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

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

So here goes ...

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

Reported at the end of last week in Summit News:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Do it to Julia”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

READ MORE...

I am undertaking to write another paper, this time attempting an answer to the question: what is the political function and potential of ethnic nationalism?  The paper is a gesture in the direction of something I view as not currently existing, and something which must exist very soon as a systemic and, therefore, revolutionary nationalism of our people’s life-cause and identity.  So that means, or should mean, a radically ordering philosophy, existential and naturalistic in mein, cohering, authentising and affirming in effect, and capable of free emergence in the daily life of our racial and ethnic kind.  Let’s see how we go!

Section one: The scale of the challenge

Nationalists of European descent fighting “on the ground” for the cause of our racial and ethnic kind are philosophical orphans today.  They may not understand this uncompromising fact now.  They may have a great emotional investment in ideologies of the nationalist past.  Regardless, it is so - and at a time of unprecedented critical need.  Wherever in this world Europe’s children have their home they are presented with two historically novel and criminal trespasses upon their life, the first of these very specifically against their collective existence, the second against the natural integrity of the human organism as such.

It does not serve the purpose of this essay to devote space and time to a full explanation of either trespass.  They are well enough explained somewhere everyday.  Suffice to say that the first, which has been gathering mass and momentum since the HMT Empire Windrush sailed into British territorial waters on 22nd June 1948, is that process of physical replacement and genetic dissolution which nationalists know so well and have questioned and protested from the beginning.  Influenced by ideological internationalists, vocal Jewish cosmopolitans, Marxist academics, and in service to an insider-elitist mentality, all Western governments and the wider corporate, financial, and liberal Establishment behind them have, for purposes that have never been officially explained, decided to end the essential power of every European people to live freely and securely and alone on its own land, and to generate in its place a new man, a Homo deracinatus sans natural relation, sans belonging, sans history and, signally from our rulers’ perspective, sans common cause.  This substitution has precursors at least as ancient as Second Temple Judaism.  At its core is the supremacist scramble to degrade and, by degrading, defeat for all time a force which is perceived to be - and may indeed be - an historical obstruction, destroying thereby what there is of it which can be destroyed and forcing the rest into servitude.

Only recent in its arrival but with precursors dating back to the industrial revolution, the second trespass arises from the development of information technology, artificial intelligence, neural control interface technology, and genetic engineering.  The socio-political exploitation of these technologies, along with that of the climate agenda and of Covid 19, are already encouraging the current generation of Western political leaders to witter away about re-setting capitalism and “building back better”.  The Western technocrat class, meanwhile, is emboldened by its own self-confidence to instruct us that by 2030 we will own nothing and we will be happy.

But, as those same elites are only too well aware, the combining of these technologies also brings the possibility, perhaps still a generation hence, of a so-called Singularity of networked Homo artifis - cybernetic organisms whose experience of the beauty and nobility and emotional power of human being and human relation will be reduced by the degree to which these creatures experience them as the informational values of 0 and 1.  Truly the postmodern absolute, it would be Michel Foucault’s personal nightmare: the corporate state’s godlike power over the physical body of the individual.  By its sheer radicality and finality it would make the trespass against the European racial and ethnic existence redundant.  With the technological curtailment of the familial, evolved, natural Man, all thinking at the level of particular populations and human difference would lose relevance.  Race and ethnicity would have to find their place in the new order of things, for they could no longer be lead factors.  For us, everything would have to step back to the already compromised redoubt of Nature.

Until the end of the 20th century, nationalism was a movement not always formulated intellectually with regard for what it is of us that is of Nature.  It was drawn from at least five disparate and sometime unruly strains of thought, only the most recent and minor of which ... American race-realism ... addressed the natural in us, after its evidential fashion.  Of the rest, the most long-lasting dates directly to Hegel but received its fullest and most vigorous account from Nietzsche.  Even today, thinking British nationalists are much cast in the Nietzschean mould.  They critique the nihilism of modernity.  They limn the deathly-shallow individualism and economism of liberal thinking and the massifying ideologies of socialism, universalism, and equalitarianism.  They find therein every reductive effect upon the human estate.  Such analyses demonstrate a necessary understanding of the world, of course.  But even as the thinking fraction gives itself over to them, the politicals are gravitating elsewhere.  They, of course, instinctually and properly react to the Establishment’s demographic agenda as the immediate cause of the existential threat to our people and all peoples of European descent.  So they gesture towards immigration, Islam, and multiculturalism, and the tawdry impact of Jewish influence; and they protest every consequence of these profoundly unwanted and undeserved “goods”.

There is, then, if not a conflict exactly, certainly a misalignment of the head and the body of the movement.  Its thinking fraction’s grand critique of the paucity of human meaning in the modern life does not “go” cleanly to the sturdy nationalist’s defence of his people’s life and land.  One might attempt to bridge the gap by portraying it as the epistemological difference between meaning-in-life and meaning-of-life, but that still stops short.  The eternal philosophical divide between meaning and existence, mind and body, is vested here.  Meanings can be contested.  Meanings can be made relative.  Except, perhaps, for the suicidal, the sheerness of existence eludes qualification.  The moral “should” withdraws before the certitude and uncontestibility of “must”.  In this time of existential imperatives, therefore, one would not be too dogmatic to conclude that it is nationalist intellectualism which must reform and make the world-changing, world-creating case for uncontestability and certitude and the European racial and ethnic life.  But on what basis is that to be done?  The only answer which does not depend on the failed and ill-targeted ideologies of the nationalist past is: on the basis of an holistic philosophy of our lived particular truth.

It is always profitable, when contemplating how far from that truth Europeans have wandered, to remember why.  The guiding light of liberalism is the self-authoring individual, also known as the unfettering will.  This is Man the Self-Creator, at the end of the history of God the Creator, when the freeing spirit of the age decapitated the divine authority of the Crown (little more than a century after the Crown had decapitated the authority of the Roman Church).  It is why liberal radicalisms invariably strive after a New Fangled Man dedicated to engineering his own post-Christian (but by no means post-religious) salvation.  Transhumanism is only the logical and final signifier of his progress.  But, in truth, almost nothing in liberalism’s model of the self-authoring Man and not much more in Christianity’s model of the supplicant soul before it are other than conceits and confections.  What truly belongs to us gains not a gram of substance from either of them.

All that said, liberal thinking did not set out, in the wake of the English Civil Wars, to deracinate away Europe’s peoples or to put Man outside Nature.  But men knew not what journey they were embarking their kind and their distant progeny upon.  By 1789 at latest the artificialising, transformative social dynamic had become the new absolute in Europe and America, and it very much remains such in our time.  Human artifice easily accretes upon human artifice, and in the wake of burgeoning artifice comes an ineffable lightness of being, self-estrangement, and suggestibility.  The journey back to the human norm does not follow automatically, as in some isostatic reaction to retreating ice.  Instinct revolts at the worst of it.  But that is not enough to initiate real change, as we should all now understand.  It is a hard outlook for any people to be thrown by the Fates into such a world of confusion, weakness and corruption, against which the only certain counter is a political philosophy (which has never previously been written down) of who and what we truly are (which from Christianisation onward has never previously been allowed to speak for itself).

If our purpose is not, at a minimum, to write down that philosophy and, by it, to re-found our people’s life on a new and holistic basis, then we are not revolutionaries.  We are recidivists.  No matter how much we react and rail against global capital or radical equalitaranism or, indeed, the subjection and loss of our ethnic person to the foreignising of our home ... no matter how justly and determinedly and eloquently we oppose these things ... no matter, if that reaction is the full extent of our effort it will, over time, subside into the established historical and philosophical totality which underscores and orders everything.  That totality’s fundamental creative assumptions ... the core principles of liberalism, the inevitable progress of techne and modernity ... their sheer ideological mass and tenacity ... will ineluctably re-assert their power over men’s minds, and all will go on just as it was before.  For, liberalism and modernity embed in us and transmit themselves in Time through us; and they do this as a primary landscaper of the mind and enculturator of the personality.  In our philosophical age no racial or ethnic European ever truly and permanently escaped their dominion.  But escape we must.

Our struggle, then, is for liberation into the truly human, which is particular and ethnic.  It is a struggle for everything, a total war of ideas and a war of total ideas.  Difficult for a philosophical orphan, it has to be said.  Now let us advance towards it.

What is Nigel Farage up to?  It is now a month since he launched Reform UK as the new incarnation of The Brexit Party.  No one in British politics has a shrewder political mind than Farage, but at the time it seemed a strange choice for him to bet his continuing relevance - as he seemingly has - on The Great Barrington Declaration.  Barrington recommends “an approach to herd immunity called focused protection” whereby only the old and vulnerable are maintained in lockdown, while the rest live life normally. 

The Declaration itself is a culmination of months of criticism and questioning of the Western governmental response to the virus by senior figures in academic and practising medecine.  But precious little has been heard of it amid the lock-step media coverage of the official narrative.  As a populist cause, it hardly ranks alongside Brexit.  Moreover, it’s not as if better targeted regimes than a general lock-down haven’t been tried.  The Swedish experience with such a regime did not work out particularly advantageously.  Its principal advocate, Sweden’s chief epidemiologist Anders Teigel, has been sidelined today and his infection control model replaced by a much more conventional lockdown model.

In any case, the common and extremely rosy expectation is that lockdown will become a thing of the past ... a blip in the unstoppable progress of human freedom ... as mass vaccination swings into effect.  A political stand on lockdown, therefore, is only a prelude to a political stand on vaccination itself.  The first segues effortlessly into the second.

Of the three vaccines developed so far, the Pfizer-BioNTech product is already in roll out.  Over the next six months most vulnerable British citizens and key workers will be vaccinated.  Regardless of the inevitability that Covid 19 is going to be with us in the long-term, there would seem to be very little political cause here which is likely to be around for the next General Election.

So, what is Farage up to?  Is there a way of interpreting his re-launch decision other than as a political mis-step?  Well, in contrast to the rosy assumptions of returning, untroubled normality there are three future scenarios which could gift the ever-opportunistic Farage the leading role in a new attack on the politics of the Establishment.  In taking up a position critical of the lockdown he automatically positions himself against the first and least troubling of those three scenarios, and by that action he also positions himself against the second scenario; and by taking up that he automatically positions himself at the fore of resistance to the third, should events move that far.  If that is to be the trajectory of our collective future, then for all its limitations Barrington is no bad political starting point today.

So let’s look at that in more detail.  In order of their historical challenge and severity the three future scenarios are:

Scenario 1: Rising public doubt about the vax

According to the New Scientist, a group of researchers have extracted data from the ten most reliable of some 175 reports on Covid 19 infection fatality rates.  Taken together they show a mortality-to-infection rate by age of:

for people under 40,  0.1%
between 50 and 60, 0.36%
between 70 and 74, 2.17%
between 80 and 84, 5%,
over 90, 16%

At the average, Covid has an infection fatality rate of 0.25% or even less, and around double that of common flu.  This puts Covid on a level with the Hong Kong Flu 1968 or the Asian flu 1957 in terms of danger - nothing like the 1918 Spanish flu which had a 2-4% fatality rate, and not a once in a century type threat at all. There is a certain historical routineness to it, therefore.  A similar type of pandemic to Covid may well come again in the lifetimes of most of us, and maybe sooner than we think. 

People are not stupid.  They see the police treatment of those who point out such inconvenient truths (Piers Corbyn, for instance, and his fellow lockdown protesters) and know that treatment to be excessive.  They compare it to the treatment - “taking the knee”, basically - of BLM protests, where maskless gatherings without social distance mysterously go unopposed.  Then they see that the authorities don’t actually know that much about the vaccine:

There are no data as yet on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy, either from human or animal studies. Given the lack of evidence, JCVI favours a precautionary approach, and does not currently advise COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy. Women should be advised not to come forward for vaccination if they may be pregnant or are planning a pregnancy within three months of the first dose.

... As trials in children and pregnant women are completed, we will also gain a better understanding of the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines in these persons.

People understand when they are being manipulated by politicians (as they understood in droves with the Stronger-In “Project Fear” campaign in the 2016 EU Referendum).  They will inevitable question what is justified action and what is hidden agenda, and if they think they see a hidden agenda they will react accordingly.  Among the online media-savvy section of the public, vaccine skepticism is already up and running.  An Opinium poll for the Guardian has found that 30% of respondees will not accept the jab.  By way of a sample of the sort of things people are starting to think and say, the following comments appeared in a Daily Mail thread last week, after the lightning fast formal drug approval of the Pfizer-BioNTech’s product by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency.  They are by no means the exception:

“Pfizer vaccine is APPROVED by regulators. What a surprise. There wasn’t a snowball’s chance in Hades that it wouldn’t be because that’s what they were instructed to do. All the normal protocols for assessing safety were abandoned”

“... now expect them to believe having a vaccine will help them ...amendment. I just believe people need to weigh up the real risks to their family, friends and themselves, and proceed with extreme caution. People are not being given honest, fair reasonable arguments. Infernally wicked choices and diktats are being foisted upon them. People should be very, very wary indeed. Do NOT trust them.”

“WHY, WHY, WHY has a company like Pfizer, with a very well documented history of legal cases, prosecution and payouts (due to the devastating side effects of some of its products) been granted immunity from prosecution if this vaccine is so safe? WHY? “

“Ask yourself this, Bill Gates has been banging on about depopulation for years. What makes you think that all of a sudden he wants to save us all?”

“So many coincidences this year. They really think we’re idiots. Now anticipate the FREEDOM PASSPORTS to divide and force us into having it! And when you decide, consider the following: We have law changes to prevent litigation over side effects, trials lasting a few months instead of years, “flexibilities” allowed in the mhra safety regulations, scientists and regulators with conflicts of interest, compulsory vaccination in all but name, a new AI system to log the tsunami of unprecedented side effects. Potentially introducing laws to stop criticism and questioning of vaccinations, like this post! If these aren’t huge red flags I don’t know what is!”

“... experimental mRNA vaccine never before used. Phase 3 trialled ONLY since July 27th = 129 days! CANNOT POSSIBLY KNOW THIS IS SAFE. What about long term adverse reactions? Autoimmune responses / cancer etc?”

“As a Covid survivor I certainly welcome a vaccine against this virus, but whats worries me the most is the speed in which this vaccine has been deemed safe. It’s been months in the making and I think because they usually take years we’re all very concerned what long term health issues may happen. It won’t be long before we see those on the news having the vaccine, proving it’s safe but will the cameras be back on them if it goes wrong.”

Neither is Farage alone in positioning politically to ride this developing wave of public opinion.  Days after he re-launched TBP as Reform UK a new party in Germany sprang up along rather similar lines:

READ MORE...

Over the last couple of weeks the political right in Britain has been making some noise about the English teacher Will Knowland, who was fired some weeks ago for gross misconduct from his post at Eton.  His crime was to prepare a lecture, titled The Patriarchy Paradox, to be given to older students in the school as part of a Perspectives course, his object being to present a view of masculinity which they may not otherwise encounter in these “woke” times.  Knowland’s mistake was to assume that a balanced perspective is part of the continuing rounded education that the £42,500-a-year boarding school has provided to the sons of the well-to-do for nearly six centuries.  Sadly, we no longer live an age when a full-informed and educationally-rounded type is required among the future leaders of society.  Eton, under its progressive headmaster Simon Henderson, is right behind the “woke” agenda.

James Delingpole at Breitbart takes up the story:

Knowland’s lecture was a much-needed antidote to this relentless political correctness. As he said in a letter to the school, he felt the topical of “masculinity” in the school “lacked balance”. Which is a polite way of saying that the boys were being force-fed feminist propaganda.

Before delivering the lecture (which would have been for senior boys), he circulated it around the school — and one staff member objected.

I understand that this staff member is one of the new intake of wokistas who hate Eton’s traditional values and want to reshape it according to the politically correct values of the liberal left.

Henderson could very easily have ignored this complaint simply by defending the school’s long traditions of freedom of expression. Eton, as anyone familiar with it knows, offers — or used to offer — probably the best, most rounded, most intellectually challenging education of almost any school in the world. Though very traditional in its emphasis on rigour and hard work, it is also remarkably libertarian in the way that boys’ eccentricities and personal interests are encouraged. Boys finish their five years at Eton having been exposed to all manner of intellectual ideas.

This tradition is slowly being strangled by the new regime. Rather than stick up for Knowland, Henderson backed the staff member who wanted his lecture censored.

Knowland had prepared the lecture in video form, and when he was prevented by the lock-down from giving it to his students face-to-face he uploaded it to his YouTube page.  Henderson demanded that it be taken down.  Knowland asked for one good reason, and was summarily dismissed.  He is appealing against his dismissal and raising funds for a full tribunal hearing in the event that that appeal fails.

Meanwhile, the video has been viewed not by a hundred or so senior Eton students but by nearly 28,000 YouTube viewers.  Here it is, in case you are wondering - it’s very good; and it has led to Stephen Pinker, among many others, actually writing to William Waldegrave, the chairman (Provost) of the Board of Governors of the School, asking for him to intervene with Henderson.

My point, however, is that today the Telegraph reports that:

Eton College students are in open revolt against their headmaster as a row over free speech threatened to boil over into a major fall-out.

Pupils at the 580-year-old school have accused it of acting in a “heartless and merciless” way by dismissing one of its masters amid a dispute over a lecture that questioned “current radical feminist orthodoxy”.

Hundreds of students have now signed a petition accusing Eton College of “institutional bullying” claiming that it was a “gross abuse of the duty of the school to protect the freedoms of the individual”.

... The students’ petition, addressed to Eton’s provost, Lord Waldergrave, said they felt the episode has given rise to “some very grave implications about the nature of freedom” at Eton.

They said: “There is a sense that, by dismissing Mr Knowland, the school is seeking to protect its new image as politically progressive at the expense of one of its own. If this is true, it points to a complete lack of moral integrity and backbone.”

The students went on to say that they disagreed with the Head Master’s assertion that ideas which can be deemed “hostile” to minority groups at the school could be censored.

“We think this test is too severe,” they said. “Young men and their views are formed in the meeting and conflict of ideas. A conflict of ideas necessarily entails controversy and spirited discussion. The Head Master’s ‘hostility’ test excludes nearly all of what makes up a liberal education.”

Well, it is difficult to imagine these sturdy and still very young men protesting in the same way if the roles were reversed and they were unable to hear the case for toxic masculinity.  They demonstrate a distinct interest in the sociobiological facts of being human, and a great appetite for some understanding of their own male being amid the plethora of feminist accounts and claims of gender-fluidity.  It is a demonstration of a principle to which I know that, in a wider sense also taking in the race issue and the constraint, indeed forced obsolescence of young white American men, James Bowery subscribes: young men do desire to find value for themselves in this world, and will act against those forces, if they possibly can, which take that value away.  They just need a good and thoughtful guide and perhaps a bit of evolutionary psychology.

“It’s not just taking every precinct and applying one ratio to it.  It’s taking multiple sets of precincts and applying multiple ratios such that when they all come back to a certain number they add up to the total number that is required to flip the margin.”
- Edward Solomon

https://rumble.com/vbas2t-smoking-gun-dominion-transferring-vote-ratios-between-precincts-in-pa.-by-e.html?mref=6tc17&mc=9kez7
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOKFZeZ6y5g&feature=youtu.be