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

Our nationalist arguments alone, however germane, however well-made, however moral, will not bring the political class and the wider British Establishment to grant our people a hearing.  We are all too well insulated from the political, and that is how our rulers like it.  Nothing will change without a very great pressure from our direction.  But how is that to be generated?  How do we make the Establishment’s dismissal politically unsustainable?  Obviously, only the people themselves can force the issue to the right conclusion.  Politically active nationalists, therefore, have the duty to free and then harness our people’s will.  To free our people’s will we must speak not merely negatively of our crisis but positively of freedom.  They must then speak of their freedom to the Establishment.

How we get from here to there is the subject of this essay.  The good news is that something very like it has been done before.  Its (for any nationalist) sobering story tells how Nigel Farage and UKIP achieved their own historic moment of victory over the Establishment.  That is the general path for any micro-party seeking to change history in a truly significant way.

The campaign for an EU Referendum grew out of the heady ideological years of Margaret Thatcher’s first government and her burgeoning atlanticism.  In contrast to the spring of freedom and change which coursed through that period, the process of European Community integration, with its Heathite corporatist connotation, appeared stodgy and bureaucratic, centralising and undemocratic.  Opposition to it arose both from within and without government, in particular among the ideological free-market members of Margaret Thatcher’s cabinet, including Thatcher herself.  There was also a strong contingent of senior backbench Conservative MPs who were like-minded, and there was a powerful caucus of right-wing eurosceptics outside parliament, including the majority of association members and significant parts of the press.  Some senior Labour Party members in both Houses, including Tony Benn, Frank Field and the Lords Shore and Stoddart, also argued against EC integration on the basis of Brussels’ burgeoning power and emerging unaccountable structures.

The first expression of organised resistance to European integration only came later, though, and from within the Tory Establishment.  This was the formation of the Bruges Group in 1989, following Thatcher’s benchmark speech of the previous year to the College of Europe, a speech intended to set out a different vision of Europe’s future from the integrationist one advanced by Brussels.  The speech proved a watershed for ambitious men and ideological europhiles in her own cabinet.  When Thatcher was removed from office in the same year and a leadership election held, the choices being the ambitious John Major or the ideological europhiles Michael Heseltine and Douglas Herd.  Major won and quickly revealed himself to be a conventionalist on integration and just about everything else.  The Bruges Group found itself out in the cold and fighting integration alone at Westminster.

In 1991, during the struggle over the signing of the Maastricht Treaty which was due the following year, a Bruges Group founding-member, the academic Alan Sked, founded a second organisation which he named the Anti-Federalist League.  That act got him expelled from the Bruges Group, not least because the AFL intended to give voters a say by running AFL candidates at elections (which it did in the 1992 General Election and in two subsequent by-elections, failing ignonimously but providing clear confirmation, if any were needed, that to prosper in Westminster elections single-issue parties have to become full-spectrum parties).

With the signing of the Maastricht Treaty by John Major, and the European Community re-named the European Union, and with the Maastricht Rebels within the Conservative Party defeated, the struggle against integration was over.  AFL had lost its purpose.  Accordingly, Sked and most of his members committed to change tack and campaign for complete withdrawal from the EU under the banner of the United Kingdom Independence Party – only to find themselves eclipsed for a time by James Goldsmith’s Referendum Party, formed in 1994 (in the 1997 election campaign Goldsmith stood over 500 candidates and spent more money on press advertising than did the Tories or Labour, all for 2.6% of the vote and no seats.  It deregistered in 1997, following Goldsmith’s early death).

That same year, with much frustration among members at the lack of progress, Sked was toppled from the leadership by a group within UKIP led by Nigel Farage.  The cause of a Referendum had never looked weaker.  Yet what no one knew then was that in Farage it had a top-class media performer and a natural communicator.  Even so Farage was not initially the UKIP leader.  Under Michael Holmes the party fought the 1999 European Parliament elections and won 6.5% of the vote, gaining three seats.  Then, much professionalised under the leadership of the former Conservative MP Roger Knapman, it fought the 2004 Europeans and won 2.6million votes, 16.1% of total votes cast, and twelve seats.  That was the beginning of the UKIP breakthrough.

The strategy had always been to pressure the Conservative Party to return to euroscepticism or, failing that, to maneouvre it to see that its own self-interest lay in giving the people another Referendum on Europe (and, in fact, both objectives would be achieved, the latter first, immediately prior to David Cameron’s election triumph of 2015, the former second with Boris Johnson’s general election triumph four years later).

On coming to the leadership in 2006, Farage quickly cemented the policy, putting together a range of populist policies to attract the Tory voter.  It did not matter that the objective was not to win power at Westminster or even to replace the Conservative Party as the main party of opposition.  It was always about instilling fear and doubt at CCHQ.  To that end, Farage also broke conclusively with the de rigeur plastic-man image of Blair and David Cameron (elected Tory leader a year earlier), and of political spin, and the fashion for youth.  Farage gave forth in the saloon bar, pint in hand, speaking unscripted and much in the manner of any rather well-informed Tory of the shires.

It worked.  The party came second to the Conservatives in the 2009 Europeans, and in the 2013 local elections it won an average of 23% of the vote in wards where it put up a candidate, and in the 2104 locals it won 168 seats.  Finally, in the 2014 Europeans UKIP won a grand total of 4,376,635 votes, 26.6% of all votes cast, and twenty-four MEPs - more than of any British party.

By the time the 2015 General Election hove into view, with David Cameron in 10 Downing Street at the fag-end of coalition government with Nick Clegg’s LibDems, and with party polling showing a likely second hung parliament, Cameron’s party strategists, fearing the loss of another four million votes to UKIP and the return of a Labour government under Ed Miliband, opted to meet UKIP’s challenge head on and include a Referendum on EU membership in the party election manifesto.

When, on the morning of 8th May 2015, Cameron found himself the surprise victor he was saddled with a campaign promise on which he never expected to have to make good.  Ever the PR executive he committed himself to an entirely cosmetic re-negotiation of British terms of EU membership with the other 27 leaders of the member states.  In the campaign which followed, Cameron’s renegotiation package sank like a stone in the public consciousness.  Even the Remain side ignored it, offering a high-handed and unremittingly hectoring defence of our membership.  The two Leave organisations, with Farage and UKIP fighting under the aegis of Leave.EU and the Conservative eurospectic ministers overwhelmingly under that of Vote Leave, presented positive and hopeful messages of a sovereign and free national future.  Optimism, patriotism and the Anglo-Saxon love of freedom had defeated Establishment bullying and deceit and the power of the old media.

The Sunderland celebration on Referendum night - the first result to be called.

So, what are the immediate lessons to be drawn from this history?

First, the party began to take itself seriously.  It did not rely on change coming from some other quarter (say, from Bill Cash and his party-first clique).  It did not rely on “worse is better” in the form of more and better banana stories.  Rather it established a clear political strategy and held to it.  Throughout its period of electoral success it also really understood the presentational nature of its mission.  It knew it had to look like its prospective Tory voters.  When the charge was made in the media that the BNP was infiltrating the party, action was taken to publicly ban anyone with past or present BNP connections – Hope Not Hate was brought in to vet new applications for membership.  The tendency, common in minor parties, for non-mainstream politics to attract marginal people was ruthlessly addressed.  Even the senior MEP, Godfrey Bloom, who bopped the deceitful BBC journalist Michael Crick on the head with some rolled-up papers, had to walk the plank.  Members who told off-colour jokes on social media were expelled.  It paid off.  The press found it had much less of an easy job to paint the party as wierdly extremist and hopelessly amateur.

Second, the party had luck and timing on its side … luck that a skilled operator like Farage, mercurial though he could be, was on its side, and that the eurosceptic cause was shared with a number of senior and respected Tories in cabinet and on the back benches.  Likewise, the Tory press was largely eurosceptic, which at least prevented it from applying an extremist sticker to the party.  The Daily Express, when under the ownership of Richard Edmunds, went one stage further and actually campaigned for UKIP, becoming almost as much a house journal for the party as the Telegraph was for the Tories.

With regard to timing, obviously UKIP under Farage was favoured in a way that Sked’s and Goldsmith’s parties never were.  When Michael Howard retired as Tory leader and David Cameron succeeded to the role, supported by George Osborne as shadow chancellor, the last of the mainstream parties dallying with euroscepticism had gone and been replaced by another internationalist clone-party.  The Tories, New Labour, the LibDems, the SNP, Plaid, the Greens … they were all europhile.  There was just UKIP, the BNP, and George Galloway’s Respect Party arguing for an end to EU membership.  UKIP, therefore, had a ready-made constituency of the deserted.  It only had to prove itself worthy of their votes.

Cameron’s uncertain grip on power was also a gift of Time.  His advisors were telling him that he was dependent on the very constituencies where the burgeoning UKIP vote could cost him anything from twenty to fifty seats to Labour or the LibDem, and thus the election.  That concentrated minds wonderfully.  The final element was the cynicism of the Tory hierarchy, who seriously believed they could steal UKIP’s clothing then, after the coalition is returned to power, send Dave out to the lectern in Downing Street to tell the voters, “Sorry folks, but Nick won’t support a Referendum.  I’ve tried to convince him, I really have.  But his whole party is terribly pro-EU, you see.  So with the greatest regret we are going to have to pass on that one.  Hey-ho.”

Third, UKIP grasped fairly early that it had to become a professional political machine.  Grandstanding about the nature of power in this corrupted world was fine for hobbyists.  But it wasn’t going to deliver votes.  As soon as Roger Knapman took over at the helm in 2002 he began to professionalise the party.  A full-time political advisor was hired, centralisation and strategising took over, and amateurism was discouraged.  By 2005 serious levels of funding had begun to flow in.  By 2011 Stuart Wheeler, a former major donor to the Tories, was installed as party treasurer.  Arron Banks donated £1,000,000 for the 2014 European Parliament election.  In March of that year Ofcom duly awarded UKIP major party status.  It was an arrival!

Love or hate his politics, Farage’s relatability, high national profile and speaking ability (so evident in the YouTube videos of his often hilariously disrespectful speeches in the EU Parliament, viewed hundreds of thousands of times) brought massive media attention, and that brought a mass party membership which peaked at 46,000 in mid-2015, making it possible to fight on the ground throughout England and Wales.

The UKIP path, as such, went through three phases: from 1994 to 2002, when the party was full of naivety and had yet to fully understand the nature of the enterprise on which it had embarked; from 2002 to 2014 when the party professionalised and experienced success and growth; and 2014-2016, when the party matured to the limit of its potential and finally achieved its grand purpose.

It was done by seriousness, a respectable and popular cause also voiced by senior politicians in the other parties, a voter-base that was inherited and so did not have to be built from scratch, a skilled communicator as leader, strong mainstream media support, good timing and good fortune in its enemies, solid funding, a mass membership, professionalism in party management, intelligent policy-making and presentation … these were the elements that together generated the UKIP phenomenon of a minor party changing history in a major way.  These are what political nationalism, in its own “same but different” context, has to broadly match.  Carry on as we are and that will never be done.  Our people will never have an opportunity to bring this criminally errant Establishment under their will.

As has been widely reported since Thursday, the Prime Minister’s chief advisor, one Dominic Mckenzie Cummings, has left Downing Street for the last time, according to reports (at the time of writing).  Along with Michael Gove, Cummings has functioned as the ideological driving force behind the Brexit strategy.  He masterminded Boris Johnson’s December 2019 General Election campaign, and has since been instrumental in the lockdown and test-and-trace strategies.  He also initiated the war on civil service culture and on the BBC’s liberal-left bias.  He is an inveterate upsetter of apple carts and an anti-Establishmentarian par excellence.  But it is his dedication to the small band of Vote Leave activists who followed him into government which has angered Tory MPs as much as his abrasive personality and helter-skelter methods.

The capture of the leadership by Johnson and the excision of the europhile old guard did not signify a sea-change in the rest of the parliamentary party - not least because Central Office controls candidate selection, and the 29% of Tories who are new are not all ideological ERGers and closet Farageists giving voice to the people and challenging the power of the Establishment.  They are what Tories have been for almost two centuries: accommodationists and corporate servants.  As such, the second lockdown has brought unrest in the parliamentary party over covid strategy and the epic failure of test-and-trace to a head.  Rather than attack the Prime Minister whose electoral feat gave them their place in the Westminster sun they have allied with the group within and without the Downing Street machine who are “friends of Carrie Symonds” and gone after the head of communications Lee Cain, to whom Johnson had offered the job of Downing Street’s Chief of Staff.

Aside from being a Vote Leaver, Cain’s crimes included a clash with Symonds over his handling of her row with Johnson at their south London home in June last year, which led to vin rouge all over the sofa and a call to 999.  He also earned the antipathy of another Downing Street insider, Allegra Stratten who, despite arriving in post only a month ago, took an instant dislike to Cain and wouldn’t speak to him.  The witches coven was completed by another wonk Munira Murza, who directs the No.10 Policy Unit, and Home Secretary Priti Patel; albeit in their case most likely because Cain had boycotted the BBC and upset the press lobby by opening access to the new media.  We should not run away with the idea that Cain is entirely a victim here.  The Daily Telegraph has reported that he and the Vote Leavers have taken to calling Symonds “Princess Nut Nuts” behind her back; their reasons, apparently, being that she acts the princess, is of questionable sanity, and bears some facial resemblance to a squirrel.  Naturally, Downing Street firmly denies any such suggestion.  But imagine, while this blokish humour might have been safe from consequences in the last millennium, it probably wouldn’t work so well in this one.  It may also not be terribly clever, given that Symonds is Johnson’s fiancee and the mother of his child.

In any event, Cain has been forced out, and now the whole Vote Leave house of cards is falling.  Cummings was meant to move on by Christmas to create an organisation to parallel the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency in the USA.  This is his real ambition, not being holed up in Downing Street fighting political fires all day.  Johnson, meanwhile, is already adjusting to his new situation and signalling to the press that Symonds’ green, badger-friendly agenda will now influence his vision for a “global Britain” with his own foundationally liberal values.  The culture war against the civil service and the BBC will end.  It is rumoured that for Northern Ireland an extension to the transition period might be agreed with Brussels.

Most interestingly, Johnson will be “less dogmatic” than past Tory administrations in his approach to Scottish independence, replacing the denialist policy of Cameron and May with a policy of positive argument for Union.  Fat chance that has.  Anyway, denialism isn’t exactly dead.  It’s just that, to quote Johnson, “We’ve got to make it more than just about saying no to another referendum.”  Alister Jack, the Scottish Secretary, still says no; re-confirming that for this government any second Scottish independence referendum is some twenty years away.  Nobody really believes that.  On 6th May next year, and in the months after, that theory will be put to the sternest of tests. 

The immediate signs are a bit more hopeful for the London government.  SNP support has been declining steadily among Scottish voters since its peak in August of this year.  But it is doing so for clear reasons, among which only a general exhaustion with the SNP, after so many years of power at Holyrood, is helpful to London.  Public dissatisfaction with the Scottish government’s handling of the covid crisis will be resolved, politically at least, by the availability of a vaccine by the year’s end.  The Starmer honeymoon will come to an end.  What will really make or break the issue is the reality of the Brexit settlement and its reception north of the border.  If ... and it is a fairly sure if ... the settlement respects the British government insistence on our sovereign nationhood, and if in consequence all suggestion of legal oversight by Brussels and its institutions is forever banished, then the Scots will have to get used to a future in which only London dwells.  That probability is already driving support for independence higher.  One poll last month put it at 58%.  Nicola Sturgeon stated in 2015 that she would not seek a second referendum until support is above 60% for a period of a whole year.  It is reasonable to expect that if (a) the SNP achieves a majority representation at Holyrood in May and (b) IndyRef 2 support hits 60% just once, the press will be on. 

Both are within easy reach, which means that the meaning of Boris Johnson’s new policy of engagement can easily be turned against him.  What, after all, is the point of keeping the Scots in the Union if that is truly not the wish of the people of Scotland?  What is the point of talking up the Union if polling support for independence just continues as it is?  Th only advantage of denialism for London is if support falls as the Scots become more accepting of their junior status in the Union; and they won’t.  Denialism will only generate its opposite.  There is no happy, shared future to be had, only discontent, recrimination, protest.  London will not be able to hold the line for even two years, never mind twenty.

Now, I will explain why this is all so important for us, as nationalists.  Dealing first with the Scottish Independence question ...

The Union, the London government and its dismissal of the West Lothian Question, the great emphasis that both the Union and the London government place on the civic over the ethnic ... these all weigh against the freedom of the English, in particular, to develop a politics of self-expression and representation.  We labour under a heavy political yoke in which our identity is unrecognised and our natural right on the soil, our natural interests as a people are not just neglected but actively demonised.  It is made a hundred times easier for the British Establishment when we elect only a British government, and are fed only the politics of that government, with its totalistic global-corporate, neoliberal and neo-Marxist bias.  But what happens to Westminster if the Holyrood government secures and wins a second referendum?

If and when Scottish independence becomes a reality the Union will still be a Union of Crowns but it will comprise only England, Wales, and Northern Ireland.  The Northern Irish Unionists are ethnically Scottish, not English, and may one day lose the numbers or the will to maintain their union with us.  But for the purposes of this paper it is not the future of Northern Ireland which interests us but the future of England after Scottish independence.  The West Lothian question would be no more.  The Barnett Formula would be a thing of the past.  With 533 of the remaining 591 seats and, a further seven (at present) Sinn Feiners who do no sit, Westminster would become effectively an English parliament.

Conventionally speaking, the English electorate is predominantly right-of-centre but not economistic and not socially liberal.  The immigrant peoples, obviously, are left-of-centre. A political realignment with different and perhaps interesting points of tension beckons.  The tendency prevalent among the English to consider themselves British, which has been in decline since devolution, would collapse, and with a rising sense of Englishness should come some detachment from the foreign populations (who cannot claim our ethnicity, and who cannot switch overnight from being “black British, “Asian British” and so forth to English, though some may try).

The ground on which we fight, therefore, will be massively more favourable towards us.  Every one of us, if he or she is at all clear-minded, ought really to be a firm supporter of Scottish independence.  It would take us forward further than Brexit ever could.

In conclusion, let us quickly look at the other two post-Cummings signs and portents that Boris Johnson is communicating through the media.  Pulling back from the culture war which Cummings started will certainly benefit Laurence Fox’s new party, Reclaim.  As the race madness and the tranny madness and all the rest of the coercive, abusive neo-Marxist agenda will inevitable pursue its dizzy path to an absolute standard of social pathology, so the voices of commonsensical protest will be raised; first this one man Fox, then a handful of others, then an armful.  Whether the armfuls burgeon into a political movement is perhaps doubtful.  But a counter-weight has been placed on the wildly out-of-true cultural scale, and that is a start.  It behoves us not to be too churlish about it merely because Fox, like Farage, will not stand beside our people.  All work to level the political ground will benefit us too.

Thirdly, Johnson’s greener, more liberal global “vision”, with its infamous “Build Back Better” slogan, has more than an echo of Klaus Schwab’s plans for a totally toxic globalist hell of the commons beneath his paradise of the rich.  One looks at the outlines of the one and then of the other, and wonders.  But surely not?  It’s inconceivable, no?  Until one remembers Johnson’s liberal ideas about immigration and his coming destruction of the planning laws to sate the construction industry that helps to finance his party.  As usual with Tories it is hard to know where the corporate whoring stops and the ideology of The Globality begins.  No degree of corruption surprises the observer of British politics any more.  But, of course, if that is the journey on which Johnson and his party want to take us, even though we are out of Brussels’ grasp with its crystal clear pursuit of a globalised future and of the new-made globalised beings which will stand where once did Europe’s beautiful and creative peoples, then so be it.  Nationalists will have another clear target on the fat behind of the British Establishment.

The prevailing liberal system has grown stale in the extreme and, for our people, not just unproductive but destructive.  There are political signs all across the West of a yearning for an alternative.  The timing is ripe for ethnic nationalism.  But then as nationalists we come up against the stops of our marginalisation and downright persecution (which will get a lot worse if the Law Commissioners get in England what the SNP government has wanted for Scotland).

The one defence we possess is that the political, media, and liberal Establishments are marginalising and persecuting a political standpoint we, as ethnic nationalists, do not hold.  It is no more correct and appropriate to attack our politics than it is to attack the politics of the Board of Deputies of British Jews.  Advocacy for the existence, natural right, and natural interests of whole peoples cannot be illegitimate, and advocacy for the existence, natural right, and natural interests of the native British people cannot be separated out and treated differently simply because as the natives of this land our interests run counter to those of the non-native populations colonising it. Equality before the law must prevail.  Properly explicated and rid of false associations from the judge and jury which is liberal thinking, ethnic nationalism is morally unimpeachable whichever people it refers to.

Of course, that is a utilitarian argument for theorising the mechanics of ethnic nationalism.  It is a good argument but it is not the whole of the argument, the most serious part of which is the necessity to fashion a philosophy capable of changing history in an epochal sense.  I think we are moving closer to that.  But nothing is yet extant, and in the meantime the narrative of our politics is supplied by so-called “ground-breaking” academics of nationalism.  All working from within the liberal order, they have produced little that we would recognise as our politics.  For example:

Eric Gellner (1925-1995), a Czech-born Jew, theorised nationalism from the starting point of cultural plurality, treating nationalism as a product of modernity and an artificial and strictly political imposition upon the state.  He held that nationalism can only exist in industrial society, by which assertion he could divorce it from the principle of ethnicity (which he did actually hold to be enduring).  In turn, that divorce enabled him to assert that nationalist sentiment is actuated by “the feeling of anger” or “the feeling of satisfaction”, depending on whether “the political and national unit” is “congruent”.  Gellner’s academically influential notions about nationalism are narrow and near-sighted, quite lacking the sense that the fundamental interests of the people must be expressed in their government.

Benedict Anderson (1936-2015), an Anglo-Irishman born in China, also concluded that nationalism was modern, and a response to capitalism.  His famous work Imagined Communities made the classic sceptical plaint that peoplehood requires everyone to have been introduced over the dinner table to everyone else or the people must, to some extent, be a work of the imagination.

This assertion has become a staple of the Marxised left’s stabby little denials.  We could, I suppose, turn to the Mooreian Shift to dispense with it.  But, in fact, that natural acceptance of what is in another because that is also in oneself ... the quiet but utterly solid contentment conferred by being-in-kind, walking among kind ... that suffices.  Were it otherwise ... were a man unable to acknowledge his entire people because he hasn’t met all of them in person, then, in principle, knowledge of the immediate and singular is reified over knowledge of the expansive and plural.  So, for example, a plurality that is a crowd at a football game can only ever possess the meaning of individual football fans as witnessed by each one of them.  When those people leave the stadium they must, by Anderson’s scepticism, remain only and always football fans and not be husbands, fathers, brothers, lovers, workers, shoppers, travellers, holiday-makers, or all that is of the endless round of human experience; because that human fullness would be “imaginary” for everyone at the game.  But we do not hold that other people are incomplete human beings simply on the ground that we do not know them completely.  We know and experience them to be just as we are, even those we have not ourselves met.
 
Anderson, by the way, gave his memoir the title of A Life Beyond Boundaries, which figures.

Anthony D Smith (1936-2015), a Jewish sociologist, argued that ethnic nationalism, as a common ethnic address of power and agency, was a thing of the non-European world.  But in the European world such a nationalism is an invented imposition upon pre-existing ethnicities, histories, myths, and so forth, and properly functions only as an accident of geography and symbolism in the wake, again, of capitalism and modernity.  The organisational rule, meanwhile, is civically nationalist.  It does not even require that its adherents in any given place look alike.

Walker Connor (1926-2016), an American political scientist, was the best of the bunch born before WW2 in that he made no bones about the ethnic foundation of nationalism.  But he approached it through the lens of conflict in the world instead of through the expression of human being, making it too much a negative phenomenon.

Further, he held it to be non-rational and emotional in character while at the same time insisting that it was based on kinship.  Well, you can’t have it both ways.  Either it is of the human instinct for kin or it is non-rational.  The assumption that the first proves the second is wrong.  Ethnic nationalism, as the whole people’s freedom to pursue its interest in survival and continuity, is not at all problematic to explain intellectually, although such explanation is not a pre-requisite - which it cannot be, of course, because instinct precedes thought.  The idea that anything, actually, is entirely constructed of thought is itself a nonsense.

It is the same with Connor’s related belief that because nationalism belongs to the human instinct it is subconscious.  Do men and women have subconscious mutual attraction, or it is fully and gloriously conscious?  Well, just so with ethnic self-preference.  Connor commits the same error of sloppy thinking and terminological inexactitude that he spent his whole life correcting in fellow academics.  His career-long insistence upon exactitude gave us the clumsy appellation ethnonationalism.  We have no reason to avail ourselves of it.

With the exception of Frank Salter, the later generation of academics have largely devoted their energies to the political relationship of the ethnic group to the state, or to the political expression of ethnicity in citizenship.  The nativist aspects of ethnic nationalism have been treated positively only in respect to archaic Third World tribes.  The nativism of European peoples is consistently reduced to a negative manifestation towards immigrants and immigration, as if the rest of humanity has absolutely no opinion on the colonisation of its homeland and it own replacement by alien populations.

At present, a lot of noise is being made around the self-promoting Israeli religious scholar Yoram Hazony, whose rise to prominence really got going with his 2018 book The Virtue of Nationalism.  But, of course, while he is for “nationalism” and against globalism as a governing power over nation states (which he characterises as a form of imperialism) he is against “tribalism”, ie, he is for the multiracial nation state (after all, 20% of the population of Israel is Palestinian, and it’s not like the Israeli government is going to flood its Jewish population with Sub-Saharan Africans and North Africans, and the masses of the Turkic world, Arabia and south, central, and east Asia; so that’s alright, then).

The Chatham House “scholar” and globalist pet Matthew Goodwin is the resident go-too British “expert” on all things allegedly right-wing.  He has treated his mainstream political clientelle to studies of the “fascist” BNP, UKIP, populism, the radical right and, with his next tome due in 2021, the whole shabang of nation, identity and belonging.  Goodwin is not a philosopher, of course.  So the strong probablility is that, writing from the liberal mentality as he does, he will have no more comprehension of the real dynamics of ethnic nationalism - its ontology, its philosophical principles and interior workings - than any of the gentlemen above.  I strongly suspect that nationalism as a naturalistic and emergent organising structure or system for the whole life of Man is something neither he nor any of them can penetrate because that cannot be done from the non-emergent, indeed imposed and artificial organising system which is liberalism.  A clumsy new word for this a lá Walker Connor would seem to be needed.  Liberocentricity, perhaps.

At this point we should acknowledge that we, connected though we are to the whole world of nationalism, are little better at formally explicating our own system of thought.  We seem to be content to recline into the comfortable notion that it can’t matter too much because as ethnic nationalists (please let us not employ Connor’s semiotic) it’s all effortlessly instinctive.

Accordingly, we have brought forth vast reams of critical analysis of our deteriorating racial circumstance, such that even those of us who qualify as long-standing nationalists with developed critiques of our own rarely rise in our politics above reaction, be that born of our instincts or from our factual observations and judgements.  To put it bluntly, critique is an unsexed thing.  It can never seed the ideational future.  So it can never serve the historical obligation upon us to re-order the world for the life and good of our kind.  A politics which seeks that has to come out of an holistic and original nexus of thought about the life of Man.  From the moment that modernist thinking appeared as a revolutionary tool of the powerful, nothing less ever had historical agency.