There is a tendency for prominent politicians, central bankers, and other panjandrums of Western public life, inevitably men and women of a globalist bent, to refer to their coming global order not only as an historical inevitability ... the product of vast and insuperable forces ... but also as a struggle fraught with the possibility of tragic failure.  There is a sizeable “if” about the whole idea.  Notwithstanding their measureless power, these people worry that The Globality may, in fact, prove elusive.  What can this mean?

After all, there is no resistance anywhere in the West to their project.  The democratic process is a captive or, if it cannot be captured it is ignored or, if it cannot be ignored, it is repeated until the “right” answer comes back.  The main political parties were long since captured, the political class corrupted.  All offer the same narrow policy platform.  The dateline corporations are on board (despite reservations in some cases).  The astonishing technologies which are developing in computer science and the life sciences are being successfully piggybacked.  Thus the means to impose control through a digital currency, be it linked to a health passport or not, already exists.  The means to permanently surveil the movements, purchases and public statements of the population exists.  The utilisation of the dicta of Sustainable Development to cover nitrogen and methane, and so meat production, thereby “requiring” the expropriation of farmland and the forcing on the “useless eaters” of no doubt highly profitable non-meat substitutes, is coming into effect already in certain pilot countries.  It is true that the wired trans-human is still more science fiction than reality, as is the end of ageing.  But other programmes are more advanced, and not a few fully realised.  So with all this rolling along nicely, why do our glorious elites speak with such uncharacteristic diffidence?

Our glorious elites speak with such uncharacteristic diffidence because they cannot be certain of the compliance of their non-Western counterparts.  Specifically, they fear that:

(a) The ambitions of non-Western leaders remain stubbornly within the old limits of personal and national aggrandisement.

(b) The Western elites and their technocratic framework are perceived to be foisting yet more arrogant and grasping post-colonial dictate on southern hemisphere nations.  “Arrogant” and “grasping” the elites probably don’t mind too much.  But “post-colonial” hits a nerve.  Theirs is, after all, just another control system originating in the West.

It is the first of these fears, however, which is most disruptive, and which has brought the Western elites into open and existential conflict with Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

READ MORE...

One of the prime events of the calendar for Anglosphere nationalism is also its year-end event.  That is Millenniyule, the unique and engrossing series of twenty plus live-streams conducted by the cultural critic and content creator Millenialwoes (Woes for short).  This year was the eighth in the series.

I have not listened to everything, though I have visited every stream to get a sense of the interview subject.  Many are well-known on the dissident podcast scene.  They are an eclectic mix, which only adds to the immense task Woes sets himself each December (and handles so expertly).  Some of them our host engages for 45 minutes, some for a couple of hours.  The two marathon streams, though, are several hours apiece.  Of these, the longest by far, at one minute longer than seven hours, was the final stream of Millenniyule 2022, with Morgoth:

Next for sheer expansiveness, at four hours nineteen minutes, was the stream with Academic Agent:

AA’s analysis, it must be said, is that of Schmittian reductionism, placing power before idealism.  But there is a lot of interest in the conversation, as there is, as ever, in the Morgoth stream.  It seems to me that one can just as profitably start the year with such material as end it.

Here is the central difficulty with Heideggerian philosophy - the being of a thing does not, in itself, supply a cause for the thing to be.  This is not quite an example of the Naturalistic Fallacy, because there is a difference between ethical choice as a construct of the higher emotions and thought, and sheer instinctual survival.  It is a qualitative difference, obviously, but it is also an operative difference.  For example, as the flame burns the hand, the nervous system signals the brain and the brain signals the muscles to tense and contract. The whole action is completed an eternity of microseconds before the emotions of fear and alarm well up.  The intellectual faculty ... the considering mind ... lumbers into view only much later still.  Considering is redundant.  So, in this case “must” is operative, not “ought”.  We don’t have a problem with Hume and Moore.  We have a problem elsewhere, in the categorical separateness of being-there-then and the animus.  Being (for example, being at the point of acquiring a burnt hand) never leaves its own site of reference.  The animus has another site, in the organism’s primordial defence mechanism.  If we hold that essence precedes existence (and we “ought”) we might consider that the animus is the cosmic will-to-be of the organism, while being is the consequent action of the organism in Time and Place.

This separateness is the reason that nationalist folks often see folkish-ness and traditionalism as tainted by a solipsistic “shire” mentality devoid of the politically necessary, hard cutting edge.  That may or may not always be fair.  But in the matter of a people’s existence there is a relatively small number of positive forces which supply, or contribute to supplying, such a cutting edge.  Survival and continuity, identity, home are the stuff of the naturalistic, nativist pole of the nationalist axis, which just might array like this:

Interestingly, these causes are also the stuff of jus bellum.  Heidegger is in them but he is not them.

These few thoughts follow from a hearing of a conversation, distinctively Heideggerian in parts, conducted by a very interesting nationalist, a thinking nationalist, named Scott Mannion with my old friend, the cultural critic, essentialist, and speaker of truths, Morgoth.  Indeed it is titled, “Morgoth – How to find trad meaning in modernist hell”:

It is clear that Scott is a genuine intellectual, possibly an academic, who has journeyed into Heidegger, arriving at experience, or re-experience, of what, I suppose, we must call our cultural heritage and tradition as signifier of our shared, particular and ethnic being.  It is clear that Morgoth’s celebrated practise of rural walking in search of the permanent and authentic in his native north-east England holds a particular significance for Scott.  I very much liked the easy overlap of their worldviews, and the courtesy with which Scott granted Morgoth time to speak of his.  The whole conversation had a positive and hopeful mein.

Scott repeatedly referred to our being as a tangible permanence which the estrangements and machine-living of modernity can never banish or besmirch, and this is true enough.  Of course, when listening to the thoughts of friends there are still always a few points of divergence.  I am primarily interested in the ontology of racial awakening rather than in cultural archeaology.  But it would be churlish to make too much of that now.  It is enough just to encounter another intellectual realist in the impoverished home of English nationalism.

When he appeared eighteen months ago on the GBNews slate, speaking truth to camera, Neil Oliver surprised a lot of people who remembered him only as a presenter of history programmes and the series Coast.  This is his latest offering, which is pretty good.  A few more like him could make a difference

I have been thinking about Iain Davis’s magisterial essay series on multipolarity – the prospective global power dispensation proposed by the WEF, the UN, and all the other internationalist bodies, and advanced via the BRICS nations in opposition to America’s current monopolarity.  Unless a fifth appears, it is a four part series:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

I heartily recommend the series to one and all.  Davis is a libertarian.  So not every position he adopts is agreeable from our standpoint, or wholly free of the conventional liberal dictates and blindspots.  He has no holistic identitarian or ethnological reading of our race and kind.  He does not fully comprehend the Western elites’ long campaign against our life.  He has no critique of the Jewish paradigm.  There is no evidence that he even has an understanding of it.  His is, therefore, a view of a single, completely political project conceived by past generations of Western elites, and adapting to various challenges along the way (such as the fall of the Soviet Union).  But that simplification aside, to my mind his Multipolarity series is still a signal achievement in the dissenting analysis of power in this world, and unequivocally presents to us the Chinese, or Russo-Chinese, piece in the jigsaw.

Accordingly, it explains the respective, perfectly consonant Chinese and Russian power strategies we witness today.  These strategies are not solely the products of Russian or Chinese agency.  To all intents and purposes, they are facilitated by a Western elite which has, for four decades or more, been pursuing the replacement of Western power - and thus the basis of the elites’ own power - with a radically general distribution of economic and geopolitical power.  In the modern language of internationalism that means transitioning from leadership by America and the other G7 economies of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom to leadership by the G20 economies, ie, adding to those seven the five BRICS countries of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa and the other developing G20 economies of Argentina, Australia, Indonesia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, and Turkey.  To a greater or lesser extent all of these last seven are there to make up the numbers and provide a semblance of global action.  The real revolutionary change is being wrought by China and Russia, but ... only because the Western elites licenced it.

This, then, is the background against which Donald Trump’s parochial and unfulfilled campaign to Make America Great Again figured as a grand heresy in the minds of the entire Western political, governmental, academic, cultural, corporate and banking class.  It is the background against which Brexit has never been effectively pursued (beyond a formal, only partial separation) by any British government since the momentous vote of 23rd June 2016.  Both of these developments stood as a popular rebuke to the ruling classes for the manner in which they had narrowed party and thus national politics to exclude the life-interests of the mass of white Americans and native British respectively.  Supporters in both polities rightfully expected change, including to the elites’ migration agenda.  I don’t need to detail the actual outcome, only the fact that the elites regard themselves as absolute rulers of our world, and no wants and desires but their own will ever be actioned even if what was a social contract in Rousseau’s time has to become a social dictate in ours, or what was the legitimacy of government in Locke’s time has to become a lie.

READ MORE...

Back in pre-Covid times, within a month of Boris Johnson’s great Brexit election victory of 12th December 2019, the globalist monster began to assert its will on the new United Kingdom government.  From that first moment of hope betrayed it’s been downhill all the way.  The present crisis afflicting Liz Truss’s government, if one can call it that without heavy irony, is the lowest point so far.  The country’s first African Chancellor of the Exchequer is out on his ear, guilty of cutting taxes without cutting expenditure.  No one believes that Truss herself can survive more than a month.  The candidate she soundly defeated for party leader, the Indian midget Rishi Sunak, is now widely expected to replace her in a coronation event, without a further vote among the party members in the country.

Isabel Oakeshott has set out the coup in all its audacity at The Spectator (paywalled):

The first step of their plan involves market turmoil on Monday morning. Sunak and his supporters hope that more financial panic will be enough to force Truss to quit – whether voluntarily; or via a threatened change in the party rule book that theoretically protects her for a year; or via some other mechanism they have yet to come up with.

Step two involves the coronation of King Rishi, the argument being that he is the only figure that can at least semi unite a furious and fractured parliamentary party. Jeremy Hunt may fancy his own chances, but is unacceptable to many MPs who backed Sunak. The idea is to keep him where he is – in No. 11 – while offering the other big Tory party leadership contest loser – Penny Mordaunt – another of the great offices of state (Foreign Secretary).

Step three involves convincing a mutinous parliamentary party that this new set up is better than the alternative: Truss/Hunt attempting to play political Siamese twins, when he has just publicly junked her entire economic agenda and she is Prino: prime minister in name only. Nobody really believes this macabre charade can last long.

Step four is something all sides can agree on: resolving to do whatever it takes to avoid a general election. Sunak’s outriders – already busily working the phones – will argue that their proposed solution restores some political stability, deferring the terrible day of reckoning that looms at the polls. Two years is an eternity in politics, they argue – perhaps in the interim, something will come up?

So, what is one to say when such schemers and deceivers are in the ascendency, disposing of the party rule-book and the voice of the membership in the country.  There is no respect, no fear, no dignity, no sense of right and wrong, or of fair play.  There is just ambition and opportunism, and much arrogance.  To an outsider, the overall impression is of something dead or dying, in a poisoned world of many dead and dying things; a sentiment rather accurately expressed by a commenter on the thread to Oakeshott’s article, Demosthenes by name:

Demosthenes • 6 hours ago
Pathetic, cowardly, cuckolded, snivelling empty husk of a once proud political party. When they’re turfed out at the next election they will have nothing to show for their decade and a half in power but bigger government, higher taxes, diminished personal freedoms and unrelenting, pitiless, unprecedented levels of mass immigration year after year after year.

Whitehall see themselves as the true masters of this country, and frankly I have to agree with them. While conservatives may frequently be in office, it is the liberals who are permanently in power. That’s just the politically-correct, morally-relativist soup they all swim in.

It’s said that dead things can go with the flow, but only alive things can go against it. There are many dead things floating along with the currents of modern Britain, not just the civil-servants. Indeed, virtually every public institution I can think of; the BBC, ITV, the Police, the NHS, universities, judges, lawyers, the charity sector, even the army… all our cultural elites in fact, are as dead as any other rotting carcass.

You are a fool if you believe the so-called Conservative party is any different. It took the biggest voter turnout in our nation’s history, and the prospect of electoral armageddon, for the Tories to be dragged kicking and screaming over the Brexit finish line, pathetically diluted and delayed though it was, and carving out a large portion of our country to live indefinitely under foreign laws… Celebrate that if you really want to, but on every other issue that truly matters; mass-immigration, climate apocalypticism, political Islam, anti-white racism, historical masochism, etc. etc., the Tory Party is just another dead thing going with the flow towards the fast-approaching waterfall.

If the plotters succeed in installing Sunak at No.10 it is inevitable that a terrible punishment awaits the Conservative Party at the next election, scheduled by December 2024.  One awaits the next word from Nigel Farage, perhaps in the ear of Oakeshott’s live-in boyfriend Richard Tice, who runs Farage’s former Brexit Party under the title Reform UK.

What if the probability of Putin detonating a nuke in Ukraine before 2023 were 7%, as is the current estimate at the Metaculus prediction “market”? 

At the very least you should consider taking out insurance in the form of thinking about what will happen to the monetary regime relative to your local property rights.

Militia Money is Property Money defining its sovereigns—“those who place their flesh, blood and bone between chaos and civilization”—as those who are registered for the draft.

This definition overcomes a number of barriers to putting Property Money into practice:

• It operationally defines who sovereigns are thereby reducing rhetorical attacks by reducing the “argument surface”.
• Draft registration is a legally recognized class distinction.
• This class pertains specifically to “those who place their flesh, blood and bone between chaos and civilization” .
• The mandatory nature of draft registration implies that society owes a debt to this class.

Moreover, because the draft is currently restricted to men, Militia Money ameliorates the catastrophe befalling the developed world whose economies outbid young men for the fertile years of economically valued women—thereby depleting from the next generation economically valuable characteristics.

As Militia Money is adopted, it is likely that the existing political entities will, using Israel as an exemplar, attempt to re-impose this catastrophe befalling civilization by expanding the draft to include young women.  This disingenuous tactic will backfire for 3 reasons:

1. Israel’s government did not make the mistake of subverting the evolutionary psychology of its young women by rendering, in their mind, its young men manifestly impotent to defend their territory against the mass immigration of military aged men who would be viewed as de facto conquerors by the primitive emotional brain centers of both men and women.
2. Neocons and most members of American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) both played conspicuous roles in encouraging the West to make this mistake and both are Jewish-identified movements/organizations.
3. Awareness of both of the above will expand along with Militia Money for the simple reason that the evolutionary psychology of territory will begin to re-emerge in the waking consciousness of young men, thereby remediating their self-esteem and freeing their minds from taboos of the post-WW II era.

The primary barrier to adoption of Property Money, hence Militia Money, will be the inability of property owners to recognize that property titles are founded on and granted by sovereign force.  In discussing Militia Money with property owners, the best way of helping them recognize this origin of entitlement is to ask them whether they would prefer that their tax revenue go to politicians or to young men who are registered for the draft.  Although it is true that most property owners—particularly employers—will have a low opinion of young men generally, forcing them to compare with politicians may help them.

Obviously, as can be seen in the very wealthy and among employers who contribute to the Republican establishment candidates that are soft on immigration, some of these property owners will not be swayed.  Moreover, they will likely recognize that Militia Money is a threat to them since they have sold out their people and their nation and will likely be seen as the traitors they are. 

But at least you will have given them a chance to escape that fate.

Other property owners will recognize the business opportunities represented by the privatization of all functions of government.  These property owners will be among the new Founders.

See also “Property Money Quick Start Guide”

Yes to childbirth.
Yes to state support for motherhood.
Yes, therefore, to family.
Yes to the Italian people, the Italian identity, Italian patriotism.
Yes to restoring Italian legal supremacy over the EU.
No to abortion.
No to illegal immigration and to demographic change.
No to “the violence of Islam”.
No to the trans attack on womanhood.
Indeed, no to all the desiderata of progressivism, to its barriers to the human norm, to its dictates and “cancelations”.
No to Establishment politics, and to Mafia parasitism thereon.
No to financial speculators, and government run for financial speculators.
No to the global corporations’ model of Man as “perfect consumer”.

And so forth.  That pretty much sums up the ground on which Georgia Meloni, after yesterday’s election Italy’s first female prime minister, currently stands.  As a nationalist myself, I would not categorise it as nationalism because it is not developed out of a philosophy of kind and home.  It is, though, adjacent in parts.  But her politics are almost entirely reactionary, and are, ultimately, articulated from a conception of human being which is Catholic and naturalistic, and thus socially conservative.

Of course, in today’s progressive dominion that is radical and alarming to all those who have come to regard neo-Marxist imposts as the norm, even politically centrist.  The Italian political Establishment has particularly good reason for such alarm.  Meloni, 45, is a natural-born change agent.  She does not come from their privileged world.  She comes from the post-WW1 garden suburb of Garbatella in Rome, and something of the place flows in her veins.  She speaks not of euros and the financing of Italy’s vast sovereign debt but of the things of the instinct and, as she says, “common sense”.  In support of that she is passionate and combative, populist and brave.  Occasionally at the dais when her voice rises and her tone hardens, she can sound demagogic; and doubtless that plays into the Establishment’s frequent association of her and her party Brothers of Italy with fascism and, of course, the r-word.  Not unlike Marine Le Pen, she has reacted by removing people who have praised Mussolini or said something somewhere that could be construed as racism.  Many party members might prefer a sturdy and unashamed line of attack to that.  But she’s not trying to placate the Establishment but to reassure the voters, and evidently that strategy has paid off.

We shall now see how the entitled political class and technocrats and the sclerotic governmental machine within Italy respond to her election.  In Brussels, Ursula von der Leyen has already threatened “consequences” and spoken of “tools” to bring the Meloni government to heel if required.  Much attention will be paid in Brussels as to who Meloni appoints as minister of finance.  But it will also be interesting to see how Matteo Salvini and that great lover of partying with unclothed young ladies, the octagenarian Silvio Berlusconi, will be rewarded for their parties’ participation in the governing alliance.  Both are displaying sympathies for Vladimir Putin, probably in Salvini’s case because the Russian autocrat extended banking facilities to his party.  But Meloni, a staunch supporter of NAT0 and the Ukrainian people, speaks instead of responsibility.  For all her ringing hostility to the deeds of globalism she isn’t buying the anti-Western argument.  I hope we learn more about that.  As for Salvini, if he is back at the Interior Ministry he might have the pleasure of aborting his own trial for blocking NGO vessels full of North and Sub-Saharan African immigrants in the salad days of the 5-Star/League coalition.  He would also have the pleasure of testing von der Leyen as he reduces the immigrant quota the Draghi government agreed upon to nil.

Italian politics promises to be more entertaining than ever.