The full complexity of east-west relations according to Western reactionary opinion

There are times when the absence of an ethnic nationalist worldview in those who proclaim themselves nationalist (but not specifically, say, National Socialist, or traditionalist, or fascist) really limits communication.  What, after all, is our common frame of reference?  David Lane’s minimalist Fourteen Words accurately summarise the existential essence of all nationalism.  But the formulation is reductive, and can in no way function as an holistic ideology functions, ie, it cannot situate us in a pre-existing, broad-scale system of life-affirming truth by which a people may orient itself in Time and Space.  It is because of the systemic nature of an (actually very rare) epochal philosophy that it can, first, unify a political constituency and, second, energise a mass re-organisation.

But we do not possess that philosophy today.  We are, in consequence, caught in a pre-revolutionary cycle that cannot complete.  We have no unifying ideological standard around which to rally.  Along comes a large but perfectly uncomplicated political question, and we lack the framework to determine where justice lies.

Today such a question is: Do the people of Ukraine have a right to fight the violent imposition of Russian empire, and to struggle for national autonomy?  No ethnic nationalist should have a moment’s difficulty answering that.  But, instead, a substantial majority have lost their heads completely in contemplation of a second question: How dare America and the West challenge Russia’s security needs?  Of course it is a false question.  A need for expansion is not a need for security.  The theft of natural resources, farming produce, and even children is not a requirement for the creation of buffer zones.  It speaks of ancient tribute.  But Muscovy is an empire with an origin in its own payment of tribute to the Asiatic aggressor, and thus even into our time it has remained an empire with an historical culture of entitlement to further empire, and the wealth thereof.  That, not security, is the well-spring of Russian foreign policy.

Explaining this to the holders of “right-wing opinions” is a challenge.  Indeed, it feels like I’ve been challenging the dominant and reactionary pro-Russian sentiment and anti-American prejudice of on-line nationalists and trad-cons since the very first jolt forward of the first T72 in Vladimir Putin’s fateful full-scale invasion of 24th February 2022.  They don’t like it.  They don’t listen.  Their judgement is overwhelmed by anger at the globalist machinations of the Western hierarchy, and they don’t look any further.

They get confirmation from a furious rabble of serious and not-so-serious actors, some of them aided by the FSB (“The Saker”, for example), some of them home-grown but one-eyed, alt-media anti-American Americans like “The Duran” (who, in turn, draw information from Russian military bloggers), one or two retired US Army generals playing the military wiseacre, short-lived Republican presidential candidates wanting to out-Trump Trump ...  And then there is Jordan Peterson, a psychologist-turned-self-help guru who has found fame, wealth, and God - in that order - and who sees everything through the lens of the culture wars.  Naturally, Peterson now thinks God and Vladimir Putin are the answer to the western elite’s tranny-mad malaise (which, by the way, he seems to ascribe to the West in general). 

A dishonourable mention must also go to John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, who have given the anti-America, anti-NATO, anti-West narrative an academic patina.  They are not alone.  Several more swampy creatures work the non-profit interface of academia and the government machine.  Samuel Charap, for one.  Thomas Graham is another.  Away from American defeatism, there are the pro-Russian likes of Robert Fico and Viktor Orbán in middle Europe.  Both dismiss the Ukrainian cause as if Russian dominion is all Ukrainians are worth.  Fico denies that Ukraine is a “viable” state at all.  But, of course, the pair of them operate from within the safety of NATO and while tightly grasping Brussels’ cheques.  One wonders how long they would enjoy the comfort of their respective offices if Putin were to extend to their own people the same choice as that he has extended to the Ukrainians: Do you accept your subordinate place in the fourth Muscovite empire or will you fight to live sovereign and free?

At least Fico and Orbán acknowledge the geopolitical-imperial dimension.  The herd of cats which is nationalism in the West seems constitutionally oblivious to it.  Likewise the idea both that there might be such a thing as eastern globalism and it can be even more hostile and dangerous than the western variety.

Geopolitics, of course, is the permanent preoccupation of national elites.  It is the one constant in international relations.  Alliances shift.  Pacts come and go.  Empires rise and fall.  Everything else may be in flux but the struggle of interests ... the Great Game … endures.  Perhaps we in the West have grown too accustomed to western superiority, and to the imposition of European political ideals upon great swathes of the world’s peoples (and, inherent to that, our moral imperatives, too) to entertain the thought that other even quite small nations with other interests and other imperatives might feel not gratitude for our domination but humiliation.  The large ones might have hegemonic ideas of their own, perhaps to cast-off the parasitic yoke of the dollar reserve or to replace our bungling dominion, with its constant reminder of 19th century colonialism, with China’s … perhaps that thought tends to be discounted as unimportant and not something that, anyway, could ever touch our daily life in the West.  But that is to take the geopolitical for granted.  That is to assume that the western way of life is inviolable, denying even the possibility of challenge and change.  It is to deny that, when change comes anyway, the Asiatic mind freed from the post-WW2 rules-bound order will be free to be itself. Ultimately, it is to deny the ancient “right” of the Asiatic conqueror to tribute.  Which is dangerously naïve.

There are other reactionary naïveties, though, with which an opponent of eastern as well as western globalism must grapple.  I can count eight ...

Claim 1: Globalism is another word for Jewish supremacism

First and foremost is the “same old same old” of White but, demotically speaking, German-American Nationalism, namely the reification of the hyper-aggressive, hyper-supremacist Jew as the single source of all our race’s ills.  Accordingly, Jews are doing:

The Third Worldisation of the urban space, the marginalisation of European masculinity and the africanisation of the European genome, the homosexualisation of marriage, the trans-sexualisation of what it is to be a woman, the toxification of white skin ...

… not to mention (at one time or another) classical Marxism, Revolutionary Internationalism, anti-racism, hate speech law, second-wave feminism, second-wave libertarianism, Holocaustism, neoconservatism, 9/11, the War on Terror and supposedly, in the present context, The Maiden!  And all this in the pursuit of the unchanging goal of a perpetual supremacy over humankind got not through any inherent superiority but by de-nationing the Other (for which read the European), de-naturing him, and rendering him amorphous and a-causal.

The flaw in this argument is the separate and distinct emergence of technocracy, first in the 1930s in reaction to the communism of Stalin’s Russia and then again in the decades after the publishing of Zbigniew Brzezinski’s “technetronic” paper in 1971.  Within nationalism the MR article linked above, published in June 2021, was possibly the first to draw nationalists’ attention to the revolution in elitism which technocracy had wrought:

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

Two of the principal methods of change under the old system have been subsumed into “the new”.  Mass immigration into the living spaces of European Man is directed via the UN into a new technocratic project of “global justice”, pursued by various UN bodies upon which few Jews sit.  Anti-racism and culture war are taken out of the left into the hands of the asset management and corporate client-world, in which they appear as CRT and DEI.  But supranationalism has been replaced by the drive for hyper-modernist cities such as The Line, with the countryside intended for rewilding.  Likewise, the ownership of debt has been overtaken by the ownership of assets, such that the banking elites who sat atop the prior pyramid are now the investor class atop its technocratic successor.  Added to these changes are all the pzazz and immediacy of the WEF’s array of progressive methods, ie, Sustainable Development / Net Zero, Public-Private Partnership, Stakeholder Capitalism, Fourth Industrial Revolution (ie, the sum of current emerging tech), Digital ID, Programmable CBDC, Universal Basic Income, corporate purpose and brand values, smart cities, the Internet of Things, the Internet of Everything, all the way to Transhuman Man and the Singularity (ie, the sum of future emerging tech by which a Borg-like connectivity between minds and between mind and machine is achieved).

The take-home point here is that technocracy has no use for ethnicity, nation states, or peoplehood because these things supply human relation and, therefore, human cause.  Its dynamic, therefore, is towards a post-causal Homo deracinatus for the surviving masses and an eternal life in a techno-augmented body for its elites.  It does not make any exception for Jewish relation and the Judaic cause; and the Jewish elites who desert the old model for it do so, despite what they may tell themselves, because the hard, technological practicality of the project is actually within the realms of the possible:

The Jewish elite’s pivot to technocracy requires a certain threshold for alienation to be crossed.  The customary tribal devotion must be, if not renounced as such (because that is biologically impossible), then certainly made secondary to the elitist’s focus on his or her personal good.  In other words, a given Jewish elite’s participation in technocracy depends upon his or her confection of a non-natural self-view and world-view.  That would typically be accompanied by some sophisticated apologetics for the purposes of disguise and, probably, self-delusion.  But one would suspect that the more consciously fashioned is the shiny new persona, the less stable it may prove.  That said, once the Re-Set¹ bites there can be no general return to Judaism’s ageless struggle for tribal dominion.  That will have been the Jewish technocrat’s necessary sacrifice on the alter of an Ultimate Power that is actually achievable in this life.

How long it will take WN to question its current thinking is, however, a very open question.  The German-Americans probably never.

Claim 2: Globalism is a western project

It’s fair to say that the Judaically-centred predecessor of technocracy was a significantly western project.  But when people think of globalism today it is western technocratic projeect which they tend to mean.  Its drive for Globality is as an empire of money.  That is the name of the beast, and it is a beast with ideals of a sort.  Its vision is centred on asset ownership by a pyramidal class, with dynastic investors at its apex and authorised political and assorted managerial whores at its base.  In the middle is the structure of corporate, financial, and political internationalism.  The creatures of the pyramid would hold unto themselves all the world’s lands, and every material thing thereon.  They would control the destinies of all the surviving populations.  Further along the technological way, they could be physically and cognitively augmented … transhumanised ... and thus they would become gods of the Singularity.  If gene tech advances far enough, they would actually be immortals.

As for the rest of humanity, technocracy eschews ethnicity and nation, because it is mortally threatened by the life-cause which naturally inhabits both.  Deracinated, de-nationed, and atomised, therefore, the common man would, in the worst case scenario, be made into a chattel of the powerful.  With or without meaningful employment, he would be paid in programmable CBDC, putting him under a permanent threat that any failure in his social compliance … any failure to conform ... may trigger an algorithmic decision to switch off his access to money and thus food and water, housing, energy, healthcare, and survival.

Now, there is nothing exclusively western about any of this, just as there is nothing exclusively western, in any rooted sense, about the development of investment, finance, and corporate activity over recent decades.  The related but separate late 20th century phenomenon of globalisation (related because free markets are a prerequisite for globalism) was kicked into being by Richard Nixon’s visit to China in 1972.  Evidently, Henry Kissinger had never heard of the ancient Chinese saying, “China is a sea that salts all the waters that flow into it.”  The Nixon administration very deliberately awoke the Chinese nation and its CCP leadership, opening fateful avenues to a “rejuvenation of the Chinese nation”.  What appeared in western elite circles as a strategy for globalising their wealth, power and position appeared to Beijing as an invitation to embark upon a re-engagement with the world on the traditional, universalist terms of tianxia and the narrative of Middle Kingdom racial greatness.  The CCP leadership may be gangsters, but they are Han nationalist gangsters.  They will not pass up the opportunity which now presents itself – and cannot do so for the simple reason that if they do not take ownership of globalism eventually someone else will, and China will remain a second-tier nation of unfulfilled potential.

So the CCP leadership make encouragingly geo-economic noises and the western elites strive to make their trade for a truly global supremacy.  They, the Last Liberal Man that they are and not yet Global Man, vow to relinquish American hegemony, the Western nation state, and even Europe’s ethnicities in anticipation that the Chinese will reciprocate and abandon the power principle.  The Chinese will not abandon the power principle.  It is, after all, the unbridled power of the party which alone corporatised the economy via the WEF’s public-private partnership and formalised the digital control of the population.  That power has transformed China into the world’s first technological state.  It certainly appears to be on the golden (belt and) road not just, as is often said, to “the Asian century” or even to Chinese global hegemony but to Han racial supremacy in perpetuity.  That is the final meaning of the Chinese technate, and we opt for complacency at our peril.

Claim 3: The WEF’s Great Re-Set project failed and is over

Working on the assumption that the Covid pandemic was actually a WEF project, and the purpose of the project was to kill a substantial fraction of the world’s population … say one in five ... and force the survivors into a system of totalitarian social control, our reactionaries note the return to the socio-economic norm and assume that the threat has passed.  But Covid as such was under the hand of the World Health Organisation, which is an agency of the United Nations.  The WEF only really came into the picture because Klaus Schwab opportunistically seized the moment to push his technocratic agenda:

The Great Reset Initiative is an economic recovery plan drawn up by the World Economic Forum (WEF) in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The project was launched in June 2020, with a video featuring the then-Prince of Wales Charles released to mark its launch. The initiative’s stated aim is to facilitate rebuilding from the global COVID-19 crisis in a way that prioritizes sustainable development.

WEF chief executive officer Klaus Schwab described three core components of the Great Reset: creating conditions for a “stakeholder economy”; building in a more “resilient, equitable, and sustainable” way, utilising environmental, social, and governance (ESG) metrics; and “harness[ing] the innovations of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.” In a speech introducing the initiative, International Monetary Fund director Kristalina Georgieva listed three key aspects of a sustainable response to COVID-19: green growth, smarter growth, and fairer growth.

“The Great Reset” was to be the theme of the 2021 World Economic Forum annual summit in Davos, Switzerland, scheduled for January 2021. Due to disruption from COVID-19, the summit was postponed to May 2021, and again to 2022. The Davos 2022 theme was “History at a Turning Point”, and the summit was dominated by the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Thus two things had happened.  Just as Putin unfroze and switched his war in the Donbas to Kiev the Covid strategy was frozen.  In the event, the lethality expected of the virus had not materialised.  The world’s population had not been decimated.  So “the Covid response” as a social control strategy was not able to be pursued.  We shall never know if the darker prognosis of permanent booster jabbing and a permanent lockdown were correct.

Obviously, response as such has to remain “on the books”.  “The next pandemic”, and pandemicity in general (“Not if but when” as the WHO says), has been installed in government planning everywhere.  Should we be apprehensive that the WHO, a classic managerial and technocratic body, is drawing governments into a centralisation process via its new Treaty on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response?  Probably, but what else would one expect of a UN agency charged with oversight of global human health?  Public awareness about pandemic preparedness in general and Covid preparedeness in particular is not the metric upon which responsible government should determine future policy.

But the headline focus has had to switch to Putin’s war.  Just in the last fortnight we have seen Davos developed as a leading geopolitical centre, to be attended de rigeur now not just by civil servants and backroom boys but by solicitous prime minsters and presidents from conflict zones.  Schwab does not seem to have taken a reputational hit from the Covid episode.  He still has an array of novel ideas to progress, ie, Sustainable Development / Net Zero, Public-Private Partnership, Stakeholder Capitalism, Fourth Industrial Revolution, Digital ID, Programmable CBDC, Universal Basic Income, Corporate purpose and brand values, Smart but car-less (or 15-minute) cities. It seems to be going very well in China.

Was, then, Covid wholly a technocratic project from the outset, and a failure in its own genocidal terms?  A lot gets said on social media.  Claims on truth are made with virulent certainty.  Yet we cannot know the facts of the initial outbreak with any certainty.  The CCP does not want that.  Anthony Fauci denied in May 2021 that the National Institutes of Health supported “gain-of-function research” at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.  But we cannot know one way or another.  What we do know is that Covid brought opportunity – and fabulous riches - for some.  We know that nudge units, fact-checkers, statistical queering, social control apps, and so forth were all magicked into existence overnight by government.  Each speaks of a definite contempt for public concern and freedom of thought and deed.  We know know that the sovereignty of the human body has been breached, and what we always thought of as the social contract has been overturned.  So now we know that democracy is a thin veil easily discarded.  A turn to authoritarian methods is only ever a breath away.  Libertarians’ distrust of the state machine has been justified.  But more than that we just cannot say; and perhaps Klaus Schwab’s disgracefully one-eyed, cranky opportunism at the start of it all should not influence us.

Claim 4: Putin was provoked

Russian propaganda has turned the brains of nationalists and tradcons inside out.  They are a pretty susceptible subject-group in the first place, of course.  They hate their own political classes with a will (hardly surprising, I know).  Any strong negative emotion can be exploited by skilled propagandists.  But hatred is the easiest.

By whatever means it comes to pass, understanding the Muscovite mind, Muscovite history, Muscovite imperialism and racism is a test for us all.  If one simply assumes that Muscovy is no more Asiatic than we are, Muscovy’s elites no more atavistic or imbued with confidence in Russia’s greatness among the nations of the world ... if one assumes that the Kremlin has no geopolitical agenda, no design for global socialism under a Sino-Russian hand, no fear of the West, no paranoia because of the earnest preference of all its neighbours to live free under the aegis of the Western power structure, no envy of Western economic, scientific and technological superiority, no contempt for Western pluralism and democracy, no desire among the “men of force” for untrammelled power, no will to cruelty and violence in the pursuit of that power at home and abroad … if one assumes all this, one will fail that test miserably.  And that is precisely what is happening.

As a result, slavish conclusions are everywhere, none more so than the risible and a-historical supposition that the poor, harmless Russian dictator Vlad was “provoked” by a nuclear-tipped expansion eastward conducted from the dark and criminal recesses of Western power.  Mere mention of Victoria Nuland, oftimes followed by the loaded word “Kaganite” or “neocon”, is sufficient to wipe away all consciousness of the two popular revolutions in Ukraine, a decade apart and both against Moscow’s corrupt satraps.  The later, in 2014, brought great crowds to the centre of Kiev; men, women, and children with their blue and yellow scarves and flags, chanting and singing,  lighting candles of hope for freedom and nationhood.  But no, the reactionaries see only Nuland, Biden, NATO.  An FSB-supervised hatred carries the day!  But it remains a shocking dereliction not just to fail to suspect and interrogate Russia’s elites – and China’s – no less closely than one suspects and interrogates one’s own, or fail to see any reason why one should, but to whitewash Russia’s dictator and hand him a free pass to murder and missile who he wants, thieve what he wants (including children), and lie to the whole world about his imperialism.  In Stalin’s time such dupes were called useful idiots by the KGB.  One wonders what the successor of that organisation calls its current audience in the West.

If in any case, the suggestion that NATO on Russia’s borders is the problem, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine will have to be replicated in Finland, where a further 830 miles of “NATO provocation” now exists.  But, of course, that won’t happen, because provocation is a lie in the first place.  Russia invaded Ukraine because the second Ukrainian revolution against satrapy in ten years rendered its assimilation (likely, in time, under the same State Union Law that is operating next door in Belarus) impossible.  The loss of Ukraine to democracy and the West spells the end for the dream of a fourth Russian empire as well as a BRICS-based globalism of empires under Sino-Russian hegemony.  Further, the attainment of empire is the only means by which Russia, whose economy is the size of Italy’s, can stand against China, whose rise is seemingly inexorable and whose leaders in Beijing already treat the border between the two countries as if it did not exist.  Without empire Russia will be nothing.

As for Ukraine, it is not an intolerable provocation for a sovereign people to desire autonomy, or a sovereign nation to seek security from a violent and aggressive neighbour.  Like all the peoples who, until 1989, were forced to live under the fat Soviet arse for four and half decades, Ukrainians wish to be free.  It’s normal.  Next door in Belarus the people want the same.  The “NATO expansionism” of which Moscow complains is not, as the charmless Lavrov – Boilerplate Man - puts it, an attempt to “strangle Russia”.  NATO membership does not work like that.  It is not by invitation.  It’s a defensive alliance which nations must apply to join - which Lavrov knows perfectly well, but does not care to admit publicly.

“Provocation” is just one more lying justification to be lapped up … willingly lapped up ... by suggestible westerners.  For them it is a badge of independence, and for everyone who is not them it demonstrates bias confirmation, lack of enquiry, and echo chamber effect, to name but three complete projections.

Claim 5: China’s economic emergence does not imply global political intent

Historically, the phenomenon of national isolation is not that rare.  But China’s was unusually long.  It can be dated back half-a-millenium to the Ming dynasty.  It only really ended with the modernisation policies of the ultimate backroom boy that was Deng Xiaoping.  He began opening China to the outside world in the late 1970s, several years after Richard Nixon’s week-long visit in February 1972.

The early phase of western investment quite rapidly gave way to to the build up of strategic Chinese industrial development, not at all restricted to China itself.  That geostrategic development has been advanced in particular by large-scale raw material initiatives on the African continent and the vastly ambitious Belt & Road Initiative.  Both strategies have been widely critiqued as neocolonialism, and the latter in addition as debt-trap diplomacy.  A third strategy is the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, established at the end of 2015.  None of these appear to trouble the western elites, which makes sense because they are geo-economic in nature.  Their refrain is not that China may not replace America as the economic hegemon, or even that, in time, the yuan may not replace the dollar as the global reserve currency.  These are perfectly welcome to the western elites.  But only in so much as there is no accompanying geopolitical dimension.  In other words, Chinese hegemony must be on western terms, particularly regarding the international rules-based order which is seen in Western capitals as inviolable.

The first problem with this is that classical Chinese political thought precedes even isolation.  That though dictates that the great ruler …  the Son of Heaven … receives his Mandate from Heaven, which makes him the ruler of the entire world.  In Chinese political theory other rulers of other peoples only derive their power from him.  Today he is the CCP, and nothing of this supremacism has been put aside.

The second problem, therefore, is with the geopolitical strategies which Beijing has initiated.  Chief among these is the development of BRI, which is the economic guts of the emerging economies of BRICS+.  Putin’s Russia aside, Beijing’s new southern hemisphere friends tend to be folk who govern by the exercise of arbitrary power.  Not a few of them are Muslim.  The UN’s Agenda 2030 and the World Bank’s linkage of funding to “good governance” and democratic reform are pure expressions of Western elites’ values, and the governing classes of the southern hemisphere tend not to thank us for it.  This is the break-point in the western geo-economic model.  No one else in the seats of government across the world wants to loosen their personal grip on power for some economic bit part in another self-serving western charade.  They may not have much of a voice.  But Beijing does and, wisely or not, they trust it with the preservation of their own portion of power.  The development of BRICS+ over the next decade will very likely demonstrate the universality of that trust.

The other significant and, from a Western perspective, troubling Chinese power play has been the 2001 Sino-Russian Treaty of Friendship.  Shortly before the Russian Army’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Xi and Putin agreed that the relationship between their two countries (power-structures actually, but never mind) was one of “limitless friendship”.  The invasion clearly strained relations.  But the western politicians have not succeeded in drawing Beijing to Kiev’s side.  Beijing is always and in everything on Beijing’s side, and the full meaning of that, while it may be understood well enough in the recesses of State Department thinking, has yet to percolate down to the wider information space.

Part of that is the information that the Eurasian mind and the East Asian mind find agreement on the matter of America and the West.  Both Russian and Chinese elites are atavistic.  Both are expansionist in their geopolitical thinking.  But the Kremlin is ineluctably a place of the peasant mind.  The Chinese have a deeper culture, if one reinforcing supremacist thinking, and with that thinking a racial animus at, and abiding resentment of, the brilliant, inventive “upstart” Europeans.  We, as European nationalists, are making a grave error in underestimating them.

Claim 6:  Russia is the source of white Christian renewal

… notwithstanding the fact that church attendance in America is five times higher than in Vladimir Putin’s Russia, and only 16% of non-Muslims in Russia say religion is important in their lives (but 43% of Muslims say it is).  Or that Vlad’s occasional public references to Western decadence and degeneracy are eurasianist propaganda.  Or that his important article from July 2021, which set forth a denial of Ukraine’s separate existence and was employed to justify its assimilation, mentioned neither decadence nor degeneracy.

But how, anyway, would this fabled Christian renewal work?  Even if Russians were church-going and traditionally Christian, how would that find its way, as a dominant influence, into a post-collapse power structure in the West?  Does anyone really believe that a new dispensation will be concerned with the saving of European and American souls?  Why would the Russian “men of force” be remotely interested in religious renewal, or any renewal, for the nations of the West.  They have no interest in exporting “philosophical Russia” or, indeed, “religious Russia, to scourge the liberal source of our weakness and straiten us for the rigours of their own mastery.  Why would they?  Along with the Chinese, they would be completely content for European Man to continue his descent into hell.  To be clear, they would not constitute a liberating force riding hell-for-leather to our rescue at the eleventh hour.  They would be but another layer of self-serving, destructive power.

Or, if one eschews the imposts of power and assumes for a Christian revival from within western societies, can we identify some inevitable historicity to it, some gravitational pull which dictates that people must revert to Yahweh-worship?

To be clear, it’s an imported and prescribed system of belief, and not an artefact fashioned for, and according to, our sociobiology.  If one were to judge Christian belief by its Abrahamic parent and its secular child, which is liberalism³, one might easily conclude that we are not well served by it.  So, for example, subtract from it the social conservatism and generally adaptive choices that travel with it (which nationalism would supply more openly and effectively).  Now come to England, old and rural.  Subtract a lone bell’s monotonously regular toll floating on the morning air; the ancient churchyard, a trespass on the tufts of dewy, springy grass past stones once stood erect but haphazard now, names carved all too long ago and washed away by the centuries of English rain; the dark-hued, ageless yew throwing its shadow; the oaken door silvering in its Norman arch; the stone flags worn by the feet of generations of the faithful and the not so faithful; the air in the place, heavy and autumnal, conjured into an otherliness that is expected yet retiring, unknowable; and, in the great and deep, unspeakable silence, a sense of time and not-time, of place and no place, of beauty, of sanctity, of light and of vastness, of stubbornness in the face of decay, of the smallness of men and of oneself – constituents all of an aesthetic belonging in a strange but definite sense more to English genes than to English religious history or English cultural history …. subtract all that and one is left with the plain, unadulterated post-Judaic dicta for the gentile.  One is left with universal love, the praying for forgiveness from the sin of not loving universally, the judgement of the Judaic deity and the soul’s eternal damnation for some unknowable wrong-doing (not so popular since WW1), the grace of the said Judaic deity and the soul’s salvation and eternal life in Heaven (too lightly taken for granted since WW1), and belief, belief, belief … the circuitous track of eager belief.  What, then, is there for us?  Where is the ethnic and racial benefit of any of these leavings, given that death is certainly death, and that gods are for the benefit of the people of living peoples?

Aside from the occasional isolated string of authentically esoteric biblical linguistics, the practise of transcendence is, at best, entirely obscured from view as if it never was.  But then it has to be.  Human authenticity drives out human artifice, and everything here is the artifice of the exoteric   Everything can display only more of its own lovely visage, which is not enough, and which is the tragedy of European faith in the post-tribal epoch.

Claim 7:  The collapse of America and NATO at the hands of a resurgent Russia will free the West for nationalist revolution

Again, how?  Honestly, how can anyone conclude that China, the world’s first technate, and the CCP, an utterly ruthless and self-interested gangster body with a vision of a 21st century Middle Kingdom dominion over supine, socialist humanity, is in reality so easy-going and all-round libertarian, that it would come wreathed in smiles and help nationalists into control?  Sometimes I am earnestly informed that China is only interested in making and selling its gewgaws and widgets, and would never harbour any designs for the control and exploitation of Europe, America, and the Antipodes.  Why, we will all just be able to go on with our liberal project like before (because, of course, we don’t know what a systemic nationalism of ethnicity truly is, and we don’t know that we are the liberalism we so freely disdain).  And, obviously, we will be given all the time in the world to organise our own revolution.  There couldn’t possibly be any imposition of a new Middle Kingdom order.

Yes, our Chinese overlords will be tolerant, generous, and very happy to see the West rise again as a nationalist racial bloc.  What’s that?  Wishful thinking, you say?  Child-like naïvety, anyone?

Claim 8:  The traditional white way of life will return if globalism is defeated

This is what I’ve previously termed isostasism … the assumption that evolutionarily adaptive thinking will rise again when maladaptive thinking is driven from power over us.  In other words, the embedded consequences of maladaptiveness within the worlded personhood – a generational phenomenon -will simply count for nothing, and sheer inevitability will do the rest.  It will manage everything for us, the reactionary says.  It is his perfect, Eden-esque solution, requiring nothing so difficult and reinforcing as a new and positive epochal Idea.  It is also magical thinking, and it blithely gambles the house on a mechanism which, though real and important within its own confines, exists amid the light and noise and distractions of the day only as a retiring, vestigial principle, and one proven insufficient by millenia of human experience.  Post collapse and sans an ordering system by which men may destine we are far more likely, sadly, to be nihilistic savages; and it will be the unenquiring face of savagery which the reactionary can eventually expect to gaze into.

To reprise, this is an anti-philosophical proposition, not only in that it denies the power and tenacity of the extant system – extant because it abides in us all, above our nature - but it also denies the necessity, in the event of a civilisational collapse, for a whole systemic replacement.

The final word

One does not expect nationalists and tradcons to begin understanding the role of thought and philosophy any time soon.  It is a psychological reflex for men betrayed by their leaders and deprived by them of a fit standing in life, unjustly abused and silenced, to turn to wilder and wilder forms of self-justification and self-assertion.  Impulsive and injudicious claims and whole-hearted commitment to more or less anything that might damage the perceived enemy goes hand-in-hand with that.  Throw in the internet echo-chamber, anonymity, Russian propaganda and fakery, the competition among right-wing critics of the West to be crucially alternative yet credible, and to attract attention, follower, likes, re-tweets yet notoriety, the profusion of “experts” (all subject to these same temptations), and the appetite for revenge against the elite’s complex, callous, disdainful power structure that is, in the minds of these men, “America” and “the West”, the sheer negative energy of reaction ... add all that and it makes sense. 

How one can reasonably find truth and speak of it amid this bedlam, this great quest for the win … the final word, is another problem.

Footnotes

¹ The term “re-set” was in circulation for several years before Klaus Schwab picked it up, stuck “Great” in front of it and used it to mean a rapid transition to The Globality courtesy of the opportunities supplied by the new bureaucratic religion of pandemicity.  Even before the financial crisis of the late noughties there were voices in financial journalism calling for a re-set of debt in their industry.  Pity no one listened.

² The 2030 date is also not a Klaus Schwab original, but something he pinched from those delightful people at the UN, who needed target dates when they were confecting their two Agendas.  The second of those had 17 sustainability goals to be achieved by, yes, 2030.  Uncle Klaus appears to have woven the entire WEF programme out of other people’s science and other people’s internationalism.  But the world’s “leaders” seem to be terribly impressed.

³ The Christian seeking salvation by the grace of God translates in systemic liberalism as the unfettering will, while the soul saved for an eternal life in Heaven translates as the subject without confines.  Sin translates in right liberalism as the condition of the fettered “individual” and in left-liberalism as oppression by an Other.