thought he might ask a question of these lawyerly folk.  Here it is:

Dear Sirs,

May I, as a lay person in matters of British Constitutional law, ask why you hold the view that “the people” are sovereign, yet quite evidently from the illustration which graces your website you don’t mean the indigenous people of this land but anyone from anywhere who has been able to acquire citizenship.  I suspect that you have confused “the people” with British nationality or perhaps even the electoral roll.  Allow me to explain.

First, you are right that the primary constitutional documentation shows the people to be sovereign, and the same documentation and likewise The Bill of Rights 1689 and, by implication, the 40+ Representation of the People Acts from 1832 onward show that people to be the final source of authority (which is only ever lent to elected representatives, never given).  But the person of the sovereign is not a fluid as the demos is. It has an identity specified in the Coronation Oath Act of 1688; and that identity is “the people of this Kingdome of England” and by extension Wales and, with the Acts of Union, Scotland.  Note that the specification here is “people” not of course “subjects” or “citizens”, and “the people of”, not “a people in”.  Words used in founding constitutional documents are definitive, not descriptive; and this document defines the people of England in the year of 1688 as separate and distinct from any other, including the peoples of the Dominions, and thus they can only remain, sovereignhood being transmitted by succession by descent.

Once a people is identified as the sovereign, therefore, then sovereign it must remain unless it consents to the contrary; for its ethnic person is constitutionally inviolate.  There is no power in the land (not the monarch, not the executive, not parliament, not the judiciary) and no novel legal instrument (not, for example, the Nationality Act of 1948) which can constitutionally force change upon or replace the sovereign, or meddle with the rule of succession by descent.  For such would be a usurpation.  To be doubly clear, neither government nor parliament can constitutionally possess the power of usurpation.  If either does take that power to itself it does so unconstitutionally, and the sovereign has the constitutional recourse to all necessary action to defend itself.

If you have a contrary argument as to why immigrant populations which the sovereign people has never consented to accept but which, on the contrary have been coerced upon the sovereign people with extreme governmental prejudice against any and all dissent, can themselves be sovereign then I would be most interested in hearing it.

Yours sincerely,

John Standing

Several years ago I ripped off the first couple of chapters of a book that I had no intention of writing in full.  The idea was to explore in dramatic form the question of how Western governments might be taken to the International Criminal Court on a charge of committing a genocide agaist their native European people.  The two essays that it took to accomplish the task were pretty well received by the then MR commentariat.  But, in fact, they would both have benefitted from a longer period of gestation and a more considered approach to the actual writing.

Now I’m re-writing them in a more developed and more narrowly-focussed form for the purpose of offering the finished product to PA for their site.  The whole exercise should run close to 8,000 words, the first half of which is posted below.  The second half will follow in two or three days.
        —————————————————————————————————————————————————————

“The Court will hear your opening statement if you please, Mr Truscott-Brown,” announced the presiding chief justice in fluent but by no means native English. For that was to be the only language spoken in the room during the next three undoubtedly arduous days. No translators would be whispering into microphones, no one in Court would be hurriedly adjusting his or her earpiece to catch some mangled phrase. This was an entirely English, or British, affair except that it was taking place at The Hague before one judge from Montreal, another from Heidelberg, and a third from Uppsala, all of whom had forgone the privilege of hearing the proceedings in their native tongue.

“Thank you, your Honour,” came the reply in ringing received pronunciation. George Truscott-Brown QC OBE, FSA, RHS, lead advocate for the plaintiff, eternal renegade and inveterate fighter of lost causes, peered over his reading glasses at the unknown quantity which was the bench.  He steadied himself inwardly and, with a final, ever so slightly uncertain caress of the bundle of papers on the table in front of him, rose to begin his work for the day.

“Learned judges, may I at the outset, on behalf of the appellants, myself and my team, state for the record of proceedings our sincere gratitude to each of you and to the ICC as a whole for agreeing to hear this application.  We fully appreciate that that decision alone broke new ground.  So your Honours will be acutely aware that this is a conceptually novel and therefore, in some quarters, controversial action which presents a number of tests for the 1948 Convention. If the plaintiff is successful at this review, a subsequent plenary hearing may set precedent in several areas of high significance for the jurisdiction and practise of the ICC and, specifically, for its future interpretation of Article 2.  By that we mean, in particular, its interpretation of prevention in the context of the modern Western society where armed conflict is absent.

“Mindful, therefore, of all this, and of the profound responsibility which would weigh upon the eventual trial judges, it is our intention, at the kind invitation of the Office of the Prosecutor, to present your Honours with the greatest possible wealth of evidence and legal argument within the time available to us. It is our firm belief that all of the former will be ruled admissible and the latter applicable, and that your Honours will be led to the only possible conclusion that the Court must grant the Prosecutor leave to investigate the complicity of those individuals named in the Court papers in the creation of conditions of life calculated to bring about, over time, the physical destruction of whole or part of the peoples native to Great Britain.  It is our firm belief that we will clear that high legislative bar.”

And so it began.

READ MORE...

Dr McCullough’s frank and important testimony of 10th March:

I was pondering leaving this post entirely blank, both as an expression of my personal interest in the life and times of the royal princess, or “Me Again” as she has become known, and as a summation of the meaning and significance of her latest adventure.  But then I thought no, that would be out of character and disrespectful to readers.

So I have decided to write down everything that needs to be said about this apparently really important, media-hogging person and the poor, besotted sap she controls.  Sorry, I meant married.  Oh, and then there’s the terrible and, y’know, racist treatment they have received at the hands of, oh, everyone really.  Got to hear about that, obviously.

So here goes ...

The end.  Or how I wish it was the end.  But I fear we have many more years of opportunities to be lectured on our “racism” by this interloper.

Reported at the end of last week in Summit News:

A poll conducted by Echelon has found that while Republican voters are concerned with issues such as illegal immigration, lack of police resources, and high taxes, Democrat voters’ top concerns are supporters of President Trump, racism, and discrimination against LGBTQ people.

What I found extraordinary about that is the sheer suggestibility of people who could adopt the immediate political dish of the day with such indiscriminate speed.  One expects the hyper-equalitarian messages running through all the mainstream media to have some impact on public opinion.  That is what they are there for.  But if this poll is correct, the typical white American leftist (and, by definition, white leftists everywhere, because the mentality is universal) seems to have no sheet anchor against the prevailing political winds, and vanishingly little intellectual curiosity.

Ordinarily, to be forced to such a judgement of one’s fellow man would be a depressing and regrettable state of affairs.  Should one not be more generous?  But these creatures are completely, pathologically obsessed with tearing down everything that belongs to our people and their way of life.  It’s not that they don’t care what damage they do.  They care very much.  The want to do all the damage they can, up to and including the removal of our race and all its peoples from the human future.  No one more deserves to have their motives and state of mind exposed to the withering light of day.

“If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself”

In a large part of these people, the explanation for their choices and behaviour very likely lies in misappropriated religious feeling.  They can’t be Christians, obviously.  Being Christian just doesn’t lend that too too desirable rebel street cred and, in any case, Christianity belongs to the past of gentleness and decency, and the virtues of family and home, all of which, obviously, are anathema to radical equalitarians.  Nevertheless, most are going to be in possession of expressed genes for faith (as are perhaps two-thirds of northern Europeans).  They have to believe in something, even if they bravely consider themselves to be terribly rational and superior humanists or even atheistic Marxists; and they are going to believe in it violently.  They just can’t acknowledge the religious nature of that belief themselves.

In no small sense, that something they believe is the essence of the Judaic instruction to the gentile as it works itself out in the Christ cult.  Liturgically, its moral hysteria and narcissistic focus runs out approximately as follows:

I am Equality, hallowed be my name.  My kingdom come, my will be done on earth, as it is in the Democrat Party.  And the Labour Party.  And in antifa and BLM.  Giveth me my daily opportunity to forgive thee nothing and delivereth thee from the evil of racism and hate and whiteness and the disdaining of men in dresses.  For mine is the kingdom, the power, and the glory (especially the power and the glory).  For ever and ever.  Amarx.

One shouldn’t really laugh at the afflicted, of course.  Religious misappropriation is dangerous, its puritanical certainty and its self-ascribed licence to act as it pleases without any obvious moral framework or stopping point is frightening.  Hence when it attaches itself to a suitably unnatural and divisive equalitarian cause or to “the struggle” against some reactionary hate object, there is no real way of knowing how much violence and spite it will channel.  It does not matter that its arguments are circular, its certainties self-proving, its justifications hypocritical self-deceptions.  It does not matter that equality does not and cannot exist in Nature, and therefore in humanity, and that cause is a total waste of everybody’s time.  It does not matter that there is no Marx Factor whirring away inside the human brain, cross-checking with flawless efficiency over the mountains and deserts and oceans to make quite sure that no one with white skin has evolved a difference above the neck or below the belt from someone with black or brown or yellow skin.  It does not matter that being a man or a woman is not a personal choice because, y’know, you can’t choose your chromosomes.  It does not matter that reproductively whole men and women, in whom the future of humanity is vested, are not equal to the reproductively disabled “letter people”.  None of it matters because it’s religion.  It’s all just a desperate, pathetically immature faith-rebellion in the maximally damaging cause of a relativistic universe voided of all annoyingly “white” and “masculine” absolutes like reality, facts, truth and, especially, inheritance.  Would that these strange political animals had all been traditional Christians after all.  At least then they wouldn’t have done anything more harmful than haunt the High Street every Saturday to bother perfectly innocent, otherwise busy people about Jehovah and salvation.

The next question as to why leftists should desire to drag us all into such a weird and destructive universe now arises.  Misappropriated faith does not answer that.  But, of course, a damaged psyche does.

“Do it to Julia”

In our age of peace in Europe damage to the human personality is, in the main, inflicted by the modern demands of urban society.  Developmental psychologists call the incorporation of all the culture’s ordered meanings and strictures into the mind and personality as “socialisation”.  But we are ethnic nationalists, and for us the psychologists’ way of doing things immediately speaks of a rather odd neutrality towards “society”, as if it is a fixed and inevitable entity that simply is and must be as it is.  Well, we can critique it.  We can assay those meanings and strictures for signs of excessive artifice in the business of being human in the urban and industrial environments.  We can identify social atomisation and self-alienation.  We can look for the consequences of Roy Jenkins’ liberal divorce reform of the 1960s, with its arrogant and utterly careless treatment of the nuclear family and the mental stability of children raised in sub-optimal home settings.  We can look for culture shock among white working-class children forced into classes filled with the racially alien Other, where they are taught that to be white is to bear an inborn political criminality that can never be got out and must be acknowledged to the world by way of a permanent posture of existential cringe.  We can appreciate the immensity of the task which politics has made, and is making still, for white children to socialise successfully, and we can ask ourselves what happens to those who don’t.  What happens to the children who, perfectly understandably, do not arrive in adulthood with a healthy cynicism for political authority (indeed, all power in this world, all sources of social and political dictate), and with sufficient inner separation from the racially alien, sufficient self-identity (however privately nurtured), sufficient self-preserving and self-affirming esteem to handle later life well?

The answer is that failing children, of whom so much was asked and who could not accomplish the feat of giving to the ideologically abusive New Caesar what is apparently Caesar’s ... those children will be beaten down by the non-possible and profoundly oppressive equalitarian expectations they were given to internalise.  The resulting inner conflict, scarring and irresolvable, impels these unhappy prisoners of the left of liberalism to model in their own lives every dictate, every abuse in a vain bid to do as they were told and make the world in the abuser’s image. It’s a pavlovian response, but that way, finally, Caesar will be served.  That way those who had failed will make themselves successes, and those who had succeeded will be made failures and, of course, sole bearers of the unbearable New Original Sin.  Heroes of the revolution now, and failures no more, pavlov’s dogs will be proved righteous and whole, and fit citizens of the Multicult.

So it is that they enter a world of their own personal, carefully targeted hatreds in which, for the first time in their lives, profit is in the offing.  For their hate is a tool now, a crow-bar, a sledgehammer for smashing down everything that belongs to the successful; and since success is normal none of its commonplaces can be left standing, not love, not kin, not freedom, not facts, not truth, not honesty.  Certainly not honesty.  If questioned by some impertinent psychologist the vandals claim a penchant for the novel, doncha know.  But, really, it is the joy of destruction.  They claim to be rebels, soldiers against the Establishment.  But actually they are the ultimate conformists.  They do everything they possibly can to conform.  They claim that they alone are morally pure, and inveighing against the New Original Sin is what the morally pure must do.  But, really, every dehumanisation they visit upon their true and loyal kin, every kick to the head is only a projection of their own hatred and a demonstration of their own ineradicable deficiency.

It’s a madman’s justice, then.  A devil’s salvation.  But most of all, it’s a way to power.  Remember that when you are next confronted with one of these base creatures.  Remember their essential powerlessness and self-contempt.  Yes, they hate you and call you the hater, but only because they cannot bear their own reality.  For the same reason they make a pretence of humanity and compassion.  But they want their own people gone.  There is nothing lower than that.  But, then, they are very small beings desperately striving to become very powerful.  We may never cure them of that need, but we sure as hell have to stop them from attaining it.

Today the DT’s lead journalist on economics Ambrose Evans Pritchard posted a piece on the mounting nervousness of the world’s billionaires as they contemplate possible future neckties.  The article itself isn’t exactly incendiary.  It begins:

Davos Man is trembling. The cosmopolitan superclass is scrambling for ways to share a little of its income stream – as a prudent insurance policy – before the bottom half of western democracy takes matters into its own hands.

The new doctrine is enshrined in the Davos Manifesto, the digital billionaires’ answer to the Communist Manifesto of 1848. The cardinal code is ‘stakeholder capitalism’, otherwise known as looking after your workers, and agreeing not to trash society, or the local water system, or the planet.
There has been something grotesque about a lockdown crisis that has ravaged small firms and the manual self-employed even as the well-to-do accumulate trillions of excess savings. The Nasdaq 100 index is 40pc higher than before the pandemic. Listed global equities have risen in value by $24 trillion since March. The owners of wealth have made out like bandits.
.
“We’re on the brink of a terrible civil war. The US is at a tipping point in which it could go from manageable internal tension to revolution,” says Ray Dalio, founder of the world’s biggest hedge fund, Bridgewater Associates. Words no longer suffice. The pie will have to be divided.

Davos men and women know in their hearts that the economic dispensation of the last 20 years has been gamed by their caste, adorned in the ideological bunting of globalist virtue.

They know that staggering inequalities have festered, to the point where the average chief executive of an S&P 500 company earns 357 times as much as the average non-supervisory worker. The ratio was around 20 in the mid-1960s. It was still 28 at the end of Ronald Reagan’s term, which is an amazing thought.

Which is all fine and dandy.  But it doesn’t actually deal with the issue at hand, which is the keen desire among perfectly unexceptional British Tories to see “the bandits” brought low, as witnessed by the following not at all unusual comments from the subsequent thread:

READ MORE...