In a recent podcast, Dangerfield ran clips from an English village in the 1970’s celebrating The Queen’s Jubilee.

Dangerfield remarks among his derision of “Post Modernity” read (((post modernity))) as opposed to White Post Modernity, and “The Leftists”, read international, red leftists as opposed to White ethnonational left, that these “Leftists” will denounce the celebration of “The Queen’s Jubilee as right-wing reactionary nostalgia.”

This is not really quibbling on my part. Rather, it provides a good example of why it is important to understand Post Modernity correctly, viz. White Post Modernity as opposed to its (((red caped))) misrepresentation along with other language currency counterfeiting the depth grammar of left and right.

Dangerfield says, “these leftists want to say that these English villagers celebrating the queen’s jubilee” is an expression of right wing reaction.”

However, Post Modernity proper, viz. White Post Modernity/left ethnonationalism, would say, on the contrary, that it can be fine and good for these English villagers to celebrate the Queen’s Jubilee. Unlike the rule structure of Modernity, a practice (and a people) does not have to be different and new in order to be good; and should not be put at risk to uncontrolled experimentation.

If it is a healthy tradition, one can feel free to participate and reconstruct the practice/people without the pangs of self loathing for the appearance of conformity (as opposed to modernity’s paradoxic mandate to the individual: “be different so that you can fit it”); one invokes a willing suspension of disbelief in the hermeneutic (liberated from Modernity’s mere facticity) and one does so understanding when it is healthy for one’s people (while one is free to Not participate and can give way to Modernization when a tradition is not healthy for one’s people).

You begin to see why it is important to have a clear understanding of Post Modernity, viz., White Post Modernity.

For one clear example, for capacity that it provides for Optimal Competence, as per Aristotle’s description of performance requirements: minimal, satisfactory, optimal.

A minimally competent person could not participate in the Queens Jubilee appropriately, because they would not understand it well enough - thus, not understanding how to reconstruct the practice normally, or adjudge where the practice might be right (despite modernist derision) or where it might be going wrong (despite its having been tradition).

A merely satisfactorily competent person can ONLY participate in a rather verbatim reconstruction of the practice. But given the disorder of Modernity, lacking the stability that once underpinned the practice with assurance (e.g., The Queen has our interests at heart and would never decry those against immigration as “racist”, nor lord accountability to the universalizing Jesus over us, as opposed to accountability to our native people, nor have a grandson married to a Mulatto), there is no such thing as the kind of stable criteria for one to reconstruct; one must have more understanding of the context.

Hence, given the disorder of Modernity, especially (((weaponized))), as it were, there is no stable traditional order to practice satisfactory competence, one is either minimally competent or optimally competent.

* Aristotle’s discussion of minimal, satisfactory and optimal competence uses the example of fairness in exchange and knowing the difference.

Satisfactory competence can only make an equal exchange.

Minimal competence doesn’t understand an equal exchange, might make an equal exchange by accident, or give less than the appropriate value or more than the appropriate value, not really understanding it.

Whereas optimal competence knows the equal value of an exchange but can exchange less without being niggardly in truth or can give more without being ingratiating in truth.

It is not only necessary for English and all European peoples to understand Post Modernity properly, but it is also quite possible, not too hard at all for the vast majority of our people to understand its performance requirements; minimal/optimal. Hence, we must not be deterred by Jewish red-caping of terms and concepts.

Related at Majorityrights:

White Post Modernity: corrects reactionary chase of (((red capes))) fucking up necessary pomo ideas

White Post Modernity

Superchat question (52:40): “I wonder at what point we have to choose to either digest these people in our society, as the hippies were in the ‘70’s, or to understand that their culture and mores are indigestible and must be cast out of our society.”

Styx (53:01) “You mean the far leftists? Well, they’re already being…

Ramzpaul (53:38): “And your point about the hippies is good, because, I did a video about this (”Revolution Fatigue”), why you have to catch the momentum…I think the left, these radicals, they think they’re going to have a revolution like its 1917 Russia or its The French Revolution..or they think they’re in Weimar Germany and they’re fighting the Nazis. But see, that type of thing, there’s a lot of differences and you need to really make it happen pretty quick. Whereas I remember, I don’t remember, but I read about the late 60’s, early 70’s, there was like The Weather Underground, they thought they were going to topple the United States and have a revolution. But by the time that I got to university in 1981, they were already considered very dated…people who had that mindset were considered old.

DanielS:

Your understanding of “hippies” is idiotic. The Weather Underground were not hippies. The hippies were not Marxists in their essential motive; in fact, they were notoriously frustrating to Marxist revolutionaries. It matters, because the adversaries of Whites love to blame hippies; it is a way to blame White men as opposed to the culpability of liberal/Marxist programs spearheaded by Jewry; and because they wish to turn White right wing dolts against their own people, while burying an understanding of the profundity of the hippie motive for White men: a fundamental and profoundly important motive on behalf of White male Being / (Dasein/MidtDasein for White men especially) as opposed to their being considered so intrinsically valueless as to have to go to war in Vietnam, exploited for the custom, habit and tradition of their gender role as obligated to war - even in this case, where there was no clear and immanent danger to them and their people; where there could have been other means of dealing with Vietnam rather than conventional war).

A White ethnonational left would not be in “revolutionary” mode where the interests of our union - a union of our people - are being served by those in power. If they are not, i.e., if our interests are not served, then we would seek revolutionary transformation so that the union of our European peoples are secured. This is a big difference between a White ethnonational left and the Marxist, internationalist left. When our ethnonationalist union is secured, we are no longer in revolutionary, transformative mode, but are, rather, elaborative and self corrective.

Note that the hippie epoch lost all impetus once the Vietnam draft was over….

The grievance that caused “the hippie union” “to strike” against the powers and ways that be had been “settled.”

The Beatles, “Revolution” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGLGzRXY5Bw

Ramzpaul and Sytx are weird and annoying in their very insistence upon normalizing Jewish discourse.

_____________

For the sake of invoking a provocative perspective, I would like to momentarily change the pronoun in the anti-war song, “Walking in Space”, from “how dare THEY try to end this beauty, to how dare SHE try to end this beauty…

How dare she try, to end this beauty…

Right wing women who go along with the Jewish cover-up -

- ignoring the underlying motive of the hippies and wanting to blame them instead for having created “our problems”, suggesting that men should man-up in universal maturity, rather than manning-up to create group boundaries (e.g., by unionization process), or manning-up where our people’s boundaries are violated (as opposed to the other side of the world, in Vietnam, nowhere near our people’s boundaries, or where Jewish/Israeli boundaries are threatened)

- are particularly annoying…

I also interpose the pronoun change to suggest that this valuation of impervious confidence to the sacrifice of intellectual, critical apprehension of the power’s directives is a tendency in female predilection, and that the hippie movement was a (un-articulated intellectual/political) White male motive by balancing contrast to female valuation, e.g. of sheer confidence.

This also suggests a “foundational” reason as to why intrinsic value should be attributed to White males, for their perspective, as its predilections can, if anything, be better than female predilections; but in any event, provide a necessary systemic corrective in balancing the human ecology of European peoples.

Again, this momentary pronoun change is provocative. Of course women aren’t to blame for men getting sent to Vietnam to kill and die. However, traditional gender roles could have destructive consequences for men as well (second wave feminism kicking off in the 60’s as well), when hidebound, “foundationally” inflexible to the natural emergence and interactive development of White masculinity and its requirements (in praxis).

Related at Majorityrights:

A Conspiracy Theory of A Conspiracy Theory to Divert From White Male Dasein.

..the need to coordinate with (as opposed to antagonize) the Genus European and other Species of Native European Nations and diaspora remains…

...it seems that we may have had some positive influence on Brutus and co.

...but his claim that “anti-Christian” is synonymous with being anti English Nationalist is not really true.

...he’s a bit too accepting of warring and supremacism as a natural fact.

...too simplistic in his view on gender relations.

...maybe should add a few more words to his catch-all go-to - “kick the foreigners out”. Maybe

While there are these disagreements with him and his colleagues to be had, in regard to episode -

Banter Nationalism 93 -  I want to deal with a nuance of agreement and disagreement.

As they are English Nationalists, I absolutely agree with them in critiquing “Patriotic” Alternative and other British Nationalists where they might place their cause simply under the rubric of “White” and where they might rally by the 14Words (let alone by German American WN’s Hitler redemptionism 88).

Brutus’ concern to make and emphatically maintain the distinction between English ethnonationalism and White Nationalism is very important, well taken.

However, while Brutus and co. can be forgiven as being in an initial stage, tad over-corrective break-out into appropriate concentration on English ethnonationaism, they do over-correct a bit.

You see, “White” merely represents the genus, European.

The term is not only necessary to avoid confusions as to who is being advocated when speaking of European diaspora, but it is also the case that we are under attack as a race - i.e., All White people, meaning the American sense of the term, “White” - all people of European descent, and therefore we are all in the same boat with a common cause in having to defend ourselves for our race - wherever we are.

Now, White as the genus, European, is not mutually exclusive to the species - e.g. English - defending their national kinds and borders as well.

I agree absolutely with Brutus and co. in emphasizing this distinction of concern, which I will call a distinction between genus and species. Where I disagree with them is in making the concerns mutually exclusive, antagonistic, even.

And regarding the 14 Words, while David Lane made a mistake in playing a role in killing the Jewish radio shock jock and David Lane paid the price for it, the 14 Words are, nevertheless, a beautifully composed, inspiring rallying cry for many.

It does remain true, however, that the 14 Words are not unproblematic when our enemies and doltish true believers (in “88”) try to re-attach them to the “88”. That again, was a mistake by David Lane, i.e., to make that association in the first place. However, the conscientious, such as TT and his admirers, have always been clear to say the 14 Words without the 88. The 14 words remain valid as such.

Even so, it is true that “White” and The 14 Words speak of the genus and do not distinguish the very important species difference - such as the English.

Brutus’ concern to make and emphatically maintain that distinction is importantly well taken.

I hope that they’ll steer clear of some supremacist way of marking the difference - from what I hear of “37 words” I’m not sure if it’s in their personality to manage that…

Obviously we can defend ourselves better if we are not fighting each other - 88 - and have alliance with other European nations/peoples.

The coordination of genus (race) and species (national kinds) of European peoples is not too difficult an intellectual task for Brutus and others to manage.

Perhaps something like English/14

German/14

French/14 and so on…

...to mark the species divisions of the genus.

I will not insist on people using the 14 words, but they work quite well for some, especially diaspora when separated from the 88 - 14/88

The other day, while contemplating the paper I am writing for submission to PA, I came to the realisation that while the argument for democracy must (a) work and (b) be restored to our people is central to the demand for a referendum on our future in our own homeland it is actually quite tricky to navigate the civic nature of the beast.  The civicism itself is an active element in our disenfranchisement, meaning that we cannot make a straight, positive case for the referendum.  It ineluctably becomes a negative claim.

I asked Daniel what he thought about that and received some consideration which I think I have incorporated.  But I am still uncertain as to whether the case is made - it is certainly weaker than I would like and weaker than the other arguments for the referendum that are in the overall draft so far.  So I am posting a draft here if anybody is interested in commenting and strengthening the claim.  All constructive contributions gratefully received!

Any demand for a referendum is necessarily an appeal to (a likely resistant) authority for self-determination by the people.  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.

Of course, it’s all in the definition of “people”.  Only if we were living in an ethnic democracy or an ethnocracy¹⁹ – two of around twenty models of democracy which academics have identified – would the people and the demos definitely and always overlap to a degree useful to us.  Given not only that current citizenship law is anything but restricted to us, and the gateway to franchise²º is wider by an order of magnitude than citizenship itself, our referendum demand would fall foul immediately of the absence of any recognition or point of reference for ethnic self-determination within the system²¹.  It would be all-too-easy for politicians to dismiss our demand just by saying: “In our vibrant national democracy every individual of eighteen or over, regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation, possesses the same human dignity and rights, and enjoys the same access to the democratic process.  You do not have the privilege of using the process to attack or disadvantage your fellow citizens.”

However, since such “liberal” opinion is relying upon novel and extra-ordinary change in the demos, brought about without recourse to the democratic process itself, it is a statement of force majeure and fait accompli - the former because, obviously, state power has been employed to sweep away all dissent and utterly change our ethnic home, the latter because the politicians, having striven to make it (as they believe) impossible to undo their handiwork, now 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 non-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 situation 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 such a demand are not democrats and not ethical people.  Their arguments are flawed, arrogant, self-serving, and prejudiced against us.  Correction is due and we are bound to seek it, not least because that’s how a healthy democracy is maintained.

William Shakespeare never conceived of a betrayal more monstrous than that of our politicians, or a fate for his people and ours more completely final than the one they have engineered.  The phrase “We were never asked” is not counted among the scores of familiar Shakesperian quotations.  But perhaps one might argue in the native manner of Hamlet to Horatio that the ecumenicalism of British democracy, as it evolved from Magna Carta to the Windrush, was “a custom more honour’d in the breach than the observance”²², the breach being the implicit understanding of English peoplehood and right on the soil.  Certainly, if politicians had dismissively lectured the Englishmen of Elizabeth’s reign that Africans and south Asians and the rest have just as much ownership of this civic space and as much civic right upon it as them, that opinion would not have survived the sudden appearance of perfumed heads on pikes atop the city walls.

As it is, after the Windrush the rules of succession in our democratic Elsinore became those of the Claudian usurpation: citizenship on the nominal basis of jus soli but the effective basis of universalism squared, duly excused and commended by Brownite racial apologetics, aka civic values²³.

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 experiment²⁴; and we cannot permit it to become any or all of those in perpetuity.  Democracy must function again.  Our people must decide.

READ MORE...

This is the third section of the scene-setting, opening division of my referendum paper.  It is probably the last section I will post here, at least at this very early this stage in proceedings.

The religious and philosophical antecedents of the political struggle aside, what are we to say about the contesting forces and their respective causes?  Is it even necessary to measure the motivations of a repressive class against the rights and interests of the people it represses, or the expansionist interest of a coloniser against the defensive and life-preserving interests of the people of the land it colonisers?  Would any fair observer dismiss the victim people as consumed with hatred, and label their cause illegitimate on such self-evidently specious and confected moral grounds?  If we do not dismiss the victim people mechanically and out of hand, how can we not find for them?

But such objectivity is entirely missing from the picture.  That entity which the Tories, lost in their petty economism and managerialism, call “consumers”, “tax-payers”, “voters”, and which the Labour Party, lost in its absolutist ideology of sameness, used to call “the workers” and “the masses” but these days calls “racists”, and which nationalists call “our people” (which, of course, is what they are) … that entity bears all the violations … the child-rapes and racist murders and terror outrages, the abuse from creatures damaged by racial self-contempt, the antipathy, betrayal and deceit of successive generations of politicians, the crass social engineering, the totalitarian omerta in the media, the official assault on “ white male hegemony”, the abandonment of white boys in education for the sake of the Other, the catch-all lie of dissent-as-hate, the “service” from the police, employers’ impertinent obsession with what we say outside work, the African faces pushed at us through our TV screens every few seconds, the sheer unrelenting and unlimited extent of the change to our towns and cities ... all this they ... we ... bear with tact, grace, and an obdurate stoicism.

These are true signs of who we are.  They are not the signs of a disparate crowd of individuals indifferent to anything that has no pecuniary reward attached to it.  They are not the signs of some too too hideous monster from the history of empire, whose moral nature is shot through with irrational hatred and who has to be got out of the way, basically⁸, so non-white victims everywhere can be freed into the utopian forever-future of racial justice⁹.  Most importantly, they are not the signs of a people buckling under the repression and blanket propaganda.  They are the signs of a people of the highest moral quality.

For sure, tact and grace are receptive feminine virtues, and do not contain the reactive and assertive energy, the recoil, to make change.  But stoicism is a male virtue, and it signals that many blows have had to be absorbed but not a single backward step has been taken¹⁰.  It is a quiet and unfussy, prominent part of the native character.  It is the modern equivalent of a shield wall.  It produced, for example, the two greatest feats of endurance in British military history, which are the British Army’s long, costly defence of French soil in 1914-18 and, in relative terms, the even more costly offensive of Bomber Command in 1939-45, which for two years after Dunkirk was conducted as the sole means by which this country could carry the fight into the enemy’s home, and which produced negative crew survival rates during the great battles of the air of 1943.  Still they flew.  It is the quality on which we, today, have fallen back in the present unequal and undeclared conflict, while the attack against us grinds onward unopposed and we wait for the means and moment to reply, and to carry our voice, our will, our kinship, our native right, our interests, back into the realm of the political after an absence of several decades.

That is what a referendum, as a clarifying and reforming mechanism, is really for: our reclamation of the political.  That is what those who populate politics today are so afraid of, and with good reason because they cannot defend their own project against our people’s demand for life.  The abstract values they have inhaled from the liberal air, and which they hold to be absolutes, instantly collapse in contact with it.  Likewise, the malign and intellectually featherweight, self-serving ideological ejaculations of the anti-racist left turn to dust¹¹.  It is to be expected.  The demand for a secure existence and a sovereign and free life for our people issues from their possession of life itself and from life’s unquenchable appetite for continuity.  Everything, even the principle of power, even that of human freedom, is secondary to it.  There is no higher cause than this, which is the cause at the heart of ethnic nationalism, and no instance of that cause more just than when the life in question is that of the children of the soil.

And what, in contrast, is the moral quality of the cause of the Establishment, in whose politicians’ gift the granting of a referendum resides?  What moral defence is there for any part of its race project?  Can any Establishment speaker even explain the presence of replacement populations in our home?  Perhaps that was possible in the beginning, when Bernard Montgomery was demanding a standing Army of the Rhine of 500,000 of our young men to confront Soviet expansionism in the west, because labour shortages at home were already chronic.  But in those days we were assured that the imported labour would be returning home as soon as practicable.

That all changed within a single generation.  With Enoch Powell safely marginalised and race relations already an obsession of the political class, we started to be instructed that the West Indian and south Asian populations were now our permanent new “ethnic minorities”, and, in the words of the Conservative Party manifesto for the general election of 1979, “... there can be no question of compulsory repatriation”.  By the mid-80s Roy Hattersley, then Labour deputy leader, was touring local radio stations to announce that this was now a multicultural country.  Not a sound from the Thatcher government was heard.  It was all agreed.  Prior to the London terror attacks of 7th July 2005, when fifty-two people lost their lives, nearly every senior politician of all the parties would solemnly inform us how “Diversity is our strength”.  That lie rarely passes their lips now, unless they are addressing a non-white audience.  They dare not tell that to us.  They have fallen strangely, uncharacteristically silent.

Indeed, throughout everything no one of any party troubled to explain why this was happening.  There has never been a formal explanation.  Politicians preferred to present the whole thing as some irresistible force of modernity which had to be managed as best it could.  As to its fundamental cause, that could be a gift of the jet engine, as some have argued, or of some timeless and unstoppable, Nature-given human practise of people “moving around the planet” (the current UN and EU narrative of the migrant who, mysteriously, cannot be shut out of European lands, like floodwater at the door), or it could just be the world’s refugees righteously seeking “safety” or asylum, or the world’s poor and the world’s brain surgeons seeking betterment.  It could be any cause, frankly, but that of destructive elites deliberately mixing-up the world’s populations in our home in pursuit of objects too shameful to be allowed into the light.

For the benefit of clarity, these peoples whom they force upon us are, first, replacement populations invited here to settle in our home without end; and, second, transformative populations brought here to gene-kill us by miscegenation.  Their status in our home is not that of an authentic ethnic minority, as we are instructed to think, but a coloniser.  They are not an oppressed victim, either.  An “oppressed minority” which enjoys the unremitting and total support of the government and opposition, the liberal Establishment, the media, the corporate sector, academia, law, and Third Sector is not a victim.  It is a pawn.

Who the chess-player is, exactly … if it has a single identity at all ... we do not formally know.  We can only make educated guesses.  But it’s not the politicians.  They are no better than hired help.  They get a good deal.  As irredeemably self-important beings, they have what they want, which is power over the political life of the nation and potentially a lucrative post-Westminster career.  They have the trappings of that power, perhaps even an office of state and the responsibility that comes with it.  If not, well, there are regular opportunities to display “humanity” before the cameras, perhaps in a refugee camp or in the children’s ward of some inner-city hospital at Christmas time.  Or Eid.  It’s the proven method by which one attains social elevation and the good public opinion of one’s liberal peers.  The speeches in the chamber, the clamour of journalists, the in-fighting, the late-night cutting of deals, the freebies and boondoggles, the whole venal mess … it’s intoxicating and exciting.  It’s a good life for an eager PPE grad from Oxbridge or London South Bank, or wherever.

It is also the true condition of any mediocre individual who lives so much on the surface of things.  The surface, of course, does preclude an holistic sense of the age, and because these people have no holistic sense of the age they are its unquestioning creatures.  In consequence nowhere are there free and creative agents, men and women of a stature sufficient unto the day.  On one side there is a great surfeit of pliant, principle-free drones, small thinkers and careerists given by character and ambition to the management of small things.  On the other there are repressive ideologues with no ideas of their own, creatures of passionate intensity¹³ at war with their natures and ours.  Powerful they may be - as powerful as we are weak.  But this generation of politicians are afraid to look our people in the eye.  They will not speak our name.  They do not ask any question of us.  They do not want answers, because answers would require decisions and decisions actions about matters of concern, matters of existence itself, which they have abjured themselves from ever acknowledging.  It is one of the reasons why their denunciation of nationalists is so rabid and unreasoning.  They are pushing away their own insupportable guilt and hypocrisy.

This is the dysfunctional political class we would have to lead towards giving our people the last thing in this world they want to give us, and to do so in the knowledge that it would likely rock their political lives to their core.  It is a seemingly impossible task.  But now let’s take a look at the matter in detail.

READ MORE...

This is the next passage in the referendum paper I am preparing.  It is commentary on the historiography ... the ideological ancestry, if you like, of all the negatives which nationalism seeks to address, and the “genetic defects” which that ancestry transmits to the current mainstream political generation.

Long before the late 17th century development of the urban industrial centre, and the conflicts of class and labour which accompanied it, the life of our people was already subject to challenging and pervasive transformational currents.  The class system itself, as a rigid socio-economic impost, entered the bloodstream of England with the Norman Conquest.  The capitalist landlord then emerged from the system of indenture and the bond of debt which was medieval serfdom.  The ideas of the 18th century Enlightenment owe their development to Descartes, Hobbes and Locke (Karl Marx actually said “We are all Hobbes’ children”), and they, in turn, to the intellectual canon arising, on one hand, out of Western Christian intellectualism (with its non-biblical roots in the Greeks and Islamic scholars) and, on the other, out of Renaissance humanism.

Not one of the Enlightenment philosophers was anti-Christian.  On the contrary,  they were conventional Christian gentlemen of their time writing about Man, not God.  The secular nature of their writings in no way precludes a broad and uncritical acceptance of Christianity’s own conception of Man.  The very model of the unfettering will derives from the proposition that is the Christian soul seeking salvation by the grace of the god of Abraham, and that, in turn, derives via Paul from the Judaic conception and treatment of the gentile.  It is a conception and treatment born out of the humiliation, after numerous other tribal humiliations, numerous other physical and psychological exiles, of the Roman occupation of Jerusalem from 63 BCE; and it works by weaponising the self-same alienations and estrangements of the Jewish exile and inflicting them upon the perceived existentially hostile gentile Other.

Thus with the conversion of the tribes of Europe to Christianity our ancestors acquired as their most abiding and formative moral and cultural artefact another morality and another culture integral to it and inseparable from it.  It is a culture of imposture, and of the existential critique of self and others.  Inevitably, its effects in time have been all too profound, colouring and characterising all that followed, instilling a sense of humanity sans bounds, a novel sense of individual identity, and of what our connection to others is for.  These three altogether estranging moral gifts, simple in themselves though they are, run uninterrupted through the greater part of the Western intellectual canon⁶ and the political, social, economic, and cultural life … our political, social, economic, and cultural life ... which flows therefrom.

The situation – always dangerous, of course - has gone critical in our time.  Our natural identity and our natural relation, both of which wholly belong to, and should go wholly unquestioned by, every European, are all but missing from the lived life.  That life is impelled onward not as our creative expression at all but as that of an always dynamic and developing struggle for human artifice and caesura in direct opposition to our human authenticity and belonging, and to the native principle itself (the principle of blood on the land, and the natural rights and interests pertaining thereto).

To re-emphasise, because it is important: the most fundamental contest of our age is that between artifice and authenticity in the European life and person, the former giving power over us to others, the latter giving us power over ourselves. 

Those on the political right who are held captive by the former look upon us, the native British, and see very little but interchangeable units of economic cost, unmindful of anything more human, more enduring than the consumption of ever greater quantities of goods and services.  The denizens of the modern left, meanwhile, consumed by the most absurd moral vanity, likewise see not our humanity but the endemic and indelible stain of hate and prejudice (usually “racist” hate and prejudice) in the white-skinned oppressor who alone bars the way to the post-racial utopia of radically equal beings, and who can only make recompense by an unending self-abnegation.  If these pathologies are taking peoples of European descent out of existence today – and they are – then it is, ultimately, because over the centuries we have determinatively accrued the substantive moral and intellectual framework of our own fracture and debilitation, and on that framework dangle all the 20th century philosophies and reductive human models⁶ which deliver us into artifice and to the will of others.

In the absence of effective philosophical and political analyses British nationalists spent most of the period between the end of WW2 and the end of the millenium asking themselves the wrong questions (rooted not in our politics at all but in the humiliations of an adopted “defeat” in WW1 and the challenge from communist revolutionaries to the continental European liberal democracies): how do we tell everyone about the JQ … how do we live the life of glory, what do we do to model greatness ... how do we re-kindle the spirit of our race … how do we beat the left on the streets … where is the leader?  Our people, meanwhile, were left with just one active defender: their own instinct.  Opinion polling suggests that it has stood up pretty well to the decades of Establishment social engineering and projected racial self-contempt⁷.

Finally, at the turn of the millenium, the main body of British nationalists began a turn of their own, away from post-fascistic Nietzschean thinking and towards an inchoate and largely unwritten nationalism of our ethnicity, being, and identity.  Two decades later that turn is still underway.  Patriotic Alternative, for example, evinces elements of the old thinking and the new.  But the party and the movement as a whole is facing towards the universal politics of life which is ethnic nationalism, and now can, if the understanding is there, articulate it as a total and profoundly moral refutation of the hypocritical elitism, coercion, lies, hatred, unnaturalness, and ethnocide on offer from the Establishment parties, activists, and media.  Further, we can make the most positive offer imaginable to the people, restoring their land, no less, to their own children, and a life of freedom, belonging, security, peace ... and boundless potential.

We will always appear weak when comparisons with the Establishment cohorts are made on the basis of the prestige of office, corporate funding, organisational structure and manpower, campaign professionalism, mainstream media reach, and so forth.  That cannot be a surprise.  Said cohorts have been the beneficiary of history, as explained above.  But it is a history of political crime and philosophical error.  We, on the other hand, are the upholders of what is right and just and true, and the expressers of our people’s real interests and instinct for life.  As with the Leave campaign in 2016 we do not have to rely on grotesque lies and bullying.  With the offer of England to our people, a big enough coalition and on-going help from the other side’s extremists we must have a fighting chance.

READ MORE...

I have set aside my philosophical writings for a time while I work up a full paper on the political benefit, methods, and viability of campaigning for a United Kingdom referendum on securing the future of the four native British peoples.  It is a suggestion I made recently at Patriotic Alternative’s site, and the subject of a limited correspondence with Laura Towler.  I’ll be publishing some sections of the paper here, but the full paper will be sent to Laura in an attempt to kick-start nationalism in this country.

Introduction

On 23rd June 2016 the voters of this country went to the polls after a four-month national campaign to render to government and parliament their decision in the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum.  It was the latest of fourteen referendums held since Edward Heath’s Northern Ireland referendum on Irish unity of 1973.  A pointless and ill-conceived exercise though that was, it nevertheless set the precedent by which British governments have since resorted to referendums on constitutional matters ranging from parliamentary voting reform to devolution for the north-east of England.  In that time also, two further referendums were planned.  But circumstances intervened and they were never held.  Although in British politics referendums still constitute an extra-ordinary process of consultation (many, including most nationalists, would argue deference¹) they are now firmly established as the democratic instrument by which enduring national questions over which parliament understands itself not to possess constitutional competence are passed to the people to be settled.

That said, we should not run away with the idea that this is ever done from politicians’ dedication to high principle, and quite without the worldly stain of political calculation.  The politics of referendums is very plainly beholden to the politics of keeping or getting of power.  In all but one case², referendums in Britain have either been resorted to by government in response to a long-running public campaign³ or have flowed from the election of a new government which, in opposition, had adopted the campaign’s cause⁴, invariably for its own electoral purposes.

Political opportunism and self-interest, therefore, are material considerations for any government asked to hand the people definite and direct control over a great constitutional question.  Accordingly, governments can and do refuse to turn to the people even when doing so may be morally unimpeachable, just and strictly logical, and the cause popular.

A striking example is the point-blank refusal of successive governments in the wake of Scottish and Welsh devolution to grant the electorate in England a vote on England’s representative inequality within the Union.  The formal discussion has been of the constitutional disruption⁵ a parliament for England and a government of England would produce.  But one’s overwhelming suspicion is that the real issue is the craven self-interest and careerism of the Westminster class, which will brook neither challenge nor change.

This being the case, how much less likely is it that any Westminster government will cede a demand from, by its own estimation, politically irrelevant British nationalists and “populists” for decision in the matter of our respective ethnic survival in the lands which bear our respective names?  The political class is only too well aware that the population change it has deliberately wrought upon the natives of this land has never been legitimised by our consent, and it is only too well aware why.  It has, in consequence, done everything in its power to close its ears to our voices,  sullying itself by sullying that voice; and this it has done, and will go on doing, for the sole purpose of erecting a justification, as it supposes, for its total betrayal of us, its total betrayal of our children.  Why, after the setback that its internationalism suffered on 23rd June 2016, would it call down destruction upon its head by ceding to us control over its demographic weapon and, thereby, over its own fate?

This paper will explore how Patriotic Alternative, acting as the wellspring of native opinion, might set about breaking the illusions of representation and respectability with which the political class clothes itself, and by which it commands the political stage, and our people with it.  In essence, what are the difficulties of actually engaging with government and making the demand for a referendum on the survival and continuity of the four native peoples of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.  What are the difficulties of making such a referendum necessary for government … any government ... to grant or at least to attempt, in the glaring light of day, to publicly refute and refuse?  How could those difficulties be overcome?  What are the benefits for nationalism of fighting the fight anyway, win or lose?  And how might it be possible for the nationalist cause to triumph against all the odds, as the Leave cause triumphed against the exact same forces a little over four years ago?

To each of these questions this paper will attempt to provide an answer.

READ MORE...

In brief:

The DNA Nation concept is a means to coordinate people of European extraction - i.e., on the basis of genetics: genus and species (European race and national kinds) worldwide; thereby facilitating organization of 1) our European genus and species in diaspora together with 2) our native European people to maintain their distinct native genetic kinds and national interests; including the aim to secure their national borders; and to 3) coordinate our European diaspora and native Europeans together in genus and species to establish sufficient economic base, power base, organizational boundaries and territories worldwide to defend and advance our kind.

.......

(((Sponsored))) “Black Lives Matter” rioting, arson, looting, property destruction and assault has been repeated in more than 30 U.S. cities followed by European cities as well.

With race riots having broken out in cities all over the United States (and elsewhere), it should now be clear to even the normiest boomer-civnat that Whites are under attack as a race, i.e., as a group - we (White men, in particular) are low man on the totem of the progressive stack of intersectional victim groups. We obviously have to look after our own.

Dallas man tried to assert himself and defend his property alone against the hyper-assertive black element.

While the more sensible among us have observed the destruction to our precious Ethnic Genetic Interests for decades as a result of liberalization of our national borders and group boundaries, the Covid-19 pandemic signaled a paradigmatic shift to broad consciousness that malign factors may cross national borders and interpersonal boundaries; and the state response of closing borders and requiring social distancing revealed that border and boundary maintenance can be done, even if this permutation was not done expressly for the protection of our European genetic kinds.

But we have a more flexible means for protecting our kinds, where the state and those in power are antagonistic and block the means to secure our European kind, sicking aliens and out-groups upon us to no end, and that is the perennial form in which a people fight off oppressive, exploitative and destructive elites: We may unionize our people for the sake of the aforementioned three purposes - otherwise scattered diaspora, our discrete species of native nations and the over-arching power of our genus. The time is ripe to promote this organization in defense of our interests; the need should be clear to all.

Take advantage of C-19 lockdown to squeeze-out the middle class as they might, as they would, what is the proper response to elite oppression? It is unionization (or some analogous means of organizing our people). Then we can begin the course of marshaling our nations and economy to serve our interests as opposed to elite parasites.

Yes, unionization, social organization, is traditionally considered to be a leftist concern (about a broad union of people, with power largely managed by accountability to deliberately delimited boundaries as opposed a “magic hand” wielded acutely, narrowly against the group, supposedly warranted as “purely” and as much without debt to their people as you’ll let them get away with asserting), but unionization of the group is not necessarily an anti-nationalist concern at all. On the contrary, social responsibility, accountability through unionization of national boundaries fit together like a hand and glove - unionization equaling delimitation of group border, providing accountability, providing correctability, which is practically synonymous with group systemic maintenance - corresponding with homeostasis, self corrective systems, autonomy, self governance, sovereignty (what we want and what our enemies try to destroy).

It should dawn on people why our enemies are pushing the anti-left narrative so heavily - they don’t want us to organize against their elite hegemony, the right wing sell outs and licentious liberals that they enlist to their side. And why they altercast “third positionism” as a means of backdoor infiltration and/or destabilization; as opposed to allowing us to define left ethnonationalism for ourselves, to include private property, individual liberties, free enterprise within reason and other means of integrity that Europeans expect within a basis of social accountability.

Boomers bend the knee to Jewish sponsored black power (right wingers taking the pay-off or the flattery to their self sacrificing “objectivity” while liberals take the license and flattery to their indulgent “objectivity”).

A generation of boomers are still in power, not only holding position (bending the knee in deferential acquiescence to blacks and their backers!) presiding over our liberal destruction but also in power over the reactionaries to liberal destruction; particularly represented by STEM types in intransigence for the relative success afforded by their STEM predilection (marketable skills) and the fortune of post war boom years, where the anti-social story of individual human potential could allow them to burn the social capital stored by the conservatism of prior generations, to remain rationally blinded to their indebtedness to their social capital; and they will tend to think that we simply need to get back to their liberal/objectivist, anti-social ways - it just needs to be applied harder. They are all too ready to believe that the very correction to their over-grazing and irresponsibility is the problem: those “lefties” who seek to create a unionized system of social accountability. But STEM types are notorious dupes to manichean devils.

STEM types, markedly Europeans evolved mostly in response to natural challenges, Augustinian devils, are famously great scientists and engineers and notorious dupes to the Manichean devils coming out of the Middle East, those whose primary challenge was other groups, who thus evolved accordingly, wielding Manichean trickery and deception.

Now, science and empirically rigorous, close readings of our peoples deep, emergent nature, requirements for the maintenance of our being, is indispensable. There are several invaluable concepts that GW and Bowery have put forth from that rigorous end of inquiry; e.g., GW’s “being-of” is a great idea, an important centralizing position in hermeneutic process (and not mutually exclusive to the platform that I set out).

However, if the end of rigorous verification is to have orientation and relevant account, it must function within working hypotheses. I like to go with Shotter’s idea of calling these “specificicatory structures”, partly finished concepts which may be elaborated, acted-into and corrected with others. Our borders and boundaries can’t be taken for granted and don’t fall into place in a seemingly perfectly natural way that borders and bounds do for the Japanese, because we have been subject to an array of manichean tricks, for millennia now, to rupture our borders and bounds.

Furthermore, as the STEM predilection is attuned to precision, binary either/ors and to look for “the one little sublime thing” that might make the circuit go or not and at same time might eliminate redundancy as inefficient, it can be a good habit for engineering, but a vast disservice to the complexity of praxis, the social world, rupturing its organic holisms and multiple agentive interfaces, such that slightly ambiguous concepts, specificatory structures, serve better for their flexible interfacing capacity. Comfortable thus with working hypotheses and not over-valuing precision so much as to misapply it, one is not liable to make a bewilderingly retarded mistake such as hearing that Gregory Bateson “is Jungian” (not true) and therefore that he can be dismissed entirely as otherwise redundant for that one thing (which isn’t even true!). 

And as I’ve pointed-out before, STEM types have had a leg up in advancing their perspective in the internet age, thus delaying corrections to anti-social perspectives that may tend to adhere to their predilections.

It is the other end of orientation - calibration and unionization of our group to provide relevant accountability to our ancient social capital and its future trajectory - that the manichean adversaries of European interests have been assiduously at work against.

The concept of the group, particularly as unionized, is the opposite of liberalism (the no-account, toxic ocean in which we swim) because you are conserving what is within and providing, through its “union” structuring, the means of accountability to our group system, which corresponds to correctivity, which is approximately synonymous to group systemic homeostasis (self corrective systems) - which is what we (should) want as a people - functional borders, boundaries to provide autonomy, sovereignty. This structures consciousness as deliberate; you have to love the departure from objectivist, no account liberal whateverism - it is deliberate.

Black daycare worker suffocates 8 month old, CCTV shows dying child thrashing her legs to escape

Specifically, Europeans are under attack as a group (a race is a group). Generally, the humanities, not harder sciences, are the disciplines which develop means to analyse human groups.

Psychology generally focuses on the individual, and as such it is limited in its utility to our group concerns in interaction. While sociology takes the group as its unit of analysis and communicology takes interaction as its unit of analysis.

As instruments thus, sociology and communicology are better suited to our concerns - we are under attack as a group in interaction by characteristically antagonistic and manichean (trickster/deceptive) peoples. And as sociology is being weaponized against us, that is all the more reason to take control of it for our interests, not to abandon the group unit of analysis as “Jewish.” That’s ridiculous. Talk about an ostrich putting its head in the sand.

Now then, there are many necessary means for understanding and organizing our people that I call White Post Modern in order to distinguished these resources/means from what has been put across by the YKW and their liberal minions as “post modernity” - the many red cape misrepresentations and distortions of the concepts to wield against White interests and to turn White people off to the underlying concepts altogether, crucial though they would be to understand and deploy in White interests.

“Will you commit to defunding the police? - No? Then get the fuck out of here!” Minneapolis Mayor (((Jacob Frey))) is doing all he can to acquiesce to black demands.

Black Lives Matter is just one of many anti-White organizations sponsored by (((YKW)))

Particularly as they attained greater hegemony than ever in 2008, Jewish power and influence has been determined to maintain those distortions of the humanities weaponized against Whites as representing “THE Left” and “THE Problem” to be solved primarily by Whites joining them on the Cartesian end of pure science, universal truth, facts, Abrahamic god beyond nature, etc. Rationally blinded to what the YKW are doing, in pseudo objectivity, detached from the disingenuousness of our own elite sell-outs, the naivete of the masses who go along with this (((Madison ave))) marketing campaign against “The Left”. Anything but the social accountability and social justice, anything but left ethnonationalism, as its concept of unionization facilitates - no, can’t have that. It’s a threat to Jewish power and influence; a threat to right wing sell outs who take their pay off; a threat to liberals who take anti-social license.

The abuse of the humanities has been so profound in its deployment against Whites that you can hear particularly STEM type Whites in reaction proclaim “Sociology” a false religion. Well, the abuse of sociology into an anti-White religion can be. But to criticize sociology as a discipline as a “false religion” would be like calling a telescope, “bad.”

Again, the social group, which is the focus of sociology, is as relevant as any neutral unit of analysis can be given that we are under attack as a group - a race, attacked by anti-racism. Thus, if sociology is being abused against us, that is all the more reason to take control of the instrument for our interests.

Our enemies have devised red capes of social organization throughout the years, Marxism (international a-racial unionization), Cultural Marxism (anti-White unionization), and recently since 2008 have cultivated a characterology of “the left” which they would try to attribute to anybody who tries to apply salutary concepts of the left to White interests, viz, to the ethnonation, saying that you are trying to take away private property, trying to take away unequal outcomes according to merit, that you seek centralized planning etc..

What you really want is to be right wing, because that would suit Jews in their hegemony, don’t want any union of the masses seeking social justice; at least you could show your theoretical sophistication by being neither right nor left? then you could stay obligingly disorganized; failing that, be third position along with knucklehead Keith Woods, so you can introduce Hitler and natural fallacy to help rid the Jews of their mischling problem and put the White unionists to death in war, oblige Jewish provocation as such, for the introduction of that destabilizing element, courtesy the knucklehead.

Rather than organizing, unionizing White interests against Jewish power and influence, you can keep on with the program of diverting reaction to the right wing sell-outs the YKW enlist, the liberals the YKW enlist with increasing license.

Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office has released shocking video of hundreds of looters breaking into a Tampa Walmart on Saturday, May 30, 2020, at 9:10 p.m.
(Courtesy ABC Action News and Hillsborough Sheriff’s Dept. 11 June 2020).

(((Curtis Yarvin (mencius moldbug)))‘s whole “Dark Enlightenment” was effectively an op against STEM types to further misdirect them from the proper findings and deployment of the humanities.

Worse, to dismiss the humanities, the more hypothetical end of inquiry in balance to harder scientific rigor, is to dismiss the most relevant units of analysis for the challenge that we are up against, for anti-racism is anti group classification and (likely necessary) discrimination thereof; while communicology is the study of interactions, e.g., group interactions which may break down group systemic maintenance (a human ecology) or serve to maintain it. And it is to dismiss resource from the humanities unnecessarily, as they should not be looked upon as in conflict but complementary to the more rigorous end, equally indispensable.

However, while I make perfect sense to myself, I have been up against Jewish/Abrahamic interests, the right wing reactionaries they enlist and buy off with low account stories of their independent objective merit, while the liberals, with the same line of independent, objective merit, are bought off more cheaply, i.e., provided more straight forward license (licentiousness) to indulge.

Those who react in indignation while not being willing to act against our people’s interests (at least not intentionally), take the right wing altercasting into purity spirals - a wish for “that’s just the way it isnness” to find relief from Jewish rhetorical deception and other manicheanism in the social world (praxis) - but at the serious cost to group organization, accountability and agency.

Landen Hoffman

That would be “leftist’ ..can’t do that.” 

And so when I, an early and quintessential Gen-Xer, seek to correct the rational blindness of Boomers, particularly of the STEM kind, with necessary concepts of social unionization to facilitate accountability to our historic and future genetic capital, given the hideous abuse they have witnessed by means of the red capes of the humanities, given that the Jews want them to continue in their misunderstanding and to identify as right wingers, easily maneuvered, or self destructive, stigmatizing, dividing and disorganizing as such, given the mean and insane anti social reaction that many have gotten into as right wingers, I have been up against far more resistance than I would have expected and far more than I should have gotten.

Now, this has been a bit of digression but I needed to take it on because I haven’t gotten the help that I should have from the boomer STEM types; in fact, I have gotten horrible resistance. The general strawmanning that I’ve been subject to has been absurd, while the platform that I offer is coherent and equipped with important concepts.

The idea of unionization as I advocate it should never have met with the kind of resistance it has; and this resistance is likely to be an expression of reaction to abuses of the concept deployed as anti-White or indifferent to White EGI, as with other social concepts organized against Whites; mis-perceived as being inherently anti-White and unusable by Whites therefore, which is absurd; but in truth, the anti-Whitism has been laid-on thick; people’s reacting against “the left” is understandable - it was my reaction until I began to make inferences along with some founding WN fathers turned against the right; and if I had not been privy to the source of inner theoretical workings, i might not be able to penetrate the ostensible either.

DNA Nations functions something like a union of unions; coalition of unions; federation.

This is not superficial philosophy. It is not mere politics which requires to be put aside indefinitely for some “deeper” science or philosophy. Aristotle takes praxis as the first order of business and Aristotle is the most respected single figure among European peoples for reasons of outstanding judgment in regard to human nature and our requirements. If Praxis, group organization, is out of whack, all other endeavors are liable to be futile. And crucially, in line with Aristotle’s advice, to over apply science and physics (pleroma) to the biological and social world (creatura) of praxis is the classic epistemological blunder which has precipitated some of our worst historical catastrophes.

            Warsaw after WWII (left)                        Dresden after WWII (right)

Nor do we need to distrust all words, as we are not trying to persuade our enemies but rather seek to make things clear for our people.

That is the essence of the post modern project, to call back our people from Cartesian estrangement into a centralization of our group of people (praxis), a unionization delimitation facilitating accountability to ours and coordination with other groups of people and environment that Cartesianism’s objective estrangement can be oblivious-to.

READ MORE...