The screenwriter who penned “an ancient race” marking “Once Upon A Time In The West” as mythic Requiem For Man, died a week ago.

The travesty that civilization has made of sex is reflected in the travesty that has been made of marriage as most obscenely manifest in “weddings”: Put the couple in a third mortgage-sized debt – in addition to the two mortgage-sized debts they incurred that they can’t escape even in bankruptcy in order to obtain unconstitutional life patents of nobility called “degrees” that are a shibboleth admitting them to sell their fertile years to “Human Resources Managers” similarly castrated to serve in the sterile worker caste.

READ MORE...

To my cousins in England from an American Orange Man, the deep history of your manhood you feel needs this perspective to guide your actions.  I offer my body as your Sovereign to be sacrificed by you my people if you will but take heed and follow this lead.

READ MORE...

Southport was a trigger.  So now a prediction.

The English have had enough of the foreign in their home, of the Other, and of government forcing the Other down their throats.  They have had enough of their towns and cities being colonised street by street.  The media focus might have been on “small boats”, it might have been on “immigration”.  But the English have had enough whenever and however the Other arrived.  They know replacement when they see it.  They know when they are being ordered to get out of the way.  They know the official agenda, the unspoken agenda.

They have had enough of the racial equality agenda, too, which they know perfectly well actually means anti-white racism.  They have had enough of being told by government that they are existentially guilty, that some confected political sin is theirs for being a people with a homeland that they love and want to protect, like any people.  They have had enough of the sheer loss and insecurity which “diversity” actually means.  They have had enough of white girls being prostituted by Moslem gangs.  They have had enough of black stabbings, enough of crime and violence which they know perfectly well is not caused by “poverty” or “racism”.  They have had enough of the political lies, and the ratchet law-making.  They have had enough of the persecution of those who speak for them.  They have had enough of being silenced.  They have had enough of the activist police.  They have had enough of sanctimonious, lying talking heads.  They have had enough of the trashing of their culture, enough of the TV ads.  They have just had enough of being trod upon.  They have had enough.

They have had enough, too, of the sexual weirdness.  They have had enough of mentally ill homosexuals in dresses, daubed like pantomime dames, going in to their children’s classrooms.  Just as, too, they have had enough of the Covid manipulation, enough of the Climate manipulation; enough of the lockstep between government and international institution, and government and media.  They have had enough of one-way government traffic, enough of everything that government has become.

They had had enough of all this with Sunak and his government, and they destroyed it; just as, in December 2019, they destroyed the disloyal parliament that thought it could overturn the people’s decision to become an independent nation once again.  They want for something that affirms their existence, their interests, their rights (which are the rights of the native).  They know they won’t get it.  They know the Labour Party is the most toxic institution in the land, which they now dare to continue the betrayal.  It is continuing it on steroids and already, not yet one month in, they ... the English ... have had enough.

We are, at this point, at the very beginning of a trial of strength.  The political traitors, the government machine, the media traitors ... the Establishment ... are pushing on in the belief that ever more naked power, basically a police state, will press the very blood out the English.  I predict that it will not.  Their resolve will harden to iron.  They will bring down the Labour government.  They will bring down treachery.  They will tear the beating heart out of it. It will not happen quickly.  But it will happen.  There is no other way for them to find their way to life, and no people can be told it may not live.

17th century English coins, from an entry on coin-clipping at Collectors Universe forum

We nationalists have a lot to say about many things.  But the freedom of the individual is not generally one of them.  We do, of course, necessarily reject the liberal philosophy as the ruling Idea of our age.  Famously “beyond left and right”, nationalism exists in a state of permanent and total hostility to it, which posture is fully reciprocated by the liberal Establishment.  In consequence, our focus is only really group-based.  That natural and inevitable individuality which so characterises our race becomes altogether too much identified with the liberal pursuit of individual-ism, and all possibility of a fitting identitarian paradigm is lost.  One can’t help but wonder whether, in consequence, our politics is fatally weakened and incomplete.

That said, let us agree that human freedom is a lodestar of the mind, and a primary value of the European mind and thus the European sociobiology.  Obviously, there is no denying the uplifting and inspiring effect of its clarion call.  Of course, there are clarion calls and clarion calls.  At the ethnic and/or national level, the principles of independence (ie, a negative freedom) and autonomy (positive) are valid even when, at an intermediate, constitutional level, principles such as pluralism (negative) and democracy (positive) are absent.  At both levels (ie, national and constitutional), the various principles are valid even when, at the level of the individual man or woman, personal liberties are absent.  A captive or slave society might, therefore, still be ethnically and/or nationally independent and autonomous.  Equally it might be, to a greater or lesser extent, pluralist and democratic.  Even while Stalin’s Terror was in full flood, elections were held to the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union.

From this we may ascertain that, notwithstanding all the noise that national liberation struggles create, and the noise about “liberal democracy”, secret ballots, and so forth, freedoms at the collective levels have a clear universality to them that goes beyond the specifics of the liberal philosophy.  Among other races with other evolutionary strategies and, perhaps, more naturalistic political systems, those freedoms may even be sufficient unto the day.  The individual’s needs may be met in the main elsewhere, by non-political culture and religion.  But the European evolutionary strategy of individuality injects a different energy at the level of the individual.  It accentuates the value of the individual life, and imbues our truths and meanings.  It cannot be contained, but bursts forth as the political.  It is no small part of what we are.  Its action in us is responsible for the whole of the liberal analytic since its mid-17th century inception.

READ MORE...

The sky over northern Israel last night.

Some say 200 drones, some say 300.  But however large it was no one can say that Iran’s attack on Israel last night was provoked by the CIA.  Or Nuland.  Or Biden.  Which is a relief.  One injured girl is said to be the cost to the Israelis.  The Iron Dome worked brilliantly well, although it was not faced with Iran’s ballistic missiles.  Netanyahu, having said only yesterday that Israel will reach out and hurt those who hurt Israel, can now justly say that the hurt is not what it might have been, and leave it there.  For its part, the Iranian government has said that honour will be satisfied by the one attack, which follows Israel’s strikes on Iran’s consulate in Syria a fortnight ago.  That latter killed eleven people, including Mohammad Reza Zahedi, who was the General in command of Iran’s elite al-Quds force and in charge of Iran’s network of proxy militias in Lebanon and Syria.  The militias can now reflect on the, of course, great honour of their patrons in Tehran, and tell themselves that Allah’s will has been done.  Assuming the Israelis don’t feel the need to make a point, there is no advantage to anyone at this point in escalation.

But a line has been crossed.  For the first time Tehran has attacked the hated Israelis from its own soil.  It has also learned that to be anything more than a nuisance a missile attack must be ballistic.  The quiet which should now obtain will be uneasy.  Israel will not be restrained from targeting Iranians in Syria, because they see that as self-defence.  There would be little point for Tehran in responding to another death like Zahedi’s with a few hundred pin-pricks.  But a ballistic response, if it gets through, would mean outright war with every possibility of America being dragged in.

That’s more or less where we are this morning.  The world of nations is slowly assorting itself into two camps broadly interested in, on the one hand, a world of rules, global corporations and money and, on the other, a world of force and empire.  One might conclude that one side now consists principally of Poland, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Baltic States, the Czech Republic, Holland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Italy, Spain, Australia, Canada, Saudi, Israel, Japan, South Korea.  The other side consists of Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, North Korea, China, Iran and its various proxies, South Africa, and, in the west, Slovakia and Hungary.  Not yet forced to choose, or likely to remain as much as possible on the sidelines, are Trump’s America, India, Brazil, and Turkey.

I would certainly contend that this grand divide is now the principal geopolitical framework, and nationalists like ourselves are going to have to adjust to this reality.  As I wrote earlier, in a more limited context of the western elite’s drive for The Globality:

It might be too early to write off the western elite’s geo-economic model.  Russia might be humiliated by Ukraine.  Putin might be assassinated by his own circle of Siloviki (or “men of force”).  China’s drive for global dominion might be blunted for a time by a reinvigorated America, even under Trump.  To one degree or another these things are all possible.  But short of such a miracle, it is now beginning to look like Götterdämmerung for the vainglorious class which deigned to destroy our world, and who for their hubris will now see it, as well as themselves, destroyed by an Other.

It is clear that our elite class committed the sin of assuming they had won, and their desired goal was historically inevitable.  They lost all interest in nationhood, and therefore in the defence of the nation, thirty-five years ago.  Now their project is failing.  There are signs everywhere.  But the contempt they displayed towards us … the decay they have wrought upon us mere economic men, mere racists and moral dross … has gone too far, and leaves them without a fighting tradition, a unified and motivated people, to call upon.

This can bring opportunity for nationalism if a point of balance is reached whereby the elites’ many-sided assault on the European life is undermined by history, and the national principle and the native principle are even grudgingly respected (because only these can confront eastern force).  In other words, the west must survive but not Davos, and the east must not come to us in any shape or form, be it by geopolitics or military action or colonisation.

So, Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan; the three unlikely pillars of western security.  Do nationalists want to defend them or desert them?

Laura Towler and her husband Sam Melia, who was recently jailed for two years for “intent” in possessing flyers which the prosecutor admitted broke no law.

Michael Gove, a clever-cunning, allegedly Conservative government minister known for stabbing Boris Johnson in the back during the balmy post-Referendum period, has done the inevitable and included Patriotic Alternative on his “little list” of extremist organisations.  Apparently, making this list is part of his duties as Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.  Specifically, it is a duty forced on him by the somewhat challenging pro-Palestine marches which have hit the headlines since the IDF launched its assault on Gaza.  This standard Establishment boilerplate (from his announcement to the House of anti-white racists otherwise known as the Commons) is how he saved face with the Muslim “community”:

I’m sure that we would agree that organisations such as the British National Socialist Movement and Patriotic Alternative who promote neo-Nazi ideology, argue for forced repatriation, a white ethno-state and the targeting of minority groups for intimidation, are precisely the type of groups about which we should be concerned and whose activities we will assess against the new definition.

The activities of the extreme-right wing are a growing worry, the targeting of Muslim and Jewish communities and individuals by these groups is of profound concern requiring assertive action.

I have never heard of the British National Socialist Movement.  I doubt if anyone else has either.  I would not be in the least surprised if it is comprised of a corpse, a couple of thirteen year olds and six MI5 officers.  On second thoughts, it may well not have the two thirteen year olds.  But Patriotic Alternative … a body of very courageous people demanding democracy and freedom ... is the largest and most energetic of the nationalist groups actively defending the native peoples of this land (in real terms, the English).  Its leader Mark Collett is too politically old-school for my taste, but he is also honest and will debate the Jewish Question and Islam with all-comers.  Of course, that’s too much for the guard-dogs of the Electoral Commission, who have blocked PA’s six attempts to register as a political party; and it’s too much for the ardently Judeophile and Islamophile political Establishment, which just can’t wait to apply every one of its favourite, brain-dead hate labels to the group.  Obviously, the natives are not to be permitted the freedoms of speech and association, free representation, shared interests and right on the soil (including the right to defence of homeland), real political understanding, or anything emerging therefrom.

Hence Mr Gove’s hugely reviled, dead-beat government has to find PA guilty of “neo-Nazi ideology” and “targeting of minority groups for intimidation”.  As for “a white ethno-state”, here is the Oxford demographer David Coleman - not known for Nazism and intimidation - writing in Standpoint Magazine in June 2016:

Even without migration … the White British population would cease to be the majority in the UK by the late 2060s. However, should current high levels of immigration persist for any length of time, that date would move closer to the present. Britain would then become unrecognisable to its present inhabitants. Some would welcome a brave new experiment, pioneering a wider world future. Others might say Finis Britanniae.

No one ever voted to dissolve away our white ethno-state, as it existed quite by force of Nature in every past century.  Necessarily, then, the Establishment’s wild and abusive, politically engineered demographic change has been brought about without the slightest recourse to the democratic process.  It is a statement of pure force majeure and fait accompli.  Now politicians instruct us with steepling arrogance that we have no choice but to submit to the consequences.

Such thinking has strayed so far from accountability it signals that a usurpation has taken place.  Democracy is not operative, at least in the matter of our people’s survival and continuity (which is the most vital of all matters of state, and from which arises the general recognition that defence is the first duty of government).  The political class as a whole has made itself unaccountable.

Usurpations are not about tolerance or liberty or equality, or any other prostituted liberal principle that politicians and power elites routinely ascribe to themselves.  Usurpations are always about power.  The drive of the political class for a multiracial Britain is a power play intended to leave us, the British people, and our constitution and democracy far behind.  The Britain we knew and understood was a union under a single crown of three traditional nations, indeed three landed descent groups with intertwined histories, each sovereign under the constitution.  That state of contentment has been replaced by a proposition nation populated by individual human units gathered around liberal civic values.  The politicians have set their face against our native reality and relation, and assured themselves and us that we natives are but one social group and one culture among a multitude of civically equal groups, each of them exactly as British as we are regardless of the fact that we are children of the soil and they arrived, relatively speaking, at Heathrow passport control yesterday morning at 9.00 am.  The demos has been universalised, erasing its prior ethnic content and rendering it as an equalitarian company of uncharactered individuals connected to other living creatures only by political and socio-economic choices.  What actually matters about us has been put outside, and in that much we have been disenfranchised.

That’s the complaint.  Let us now dig down for some solid principle.

Revolutionary change in the nature and meaning of the demos brought about not by democratic means but by the use of force cannot, by definition, be democratic.  In a time of peace when the nation is secure, unconquered, and self-governing, any outcome procured through coercive governmental action against the known will and natural interests of the sovereign and native people is procured illegitimately.  That was the case on 22nd June 1948, before the Windrush sailed into British territorial waters, and it is no less the case now.

The passage of time does not grant legitimacy to the wrongs done to us, whether or not those wrongs are capable of reverse.  A fait accompli does not grant legitimacy, and it does not prohibit or de-moralise reversal, or make it any less necessary.  Abusive and unjust, untrammelled power does not justify its trespasses and treacheries by the claim of irreversability.  Only the interests of the people are irreversible.  Only the people possess the constitutional right to be governed according to the will of a parliament reflective of, and faithful to, their interests.  As the people, that right was ours alone before 22nd June 1948, and it was taken from us without warning or explanation or public debate, and awarded to strangers.  It must be our choice, and no one else’s, whether that theft obtains into the future.

In simple, force majeure is not a democratic value and not an ethical value of any kind.  An appeal to it is a demand for our weakness and submission.  Those who make that demand are not democrats and not ethical people.  Indeed by their rigid control of the party system and of the political discourse, enforced through a compliant media, they are killing democracy itself.  A healthy democratic culture cannot be maintained without the freedom to challenge injustice or even to speak of it in the public square (which freedom is inherent to our democratic nationalism).

But the palace is still haunted by the ghost of Prince Hamlet’s murdered father.  We native British might have had all manner of poison poured in our ears but we still know this land to be our sacred ancestral home and not merely a civic space or a market economy or a race experiment; and we cannot permit it to become any or all of those in perpetuity.

Democracy belongs to the people.  The power to will change by peaceful means belongs to the people.  We have earned it in on the battlefield and in the public square.  Our people must decide.

There is solid support in international law for the principle of the self-determination of peoples, specifically in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly on 16 December 1966 and entered into force 23 March 1976.  It states:

Part 1, Article 1.1

All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

The next time you see or hear a British politician speaking soft and honeyed words of of democracy and rights, be sure to remember that you are beholding the lowest of liars and hypocrites.

Although it’s not really my area of interest, I’m going to venture a few remarks on Oswald Spengler’s famously pessimistic and a-biological model of civilisational decline.  Al Ross raised the question of historicity and political agency.  It’s a good question.  Is there a metaphysical force acting on human sociocultural processes in Time, the effect of which, very basically, is to mirror in them the form of the individual human organism from birth to death?

The ineffable and energetic male spirit of the early 18th century high-point of Western culture, as imagined by Ridley Scott in his wonderful directorial debut from 1977, “The Duellists”.

Oswald Spengler’s grand historical conception is attractive to many students of western decline, especially from the critical right.  It supplies a seemingly conclusive, “dust to dust” certainty that may satisfy the pessimistic tendency.  But is it really the case that all grand historical forms of the lived life of men must inescapably trace one absolute arc?

Methodologically, Spengler appears never to have remorselessly interrogated history for the raw causalities.  He was a creative interpreter of the historical.  His base assumption for the aforementioned mirror automatically resulted in civilisational facts fitting around his morphological thesis.  These days one could easily imagine that he would be dismissed with the technical truth that even if all the facts did accord with the thesis, correlation does not prove causation.  Indeed, the Hungarian-Jewish Marxist György Lukács is reported to have done exactly that in 1954, charging Spengler with “substituting causality for analogy”, that latter being Spengler’s own standard for inclusion in the model.  Of course correlation does not rule out causality either.  But then the fact that civilisations can follow a certain path does not mean that they must do so.  There are variables vis-a-viz the internal and external moral, political, economic, and military dynamics of said civilisations; and then there is the non-variable of the blood and Mind, (to which we will come).

Ontologically, Spengler’s morphology relies on a somewhat assumed universal law of the disorganisation of systems, the assumption being that it can be freely shifted from the organic temporal form to history.  There are questions:

READ MORE...

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.

READ MORE...