The moment Charlie finally got everything his way, including “Queen” Camilla.

I have read none of the press articles and studiously avoided all the broadcasts on Charles’ coronation, including the coverage of the event itself.  It is of less interest to me than the birdsong in our garden or the gentle rain that fell for much of the day on its newly cut lawns.  These things gladden.  My wife tells me that, as has become traditional at the coronation of British monarchs, they sang Hubert Parry’s “I was glad” in Westminster Abbey.  But what, to me, is the accession of this self-absorbed man, the very model of the paternalistic liberal and a climate alarmist and diversitoid to boot, to the British throne?  As an institution in Time, hereditary monarchy testifies - or should still testify - to the nation’s dignity and standing, and should function as a focal point for the people’s identity.  Does Charles have any thought whatever for the English people?  The non-whites colonising us obviously pre-occupy him.  The Welsh and Scots perhaps also, in some antique way.  But the English?  I see no sign that he even knows who we are, or wants to know.  Our name is becoming unsayable.

It can at least be said of his mother Elizabeth that she rigorously avoided all public entanglement with politics.  Not for one moment will the new monarch be able to replicate that.  I foresee inevitable damage to the reputation of the monarchy, and a steady if not spectacular detachment of the British Establishment’s messaging about the British nation from our own sense of identity and relation.

Now that would be worth a bit of attention.

A residential apartment block in Dnipro hit by a Russian missile on 14th January 2023

This morning the DT’s live Ukraine feed carried a brief report of comments by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s, revealing the Kremlin’s real interest in peace talks with Ukraine, ie, it doesn’t have any.  The war is for empire and geopolitics, not for ethnic Russians in Ukraine (or in Russia).  The Kremlin’s interest is that the United States “negotiates” giving up of its status as global hegemon in exchange for Putin making nice with Zelensky for five minutes.  Lavrov actually means that American maintenance of the rules-based international order has to be ended so Russia can upgrade its non-rules-based, eurasionist model of imperial power to a global level.

I would remind readers that the Kremlin power elites define multipolarity as a collection of economic blocs, each led by a dominant power.  The model allows the Kremlin to piggy-back (with “no limits”) off the China’s inevitably global hegemony - as close as it can get to hegemon itself.

Here is the report:

Any Ukraine peace talks should be about ‘new world order’

Moscow wants any Ukraine peace talks to focus on creating a “new world order”, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on a visit to Turkey on Friday.

He also threatened to abandon a landmark grain deal, which Turkey helped broker, if obstacles to Russian exports remain.

“Any negotiation needs to be based on taking into account Russian interests, Russian concerns,” Lavrov said.

“It should be about the principles on which the new world order will be based.”

He added that Russia rejects a “unipolar world order led by ‘one hegemon’”.

Road-blocks as party-political publicity

Is the antithesis of globalism’s totalistic vision of Man really only reaction to specific aspects of the globalist programme?  Can the latter ever be enough?

This is the question which lies ahead if and when that reaction gains momentum across the West (or, most likely, in those parts of it which employ some form of electoral proportional representation).  It is the question on which the future of nationalism and of the West would then depend.  But for now, in the wake of the Farmer-Citizen movement [BoerBurgerBeweging or BBB] showing in last Wednesday’s election to the Dutch Senate, the answer is the usual: anything’s better than nothing.  Just be grateful for what few scraps fall from history’s table, it says.

Put most directly, the BBB’s scraps testify to a deep-rooted and emerging conflict between the shameless careerists of the Dutch political machine and the traditionalist spirit of rural Holland.  Electorally, that conflict is pitting the urban liberal elites and the strangulated postmoderns who are the victims of green propaganda against hitherto betrayed and voiceless conservatives.  It sounds revolutionary, but civic nationalist populism is never that.

As of this moment, the external mainstream media have yet to explain that the people over whom the elite’s environmentalism and progressivism ride still retain the power to vote. The BBC reported the election with scarcely a word about the underlying cause:

A farmers’ party has stunned Dutch politics, and is set to be the biggest party in the upper house of parliament after provincial elections.

The Farmer-Citizen movement was only set up in 2019 in the wake of widespread farmers’ protests.

But with most votes counted they are due to win 15 of the Senate’s seats with almost 20% of the vote.

“This isn’t normal, but actually it is! It’s all normal citizens who voted,” said leader Caroline van der Plas.

The BBB aims to fight government plans to slash nitrogen emissions harmful to biodiversity by dramatically reducing livestock numbers and buying out thousands of farms.

But its appeal has spread rapidly beyond its rural heartland, on a populist platform that represents traditional, conservative Dutch social and moral values.

Shocked by the scale of their success, Ms van der Plas told supporters that voters normally stayed at home if they lost faith in politics: “But today people have shown they can’t stay at home any longer. We won’t be ignored any more.”

A left-wing Green-Labour alliance is also on course to win 15 Senate seats, while Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s four-party coalition is poised to fall back to 24 - down eight seats.

Turnout in Wednesday’s vote, estimated at 57.5%, was the highest for years.

For nationalists the election was double-edged.  Nowhere in the West can nationalism both speak its own truths and trim to accommodate mainstream sensibilities.  Where it gains something by the latter it seems destined to lose it when a civic nationalist party comes along.

Accordingly, the growth in BBB’s vote-share has came at a cost to Thierry Baudet’s divided and weakened Forum for Democracy (FvD), which won nearly 15% of the vote in 2019 provincial elections, but collapsed to 3% this time.  The concern, therefore, is that BBB is not expanding into the conservative vote-share as much as it might seem, but hoovering up the votes of the existing dissenters on the basis of another “new way forward”.  Certainly, BBB did not just focus on Mark Rutte’s environmental extremism in the wake of the farmers protests.  It presented itself as a dog-whistle right-wing populist party which was somewhat critical of the EU, likewise critical of immigration, and in favour of banning burkas for Muslims.

In any case, the Re-Set is real and oncoming.  In Holland and, via Reform, in the UK civic nationalism seems set to carry the dissenter’s torch.  One way or another the question of its sufficiency will be answered.

... but, of course, it’s all just a consultation process with absolutely no set agenda.  Nothing to do with Davos, no no.  Perfectly sensible, really, when cash use is falling (actually it’s rising) and when the economy is digitising (even if Sterling fully meets that requirement already).  And, of course, expectations that the new currency will be, y’know, programmable are just conspiracy theories.  Naturally.  I mean, who would think that any freedom-loving, not at all totalitarian and globalist Western government could ever contemplate, oh, say freezing peoples’ bank accounts?

Here is the meat of the DT’s characteristically anodyne article:

‘Digital pound’ possible by 2030 in bid to combat falling use of cash
State-backed virtual currency ‘likely’ as Bank of England and Treasury back ‘Britcoin’ project

The Bank of England and Treasury will next week throw their weight behind a “digital pound” as they set out a roadmap to introduce a new central bank currency by 2030.

Andrew Bailey and Jeremy Hunt are expected to say it is “likely” that a new form of money will be needed as cash use continues to decline in an increasingly digital economy.

It is understood that any new state-backed digital currency – which has been dubbed “Britcoin” in the press - would sit alongside cash. However, the plans are likely to fuel fears that physical currency could one day be phased out altogether.

The decision by Mr Hunt and Mr Bailey to throw their weight behind the project comes almost two years after Prime Minister Rishi Sunak set up a taskforce as Chancellor to explore whether to create a so-called central bank digital currency (CBDC).

“On the basis of our work to date, the Bank of England and HM Treasury judge that it is likely a digital pound will be needed in the future,” the Bank of England Governor and current Chancellor say in extracts of a consultation paper seen by The Telegraph.

“It is too early to commit to build the infrastructure for one, but we are convinced that further preparatory work is justified,” Mr Hunt and Mr Bailey will say ...

The Bank and Treasury will launch a four-month consultation in which businesses, academics and the wider public will be invited to share their views on the launch of a digital pound ...

Officials have identified 2025 as “the earliest” date the Bank could start building and testing a currency prototype. No decision on whether to go ahead with a CBDC is expected until then. The Bank has previously said that the earliest date for launch of a UK CBDC was “the second half of the decade”.

Other countries are already trialling national digital currencies, with China an early trailblazer. Trials of the digital renminbi first began in 2021.

Will it transpire that the British public - the real one, ethnically - will stand and fight government for its money and economic freedom, and for its ancient civil rights in a way it has signally failed to do for its own life and land?  Could be.

The following quotes are from an interesting (paywalled) article at the Telegraph, and speak to the impact of Putin’s failure in Ukraine and the resurgence of Western confidence.

China has extended the olive branch to Western democracies and global capitalists alike, promising a new era of detente after the coercive “wolf warrior” diplomacy of the last five years.

Vice-premier Liu He, the economic plenipotentiary of Xi Jinping’s China, told a gathering of business leaders and ministers in Davos that China is back inside the tent and eager to restore the money-making bonhomie of the golden years. 

“We must let the market play the fundamental role in the allocation of resources, and let the government play a better role. Some people say China will go for the planned economy. That’s by no means possible,” he said.

“All-round opening-up is the basis of state policy and the key driver of economic progress. China’s national reality dictates that opening up to the world is a must, not an expediency. We must open up wider and make it work better,” he told the World Economic Forum ...

It is a subtle way of telling the world that the neo-Maoist fever of Xi Jinping’s second term has subsided since the 20th Party Congress in October. Xi’s third term is going to be a giant pivot back to international harmony.

China is calling off its ruinous assault on technology companies – the country’s most dynamic entrepreneurs, but also the regime’s most powerful political foes ...

Vice-premier Liu He’s conciliatory pitch is also a signal that China will return to its longstanding position as a stakeholder of the existing Davosian global order rather than a revisionist power determined to overthrow it.

“We need to uphold an effective international economic order. We have to abandon the cold war mentality,” he said, pledging a push for “economic re-globalisation”. There was not a whiff of criticism of the US or the West. No speech of this kind has been delivered by a top Chinese leader for years ...

It goes well beyond the first signs of a tentative thaw at a US-China summit late last year, suggesting that China’s 20th Party Congress marked a watershed moment in Chinese strategic thinking. Whether it is authentic or tactical remains to be seen.

In a sense, the new policy is a recognition by the Communist Party that the democracies are not as weak as they looked a year or two ago. The West still controls the machinery of global finance, technology transfer, and maritime trade. The war in Ukraine has revealed that it can be remarkably unified and has a backbone of steel when seriously provoked.

Xi’s profession of friendship “without limits” for Vladimir Putin is surely an embarrassment he would rather forget – though there are some advantages for Beijing in a dependent Russia with nowhere else to turn. Russia’s military has been exposed as a paper tiger. Its value as an ally is enormously degraded.

Above all, Xi Jinping discovered that the US controls the global supply of advanced semiconductor chips, the primary fuel of the 21st century technological economy.

Without that you are nothing. China’s repeated efforts to close the chip gap have all faltered, and the latest has just been abandoned due to prohibitive costs ...

Deng Xiaoping long pursued a policy of “bide your time and hide your strength”. When Xi Jinping abandoned this restraint and switched suddenly to a posture of impatient menace he revealed what China might be like as the global hegemon.

This reached its apotheosis in pandemic triumphalism. It was not an attractive spectacle. Switching back even more suddenly to global happy talk will be a hard sell.

As to the Western feeling about Xi’s “impatience”, compare the above with the following boilerplate from the Daily Mail, published on 19th October last year:

Get ready for China ‘on steroids’: Xi Jinping will complete his totalitarian spy-state, take on the US and aim to break Western world order if he is given historic third term as leader, experts predict
● Xi Jinping set to become Chinese leader for third term this week, the first since Mao to rule for so long.
● Experts predict he will use term to complete ‘totalitarian’ spy-state using technology to repress all opposition.
● Xi will also take aggressive stance with the West and try to put China on equal footing with the US, they added.
● Ultimate aim is to break Western world order and establish another system with China at the centre, they said.

My immediate take on the change of strategy?  This pivot is almost certainly the result of Putin’s big gambit in Ukraine and the surprise of the West’s unified response to it, allied to the (for Beijing) straitening success of the Western economies in surviving Putin’s energy war.  Since the party’s 20th conference last October, when the threat to Taiwan was at its height, there appears to have been a decision that Putin has failed and there are costs to forging ahead with that “unlimited friendship” which a pragmatic Chinese leadership is unwilling to pay.  Probably at this time.  Probably because formal international support elsewhere for Putin is limited to Iran, North Korea and some fly-blown African place.  Support for Glazyev’s dollar reserve replacement is strong across the southern hemisphere, and probably now includes Lula’s Brazil in addition to Saudi.  But then the Western elites are not at all hostile to it, either.  Quite the contrary.  So Beijing is returning to geo-economics, because it is a stronger suite to play.  I don’t think that the Middle Kingdom goal has or will be dropped.  But the Chinese are good at patience.

Next week, as Breitbart has reminded us, the global movers and shakers will gather at Davos for the 53rd annual meeting of the World Economic Forum.  One quite expects that green virtues will be signalled as never before.  But what was not expected was a very firm contrary statement yesterday from US Federal Reserve chairman, Jerome Powell:

Central banks risk undermining independence by wading into social issues and seeking to tackle climate change, the head of the US Federal Reserve has warned.

Jerome Powell said it was essential that institutions “resist the temptation” to wade into “social issues” that go beyond their remit.

... Mr Powell singled out climate change as an “inappropriate” topic for unelected central bankers to address.

He told the audience in Stockholm: “We should stick to our knitting and not wander off to pursue perceived social benefits that are not tightly linked to our statutory goals.

“We [Federal Reserve] are not and we will not be a climate policymaker.

“Taking on new goals, however worthy, without a clear statutory mandated would undermine the case for our independence.”

Powell is a registered Republican, appointed in 2018 by Donald Trump.  But it is difficult to see Powell’s statement as motivated by anything but the strict fiduciary duty of a financial servant of the American people, and difficult to see strict fiduciary duty as in any way consonant with the new global order which the Washington Establishment and, indeed, the entire Western Establishment is striving to bring into being.  I would like to be able to link this new regard for staying on the financial reservation to the defence of Western national interests which informs support for Ukraine.  But I can’t see the link, and Western national interests are absolutely not on the globalist play-list.

So, a simple question: why is Powell moving away from the Davos agenda?

Finally, twenty months and 1.5 million migrants after the Census date last year, here is what the ONS has to say:

g18nbg1r.bmp

On Census Day, the size of the usual resident population in England and Wales was 59,597,300.  The population of England was 56,489,800.  The population of Wales was 3,107,500.  This was the largest the population has ever been.

About the natives it has this to say:

In 2021, 81.7% (48.7 million) of usual residents in England and Wales identified their ethnic group within the high-level “White” category, a decrease from 86.0% (48.2 million) in the 2011 Census ...

Within the “White” ethnic group, 74.4% (44.4 million) of usual residents in England and Wales identified their ethnic group as “English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish or British”. This was a decrease from 80.5% (45.1 million) in 2011, and a continued decrease from 2001, when 87.5% (45.5 million) identified as “White: British”.

There was a decrease in the number of people identifying their ethnic group as “White: Irish”, from 531,000 (0.9%) in 2011 to 507,000 (0.9%) in 2021.

So according to the ONS, in the decade to March 2021we have declined by 700,000 or 1.55%.  We are 73.9% of the total population (my finger-in-the-air estimate, in the run-up to this release, was 72%, so naturally I am concluding that the Establishment is playing things down!).

On the colonising groups the ONS had this to say:

dg88w9jr.bmp

•  The next most common high-level ethnic group was “Asian, Asian British or Asian Welsh” accounting for 9.3% (5.5 million) of the overall population, this ethnic group also saw the largest percentage point increase from 2011, up from 7.5% (4.2 million people).

•  Across the 19 ethnic groups, the largest percentage point increase was seen in the number of people identifying through the “White: Other White” category (6.2%, 3.7 million in 2021, up from 4.4%, 2.5 million in 2011), this response option allows people to specify their ethnic group through writing it in; the increase may be partly explained by the new search-as-you-type functionality introduced for Census 2021, making it easier for people to self-define when completing the census online.

•  Large changes were also seen in the numbers of people identifying their ethnic group as “Other ethnic group: Any other ethnic group” (1.6%, 924,000 in 2021, up from 0.6%, 333,000 in 2011), and “Black, Black British, Black Welsh, Caribbean or African: African” (2.5%, 1.5 million in 2021, up from 1.8%, 990,000); both ethnic groups had the option to write in their response.

•  In England and Wales, 10.1% (2.5 million) of households consisted of members identifying with two or more different ethnic groups, an increase from 8.7% (2.0 million) in 2011.

In terms of significant milestones the Census reveals that “two-thirds of Londoners now identify as being from an ethnic minority, with just 36.8 per cent of people identifying as “white English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish or British”.  The natives are also now a minority in Birmingham, England’s second city.

A reminder of what the Oxford demographer David Coleman wrote 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.

Posted at YouTube two days ago, this self-explanatory video from the Israeli start-up Redefine Food showcases yet another attempt by food technologists to help the new technocratic overlords demonise nitrogen, ban livestock farming, and buy up all the farmland to re-forest and re-wild.  This is brave, considering “industry leader” Beyond Meat is all set to be the next failure.  Last month it was reported that its “stock has tumbled 74% this year and a whopping 93% from its all-time closing high”.  Nobody wants to buy this stuff.  If money actually means anything to “investors” (and there is no immediate sign that it does), Redefine Meat should be printing its own bankruptcy notice quite soon.  I mean, just look at the gunk they expect you to consume!