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.

Notes

⁶ Economism, for example, was already regnant in post-war Conservative Party thinking when, in July 1957, Harold Macmillan told a meeting of party members in Bedford that “most of our people have never had it so good”  The corporatism and internationalism of the Heath government, which took office in 1970, switched the focus from “most of our people” to most of our major corporations and state-owned industries, but it was no less economistic in focus.  It didn’t survive a full term.  With the discovery of Austrian School economics by Keith Joseph and Margaret Thatcher in 1974 radical market-based thinking and the “methodological individual” had arrived.  It heralded the end of history and the triumph of liberal democracy over communism.  It looked like a great victory.  But it seems to have occurred to no one on the political right that policies to advance personal material gain as a riposte to state welfarism and collective bargaining never rose above reaction and narrow managerialism.  There was no creative philosophical counter to Marxist dialectics, and so no model of Man … no lodestar ... more natural and complete than Homo economicus.  The whole exercise could only devolve downward into blind materialism, and it did, in the process turning us into consumers of goods and owners of property but not any longer a people in ownership of a homeland.

In this same historical period from the end of WW2, the broad left exercised its boundless talent for schism by, respectively, asserting its classical Marxist ideology through trade union activism, its social democratic tradition through the Labour Party’s electoral politics, and its radical intellectual tradition through the adoption of cultural politics.  The latter began with the turn, in 1946, to Critical Theory initialised by the six-strong Historians Group of the Communist Party of Great Britain.  Two decades passed before it flowered in the youthful idealism and radical chic of the New Left.  The basic tenets of Critical Theory and, especially, the social theory of Herbert Marcuse were vigorously taken up and applied to new narratives of oppression.

By 1970 Gramscian hegemonic warfare and the Long March Through the Institutions were being communicated to the students of the Birmingham School, that having been marxised by the literary critic Raymond Williams and the black sociologist Stuart Hall.  It was a model taken up in humanities departments across the country.  Over the next quarter of a century the ultra-relativist post-structuralists, whose Marxism never quite fell subject to their propinquity for deconstruction, advanced the revolutionary argument further.  Even Heidegger was claimed by these people, who saw in his model of Dasein some similarity to the unfettered will.

Throughout this entire process of culturalisation, arriving at its full maturity with the culturalisation of the political left on the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, Conservatives were still looking steadfastly in the wrong direction.  It became all too apparent in the next two decades that, in fact, the cultural left had assimilated them.  In 2010 David Cameron’s first act as Prime Minister of the coalition government was to homosexualise marriage.  It is, he said in his memoirs, his proudest achievement.

⁷ You may have seen the regular, usually quite vague references in the media to polling which shows that “racism” in this country is very slowly but steadily declining.  It is a false signal in part because polling undertaken in an atmosphere rank with moral punishment for dissenters is always going to be bad polling.  It simply cannot ask questions to which an honest answer can be given.  But its signal is also false because the Establishment’s Hirschfeldian definition of racism is itself an outright lie.  Magnus Hirscheld’s definition shamelessly ascribes an Original Sin of White Skin to all of us.  It is racist by its own lights, and says nothing about our real feelings on the matter (which are those of any native people forced to defend its own life and land from a foreign coloniser).

Put simply, racism is the negative preference for adaptive traits.  It is an evolved preference with a clear fitness gain (the repository for traits for adaptiveness being the ethnic group).  Its exercise by people of European descent may not be appealing to the fastidious sensibilities of liberals, but human evolution does not care about that, and neither should we.