Native Man, Pragmatic Man, Nietzschean Man ... but Revolution Man?

On 22nd June 1948 a vessel owned by the Board of Trade but leased to the New Zealand Shipping Company quietly docked at Tilbury.  It disgorged 494 fare-paying black Jamaican passengers: migrants who, at the invitation of the ship-operators, had taken it upon themselves to turn up in our country to improve their lot in life.  This small and novel event precipitated what would quickly become a permanent revolt of the political class against the sovereign people of this land, which itself set off a chain of race/ethnicity-based political, legal, social, and economic actions and reactions.  Inconceivable seven decades ago, these have reached down into every corner of British national life, and have proved absolutely cataclysmic for our people.  They have been conjoined with other immoralities, other political betrayals, each heralding other disasters, such that, in these days, the gravest darkness and uncertainty hangs over even our immediate future.

Any man or woman who finds even some of this troubling and begins to question it already has one foot placed on the long road of understanding that leads to some form of nationalism.  It may take months or even years before the seeker detaches from the old, safe hostilities of left and right, and formulates the notion that the entirety of politics, culture and economics is made horribly, equally destructive by some inhering force or combination of forces.  It will likely take longer still before said seeker also asks what we, as a people, must do to remain not just free or democratic or Christian, or whatever, but who we are.  But then he or she has turned a significant corner.  The people and the people’s everlasting home have been reclaimed from the estrangements of the old ways of thinking, and will not be lost to sightlessness and uncaring again.  With that understanding comes a critique of many other things in this world, such that the whole constitutes an awakening from a deep but general slumber, and a liberation into a new sensing of truth and an intense sensing of identity … of our ethnic person ... of belonging and, most of all, of an existential care.

For the vast majority who accomplish this return it is done alone and osmotically, like a salmon leaving the ocean to return to the place of its arising.  It is a journey of the instinct to an honourable estate, but not a whole nationalist estate.  It is not got from real-world contact with nationalists or any prior ideology of British nationalism.  It is invariably the product of time spent on-line, and had this not been the internet age little of this awakening would ever have been possible.  As it is, the resulting amour propre is nationalism to its possessors, though that singular element of care defines it more exactly as nativism. We might, therefore, justly apply to these good folks the soubriquet “Native Man”.

READ MORE...

Revolution?  What revolution?

Notwithstanding its factual omissions and its very tiresome liberal bias, Wikipedia does have its occasional uses.  For present purposes, one of those is to keep a running record of the political parties registered in the UK with the Electoral Commission, and even a record of those parties which have been de-registered and are now defunct.  Immediately below, then, is an abstract from that record, showing the registration status of all the nationalist and like “right-wing” parties.  Below that is a table logging the fresh-dug graves of nationalists’ electoral dreams.  Together they comprise decades of history of political nationalism in all its ideological forms, and provide a telling snapshot of how ordinary men and women, but extraordinary dissenters, have attempted to make politics in the name and for the cause of our people.

One notable name missing from the log is Patriotic Alternative.  Mark Collett’s repeated attempts to prevail upon the Electoral Commission to register Patriotic Alternative have thus far met only with obfuscation and delay.  One might assume at this point that the Electoral Commission will require to be served with a court order to cease discriminating against PA, as appears to have been the case with the now-registered but deeply forgettable Britain First.  Perhaps the EC is calculating that working people, which nationalists typically are, tend not to be able to afford lawyers’ fees.  Perhaps it is right in that.  Perhaps, anyway, it is driven by government’s interest in hardening its grip on the electoral process as the enterprise which is the Age of the Covid and the enterprise which is the Climate crisis progress, and the political, social and economic environment itself becomes more extreme.

In any case, here are both logs:

READ MORE...

Continuing the Morgoth theme, this video builds on an article written here, advancing it by the addition of Morgoth’s unsurpassed cultural-historical critique.  It even mentions the Craig series of James Bond films!

I would like to be able to say that, finally, one of us has been granted access to the golden temple of the respectable, and we’re going mainstream, baby.  But not yet.  Not quite.  James Delingpole, “libertarian-conservative” and freedom junkie though he is, hasn’t been entirely respectable himself for a few years now.  He is too much the enfant terrible of climate scepticism - a role he has honourably discharged for a dozen years - and, latterly as executive editor of Breitbart London, far too far right, doncha know.  His discovery of Davos and The Great Re-Set has, of course, tipped him over into Tin-Foil World, from which there is no coming back.  James is lost to liberal reason and the literati dinner party circuit forever.  He is about 40% “there”, from a nationalist perspective.  But one should say that none of us are sufficiently informed to be more than, say, 60% or 65% of the way, and actually none of us really knows what 100% would be, because the boundaries keep expanding.  Who knew anything very much about the Re-Set even two years ago.

Anyway, James gave a very kind and entertaining hearing to Morgoth, not diving too deep because that’s not the way these interviews work, but deep enough to satisfy.  A lot of typically Morgothian bases were covered ... Tolkien, Spengler (he was good on Spengler), lots of cultural analysis and analysis of the “power” in power elitism, the left, the Re-Set, the football.  Morgoth acquitted himself well and demonstrated that a Northumbrian bloke from a building site can parley with as much intellectual authority as anyone.  As James said, he stood up his arguments.

There was one slightly scary moment when Morgoth mentioned the tribe, and one could see James pondering his Breitbart earner.  There was one other moment when James just possibly revealed a liberal paternalist’s abiding contempt for nationalism; but it passed quickly.  But that aside, it was a convivial chat about hugely important matters, and I enjoyed it.  I just wish that the doors to the wider world would start to open now; but I suspect that in the present febrile climate they are probably closing on James too.

You can listen to the interview, all 1 hour and 2 mins of it, here:

https://odysee.com/@JamesDelingpoleChannel:0/morgoth:d

My old friend Morgoth has posted a timely video to his Odyssey account on the question of whether, amid this crazy push to have our daily life-experience Africanised to the max, we loyal and aware Englishmen should watch or otherwise support the highly Africanised England Football Association squad in its attempt to win the 2020 UEFA European Football Championship, commonly referred to as Euro 2020. 

Morgoth makes an operationally sound case for purity of principle and the outright refusal to watch England’s matches, which now means the final on Sunday.  But it is his critique of the political right and its effective acceptance of the white players’ sickening taking of the knee, as well as the multiracialisation of Gareth Southgate’s team, which most caught my attention.  Morgoth dismisses the typical excuses and explanations of the political right as an attempt to wriggle away from the pain of their own submission to the conventions dictated to them by the Establishment.  He may be correct about that - I cannot judge because I do not expect nationalist reflexes from non-nationalists.  All sleepers are equally lost in reverie.  Some ... the right-wing ones ... are actuated by the modern religion of the petty self.  Some ... the ones on the left ... by the postmodern religion of racial self-contempt.  None are really responsible for their own immersion in Time and Place.  They are not properly conscious human beings and they do not possess the means to defend their emotional and intellectual integrity from harm.  Only nationalists can do that.

I haven’t found a way to embed Morgoth’s video on this platform.  But the URL is:

https://odysee.com/@MorgothReviews:5/BLMEnglandSquad:e

... and I recommend listening to what the man has to say in own words.

That said, I want to add some thoughts of my own.  Actually, I want to take a somewhat personal wander around Wembley’s hallowed turf, and in the dark of the night take a couple of illicit practise pens.

READ MORE...

I have been waiting for some days for regular ConHome contributor Robert Halfon, a Jewish Conservative MP married to a Brazilian woman, and serving chairman of the Education Select Committee, to post a piece about his current report into the condition of white working-class children in the education system.  Halfon is a decent enough man as MP’s go, and his report does exhibit compassion and concern for this failing constituency.  It acknowledges, for example, that the system is guilty of neglect.  Halfon particularly deplores the current hard-left turn to Critical Race Theory.  He wants some rather obvious if also tepid action to assist the white child-victims of the education system.  But, of course, he can’t admit that the problem runs much deeper than that, and the condition of these children is more existential.

ConHome is edited by another Jew, the Catholicised Paul Goodman, who allows on the site any hard-left criticism of the Conservative government, and even milque toast, sub-Farage civic nationalist criticism of immigration.  But naming the native victims, now that’s one step too far and summary excommunication will follow.  Nevertheless, ConHome is the primary right-of-centre party-affiliated UK site which permits readers’ comments, so the war for freedom of expression has to be fought.  The circle of the say-able has to be widened.

Mr Goodman, or one of his gentile co-workers dedicated to the great Conservative cause of corporate whoring, will very shortly be rushing to narrow it again ...

Verry

It’s not simply neglect. It’s not even that the educational establishment and the teaching profession have sought to level to the ground what English children can know of their own history, culture, and peoplehood. It’s also that multiracialising the English homeland and life experience is a producer of the draining and destructive phenomenon of culture shock. Any native people made subject to colonisation, and then deserted and attacked by its own authorities wielding pure, malignant lies about equality and racism, will lose the golden thread of relation and meaning in its life. The resulting anomie, self-estrangement, powerlessness and hopelessness IS culture shock; and it will manifest in the education of the children and in their later lives, deepening with each generation.

You politicians have attempted murder.

Today the Telegraph reported on an academic paper commending a new lexicography of race and ethnicity in order to combat very, very naughty racist thoughts by white men:

Dr Ewan Birney, deputy director of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory at the Wellcome Genome Campus in Cambridgeshire, is also a co-author of the article.

He explains that beyond dropping Caucasian, other terms should also be avoided, including ethnicity labels - such as “Native American”, “Hispanic” and “White Irish” - and cultural terms such as “European”.

Dr Birney and his colleagues advocate for scientists to replace these commonly used words and phrases with more complex language, based around a two-step genetic analysis.

As a result, he says this more technical language would see the label of “European” replaced with “The European-associated PCA cluster, which aims to minimise variation in non-genetic factors and genetic factors”.

Dr Birney is actually Prof Birney, and as well as holding other positions in the gene biz he is a co-director of the European Bioinfomatics Institute, the “home for big data in biology”.  Oddly, this rather large and, no doubt, exceedingly well-funded organisation does know what race is when it needs to:

As Europe’s premier centre for bioinformatics, our commitment to diversity and inclusion is critical to our success in delivering excellence in science. As a global organisation with employees from 80+ nationalities we encourage and empower our employees to be their authentic selves at work, embracing the unique combination of culture, race, ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity/expression, physical or mental ability and work-life situations.

Along with himself, Prof Birney credits five colleagues with the writing of the paper, which is titled “The language of race, ethnicity, and ancestry in human genetic research”.  They set out their case thus:

In the case of human genetics (by which we mean the genetic study of human biology and disease) this often involves terminology inherited from anthropology and population genetics, both of which have evolved significantly in recent years. Both fields now firmly reject longstanding ideas of race as a meaningful biological category and labels which were founded in racist perspectives of the 20th and preceding centuries. For example, it is now clear that while humans vary genetically, there is no natural or inherent categorization of human genetic diversity at any global scale. The genetic structures we find are tangled and complex, reflecting our history of worldwide migration, population divergence and admixture, both ancient and recent. While not without consequence for human traits, genetic ancestry and diversity are poorly reflected in the range of anatomical features used in older studies that sought to categorize individuals and groups, features such as pigmentation and cranial or post-cranial morphology. Hence, the racial and ethnographic labels used in such historical studies, and more fundamentally their categorizing approach, have little relevance for understanding human population genetics. Furthermore, the consequences of misunderstanding and misusing these categories, and the terms associated with them, are far from neutral: science, society and politics have always been inherently connected.

As geneticists, we believe that there is an increasing need to address one of the more uncomfortable aspects of this connection, where in the words of American Society of Human Genetics “the invocation of genetics to promote racist ideologies is one of many factors causing racism to persist” [1]. As the source of evidence which some ideologues misrepresent to fit their views of biology and society, the human genetics community has an obligation to revisit and, where possible, change its language to be both more accurate and less confusing or harmful in the public arena. In science, we always aim for precision in our language, but it is not feasible to completely eliminate the possibility of misunderstanding, wilful or otherwise.

Prof Birney also has a blog, which he has not used much, it must be said.  But his last but one post back in 2019 was titled “Race, genetics, and pseudo-science: an explainer”, and it explains that:

Racial categories, as most people understand them today, have some of their roots in the development of scientific thinking during only the last few centuries. As Europeans explored and colonised the world, thinkers, philosophers and scientists from those countries attempted to apply taxonomic structures to the people that they encountered, and though these attempts were many and varied, they typically reflected sharp geographic boundaries, and obvious physical characteristics, such as pigmentation and basic morphology – that is to say, what people look like. Research in the 20th century found that the crude categorisations used colloquially (black, white, East Asian etc.) were not reflected in actual patterns of genetic variation, meaning that differences and similarities in DNA between people did not perfectly match the traditional racial terms. The conclusion drawn from this observation is that race is therefore a socially constructed system, where we effectively agree on these terms, rather than their existing as essential or objective biological categories.

Some people claim that the exquisitely detailed picture of human variation that we can now obtain by sequencing whole genomes contradicts this. Recent studies, they argue, actually show that the old notions of races as biological categories were basically correct in the first place. As evidence for this they often point to the images produced by analyses in studies that seem to show natural clustering of humans into broadly continental groups based on their DNA. But these claims misinterpret and misrepresent the methods and results of this type of research. Populations do show both genetic and physical differences, but the analyses that are cited as evidence for the concept of race as a biological category actually undermine it.

Denying race is a form of professional lying, which is invariably undertaken by otherwise educated people “because racism”.  Prof Birney could as easily prove the taxonomic validity of race as disprove it - a fact my good friend John Standing thought he might demonstrate to the anti-racist Prof by way of some emailed questions, as follows:

READ MORE...

“GW, who, like other Europeans, has a non-existent grasp of American realities, leaves out many of the real problems of the American “movement,” which are discussed at this blog on a regular basis.”

So says JWH at his blog EGI Notes in what he titles a riposte to a comment I made here.

My comment made three rather fundamental points concerning the mountainous task which WN faces in securing the existence of America’s European folk and a white future for their sons and daughters.  I will not reiterate them all now, not least because JWH had little that was of interest to me to say on the last two of the three points.  But over the first of them - America is a Jeffersonian liberal project - he did build up a bit of a head of steam.  So ...

By that remark I do not only mean that Thomas Jefferson’s view of the constitution, democracy and the individual equipped with inalienable but equal and guaranteed rights has charactered the American political DNA; though I believe this to be so.  I mean that, contrary to McLuhan, the medium is the man, and the medium here is the person of the white American himself.  As the bearer and transmitter of that political DNA, he is ineffably also its human product.  The two are one.  Further, it is particularly powerful in him - more powerful, for example, than the 1798 revolutionary cause typically is within the person of a Frenchman.  Why, because while the Frenchman has a life on French soil measured in ages, the white American is ripped away into newness.  His existential condition is one of ethnic caesura, which denies him some considerable part of the natural, moderating counter-weight to all of the personality-forming influences of his time and place.  He goes further and more openly into the world which is about him.  To European eyes he is both a brother and a stranger.  For all his welcome racial familiarity, he can also exhibit an alarming and child-like absence of doubt in his convictions, of reserve in his enthusiasms, of forbearance of those who try him, of critical sight of self, and of irony and world-weary cynicism in his expressions.  Europeans notice these things and have opinions about them.  They ... we ... are not surprised that this separation of three and a half centuries and three and a half-thousand miles has consequences.

That said, these things are not mandatory or absolute in any sense.  Our white American brother is not just one political thing.  He is not Jefferson Man and only Jefferson Man.  But he is always European Man outwith European soil, and without European manners; and that liberalistic manner in which he is made, while it conditions him, no doubt, to the freedoms of the self-author, does not condition him so well to the turn to that which is closest and most fitting in his European relative.  Caesura leaves behind a divide which is not easily bridged, and raises the question: to what can this man turn?  Another question: is he anyway too completely enculturated in the liberal Weltanschauung to come to the knowledge that this present-to-hand medium of Americana is what he must, in a sense, kill (or die to)?  For his particular human authenticity is not that.  Liberalism’s consequence is that.

Now let’s finish with some context for this problem.  For there is a wider story which afflicts every European people, however rooted.  Yes, the operative system in which self-hood is modelled is liberalism and, yes, it leads us away into the artifice and self-estrangements of individualism and a socially-structured identity.  However, liberalism does not stand in isolation, but in a deep and ancient structure of confected human meanings.  Likewise, our race’s own genius has visited upon us existential challenges, such that wherever we look today we see our collective life shot through with dangers.

We can distinguish these in two streams which act upon us, and which we might term the historical and the historiographical.  We might then array them as follows:

All of the European peoples have mapped their particular journey to the present through these two structures, which always direct us, as their human product, towards artifice.  Everywhere we are, therefore, be it on my side of the Atlantic or on JWH’s, there is the same vast need for a politics of authenticity.

One of the very last email conversations I had with JWH, before he left MR many moons ago, was about the form of a salvational nationalism for our race; for today our nationalism is without an all-embracing life-philosophy that might stand in the stead of the liberal organising system.  As I recall, he hoped to combine Salterism with Yockeyism, and I hoped to find a way to make Heidegger workable.  From memory, I made some effort to explain why a Nietzschean politics cannot answer an existential question.  I wonder whether the passage of years has mellowed JWH’s philosophical quest.  Mine has only intensified.