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.

Today, President Macron will lead a national tribute to the teacher Samuel Paty, decapitated in a Paris suburb last Friday by an 18 year old Chechen, born in Moscow.  This comes on top of the large spontaneous public gatherings in many French towns over the weekend, in the immediate aftermath of the killing.  Macron has already made a public statement to the effect, according to Charles Moore in the Telegraph, that:

Paty was teaching “the freedom to believe and not to believe”. Winning this battle is “existential” for France, because, as a secular republic, the principle is foundational.

This is cant.  The real and racist attitude of the French government towards freedom of expression was shown by the prosecution and conviction, in January, of the writer Renaud Camus, for the sin of making a very fine speech in Colombey-les-deux Eglises on 21st October 2017 to the National Council of the European Resistance, of which he is president.  The speech itself was generous to the Jewish community of France and to its holocaust narrative.  But Camus still found himself pursued by the disgusting quasi-governmental and notably Jewish organisations SOSRacisme and LICRA, and charged with “public incitement to hate or violence on the basis of origin, ethnicity, nationality, race or religion”.  He was sentenced to two months in prison - quite enough to be at danger from non-white inmates - commutable against a payment of 1800 euros to these two bodies.  He paid the blackmailers.  But how much will he have been silenced?  More or less than the French teachers who will not now do what Samuel Paty did, and show their pupils a couple of the cartoons which prompted the Charlie Hebdo massacre of 7 January 2015?

In his initial response to Friday’s killing Macron said the attack shouldn’t divide France because that’s what the extremists want. “We must stand all together as citizens,” he said.  In the spirit of standing together, then, below the line I reproduce the entire text of Renaud Camus’ speech.  It is worth the time taken to read it.  But be sure to say nothing like this yourself if you visit France, and do not under any circumstances refer to immigration, as Camus did, as an invasion.  You are not a famous French author.  You will doubtless get two years if SOSRacisme or LICRA gets to hear of you.

READ MORE...

As the conversation between James and myself on his post detailing the sociobiological history of Euroman has drifted towards some thoughts of my own on the doomed Levellers of the English civil war period, I thought I might post those thoughts here in the following form.

The history of how the ancient, socially vivifying quality of fair-dealing between English brothers in law-conforming pre-Norman society flowed not into the timeless, naturalistic ethnic politics which we espouse today but into the modernist politics of equality and class conflict … that history is interesting and instructive.  It centres on one event in the autumn of 1647 at the very dawn of the modern era itself.  It is a story about the coming time of an idea, and the ideological clamour and energy which impels it into the political consciousness and into history.  It is a story about the ease with which an ancient contention can be suborned and bear consequences quite opposite to it.  It is a story, for us, about what might have been, but also a reminder that we possess the prior right to speak from those vivifying moral virtues which both socialists and Establishment anti-racists so readily and promiscuously ascribe to themselves.

A year and a half before Charles Stuart’s beheading, officers and men of the New Model Army (which had just driven the forces of the king out of London, and set up headquarters at Putney) had gathered along with commoners at St Mary’s Church.  They were there to debate the rights of free Englishmen, the meaning of sovereignty and consent, and the future Constitution of England, all which they did over the course of fifteen days from 28th October to 11th November.  They were the very antithesis of a rabble and a wondrous demonstration of the creativity and high-minded principle which abide among the ordinary and unassuming like water in the rocks.

St Mary’s Putney, sketched by Thomas Rowlandson, though over a century after the Putney Debates

St Mary’s Putney still stands today, hard by the bridge over the river.  Emblazoned on a plaque above the transcept is a single sentence uttered by Colonel Thomas Rainsborough, a Leveller, member of Parliament, and the highest ranking officer present in those fifteen days.  It was the enduring sentiment, and it reads, “For really, I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest he.”

The Putney Debates resonate strongly with liberals, and have an honoured place in their socio-political iconography as a watershed for the rights-based liberty of the individual against the over-bearing power of the state.  But Rainsborough’s truism, so plainly of its time in its usage, is also of its time in its relational certainties.  They are not the certainties of present-day liberals.  They do not relate to bloodless civic entities, each induced by the philosophical gods to unfetter his or her (or whatever’s) individual will while domiciled in the constitutional space otherwise known as England.  They relate to “the free people of England”, in the words of the Leveller Manifesto of 1649, actually titled An Agreement Of The Free People of England, signed by Lieutenant Colonel John Lilburne – “Freeborn John”, as he was known – and leading Levellers William Walwyn, Thomas Prince, and Richard Overton.  The text styled England as “this distressed nation” and, most interestingly, “this Common-wealth the land of our Nativity”.

Rainsborough’s England, then, was not at all the neutral administrative space of the liberal rationalist who would come a century after, nor neutral at all but the home we nationalists of today would recognise, where mutual belonging and fellow-feeling bestowed meaning and worth upon the life of every Englishman and woman.

The English Civil Wars are situated in the long (and, obviously, on-going) struggle of the Anglo-Saxon sons and daughters of the soil for deliverance from the Norman heel, and thence from all arbitrary power.  Lilburne – as near to an English nationalist as one could get in that religious age - actually wrote of common law as a Norman Yoke.  It is easy for us as nationalists today to understand the instinctive sense of English peoplehood which imbued and inspired Lilburne and all the other Levellers.  They were populists, and could command the stated support of a third of the populace of London.  But they were a minority in the New Model Army.  While all the parliamentarian forces made war on the degrading, subjugating power of absolute monarchy, the majority did not support the cause of a people’s participatory democracy, as conceived, for example, by Rainsborough who, after uttering his celebrated dictum at Putney, said:

“I think it clear, that every Man that is to live under a Government ought first by his own Consent to put himself under that Government; and I do think that the poorest man in England is not at all bound in a strict sense to that Government that he hath not had a voice to put Himself under.”

And therein is the outline of a second struggle of that time.  The greater part of the senior officers or Grandees, including Oliver Cromwell, the future Lord Protector, had fought not for a parliament with supreme authority over the law but for a constitutionally sovereign parliament above the people.  They fought not to give the people an equal vote but to restrict the vote to landowners like themselves.  They rejected the Levellers’ insistence that the people, not their elected representatives, are the final source of authority, and must be so because, in the words of the Leveller’s Manifesto:

… having by wofull experience found the prevalence of corrupt interests powerfully [incline] most men once entrusted with authority, to pervert the same to their own domination, and to the prejudice of our Peace and Liberties ...

Nothing is new.  Nothing really changes.  Nor would it change after the crushing of Leveller mutinies at Bishopsgate, Banbury, Andover and Burford by forces under Cromwell’s command, all in April and May 1649.  That proved to be the tipping point.  The great London funerals for the murders of Rainsborough in Pontefract in 1648 (in a bungled Royalist kidnap attempt), and Robert Lockyer, executed by Cromwell pour encourager les autres after the Bishopsgate mutiny, were forgotten.  The last full-throated Anglo-Saxon cry for all the people’s freedom and for fair-dealing died away.  It was not, after all, the time for a politics of the people.  It was the time for the modern, and the modernist understanding of the individual and his unfettering will and, thereby, a novel freedom abstracted from its ground in human presence and affirmation.

As the hiatus that was Cromwell’s authoritarian, puritan rule passed, the path was open for power elitism to slowly reinvent itself in the form of the elected representatives of the people and all those who enjoyed special access to them.  Ahead lay Lockean subjectivity, complete with the tabulu rasa, which would take hold in the next generation of elites looking for some promising ideology of human artifice to sink all trace of the populism and naturalism that, for a few short years, had lit the darkness, and which had ... indeed, could have … no place in their own scheme of things. 

Further ahead still lay revolution in France and radical ideas of a social progress which somehow left out the human in substance, and ideas of equality which left out the human in scale; bringing us to where we are today, beset by all manner of deadly and estranging harms but without that recourse to self and kind and nature which the generation of the England Civil Wars had through the voices of the Levellers.

As the urban industrial era solidified so Man became more and more a creature of caesura and of mere socio-economic import.  The Levellers’ cause, especially Rainsborough’s famous dictum, was not purloined exactly but re-interpreted in the only way it could be: as a somewhat picturesquely doomed but nevertheless noble struggle for the franchise and an interpretation of fairness in terms of social conflict and economic inequality.  The real principle ... the cohering principle of being and belonging that animates and explains the Rainsborough dictum (which liberal individualism does not)  may be formulated as:

However rich or poor in circumstance, each and every Englishman and woman has the life inherent to us all to live as he or she may, and none can be insensible to that English life in another of the English yet remain a whole and moral human being.

… and that’s what was lost to working-class solidarity and the nebulous ideal of social justice.  The capitalist stood in for Lilburne’s Norman.  The new political Grandees deftly drew a veil over their Cromwellian proclivities and jumped into the moral shoes of the Levellers.

Even so, it is not liberals or their socialist offspring but nationalists who are the Lilburnes and Rainsboroughs ... the passionate advocates for the people … the populists of our time.  For one thing we actually know who the people are (ie, not Africans or Pakistani Muslims or Roma, or whatever else 21st century Grandees like to claim).  For another, the decades of Establishment destructiveness towards the native British people are far more onerous than any transgressions of Charles 1st upon the religion and estates of his subjects, and it is nationalists who are reminding the Establishment of that.  It is nationalists reminding the English people that we all enjoy a negative right not to be subjected to government abuse and coercion.  Each of our folk has the right not to be cast down and oppressed for his or her love of our people and his or her desire for their freedom and good, and may bring opinions to that effect (or, indeed, to the effect that we do not love Africans or Pakistani Muslims or Roma or whatever) to the public space ... the St Mary’s of our time ... as freely as anyone else.  Fairness requires that those opinions are heard and, moreover, respected by our arrogant latter-day Grandees and, if they are the majority opinion of our people, acted upon.

The Levellers’ fight for fair-dealing, then, is ours now, and in its fundamentals it has not greatly changed.

So, the political is the ideational store of everything that has currency and, therefore, political potential.  As our people’s existential concerns may expressly not be talked about in party-politics, then they can have neither.  They are not political in this key and unavoidable sense.  They are, instead” “hate”, “racism”, “xenophobia, etc; and no amount of nationalist discourse and nationalist activism can make them otherwise.  For we nationalists do not control that process and neither, manifestly, do our people.  The groups who, by participation, do control that process are listed from (i) to (vi) above.

To become political our people’s existential concerns must be introduced to the political by people who are connected to those groups.  For them, the gates to the citadel are unguarded, and they may carry in any ideas they like.  At first they will be rebuffed by some, certainly.  But if the action is undertaken by others again and again, if shibboleths are challenged and injustices exposed, if fairness and justice and freedom are appealed to, if logic and commonsense is displayed, resistance will break down.

Well, it does not matter who carries our ideas into the chalk circle.  It only matters that political correctness and anti-racism are ignored and are seen to be ignored, that our people’s existential concerns gain political currency and, in time, become not just a commonplace of the public discourse but an unavoidable reality for it, that the political is electrified thereby as we would willingly electrify it ourselves, and the way is prepared for our people’s cause to be championed by nationalists electorally and in every other way.

The question for us today, then, becomes: How can we influence such an outcome?  What will it take to establish a group working covertly and daily on specified projects, each targeting the soft edges of the (at a rough estimate) fifteen to twenty thousand people in this country who alone possess anything like the power of free political speech?

... And at that point discretion must prevail.  The paper will be presented to its first recipient(s) this weekend.

To define the political against politics may seem only to be of interest to a few geeks and wonks who are unsatisfied with the usual utilitarian definitions.  “The stuff politicians do” ... that sort of thing.  But, actually, an understanding of how the political delimits politics, opening in any given time to the new, is key to its historical dynamic and also to people like us who wish to subvert and even replace that dynamic.

Perhaps the first thing to note is that, “great men” aside, politicians themselves are almost never the source of change.  As we saw with the long and disgraceful Remain rebellion, politicians of all mainstream parties are conservative in matters of their own position and persuasion.  They don’t welcome instability in their own political careers, or anything that might result in them being found out and forced out.

Because the class is self-selecting, its politicking from parliament to parliament, from generation of MPs to generation of MPs, tends always towards something vested and, in the longer term, alienating from the voters.  That self-selection occurs in no small measure on the basis of the possession of certain canonical values and beliefs which themselves refine and radicalise as other influences are brought to bear - for example, the agenda of those who actually fund political activity in this country, and all those who, at once or perhaps twice remove, participate in the process of developing (in our time, radicalising) “the stuff politicians do”.  Thus ...

i. Formal advisors have, of course, been a staple of government since the Pharoahs, and probably earlier.  The breed populating Westminster and Whitehall these days is the SpAd, dozens of whom provide ministerial teams with political strategy options and a very few ... Dominic Cummings being the notable case in Boris Johnson’s government ... with blue-sky thinking.  SpAds fill the party-pris space between ministers and their civil servants, whose terms of service include party-political neutrality.  They tend to come from, and eventually return to, the policy institutes and PR firms which have likewise thickly populated the political scene over the last few decades.  But while they are “in the thick if it” at their ministries or in Downing Street they are as much part of the political class as the honourable members and noble lords of Westminster.

ii. Immediately beyond the Westminster class is the oft-termed chattering class, the professional reporters, commentators and critics of the legacy media, all of whom have daily access to politicians, and whose relationship with them is symbiotic.

iii. Also very close to the politicians is the huge array of quangos, policy institutes, charities and organisations such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, and pressure groups such as the British Board of Deputies, the Muslim Council of Britain, Stonewall, and Hope Not Hate.  Their contact to MPs is more formalised, since information really only flows one way and MPs don’t need many of them as such - excepting left-of-centre MPs, of course, who can find gainful albeit chrony employment among the forest of Blairite quangos, international panjandrum bodies, and what-have-you when the Westminster career is done.  Much like Blair himself.

iv. The most cordial of political relations are those between Conservative MPs and corporate and banking interests.  Of course, said interests have to become party donors to gain access to ministers and actual influence over policy.  But it’s always money well spent - and valued by the politicians much more highly than, say, the loyalty of voters.  Career-expired Conservative ministers who have proved useful can expect to rack up a fine collection of non-too-taxing, two-afternoons-a-month non-exec directorships and consultancy arrangements.  Keeps the wolf from the no longer ministerial door, doncha know.

v. Beyond the clamour from all these entities is the source of the most fundamental input to the political process, and that’s the professoriate: the political philosophers, the political scientists and theorists, the economists, the sociologists, the historians, the jurists, and so forth.  It is their historical function to shape the future.  There are some instances where the political connection is direct.  Freidrich Hayek, for example, shaped Thatcherism.  Anthony Giddens shaped Blairism.  Even archly pragmatic governments such as David Cameron’s have their intellectual gurus (in his case the rather more humble Steve Hilton, an original member of the Notting Hill Set).  As a rule, though, the most historically re-defining government is informed by the most philosophically re-defining intellectual.

vi. Way out in the distant margins are the radical street activist groups such as Black Lives Matter and Unite Against Fascism, publicly toxic because of their extremism, but not so toxic that politicians can’t slavishly follow every demand they chant.  And that’s without these groups having any formal contact with them.  In these cases, of course, it’s not always about political cowardice.  A significant fraction of MPs, and not all of them in the Labour Party, very likely agree ideologically.

So these are the six sources of “the new” which feed the political class.  They define the boundary of the political not via their broad output (books, papers, lectures), much of which may never attract MP’s attention or interest, but via their input to Westminster and Whitehall itself, however restrictive that might be, however that may come about.  The political is the totality of theory in metamorphosis and theory already metamorphosed into practise.  The political is all that can be talked about in party political circles. 

We should note at this point that this essentially technocratic arrangement came to real prominence not in Thatcher’s time but a decade later with the drive by Clinton, Blair and Shroeder to fix for all time the then regnancy of the progressive left all across the West.  In part that was to involve ideological radicalisation.  The formal institution of culture war, anti-racism, and political correctness moved wholesale from the American campus, where they incubated in the 1970s and 80s, into national party systems; and at the same time Third World immigration was massively ramped up.

So it was that in his famous and very candid article for the Evening Standard in October 2009 Andrew Neather, a previously unheard-of speechwriter for Blair, Straw and Blunkett, reported “coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended - even if this wasn’t its main purpose - to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.”

The other weapon in the progressive toolkit was the system of appointments to Third Sector bodies at all levels.  John Major’s government had installed Tories in 57% of these appointments.  But Blair completely changed the ideological balance. By 1998, Labour supporters made up 75% of appointees and Conservatives only 13%, a trend which carried right through the years of Labour rule, Gramscian style, and onward to that of Theresa May.  They were the years of the networker in an ideologically progressive, state-funded managerial system allying not in their hundreds but in their thousands with like minds in government.

Blair’s intention - to render right-wing opinion politically inoperable and thereby dominate government in perpetuity - was never achieved.  But he did succeed in insulating party politics from the more inconvenient opinions of the people.  In place of the steering hand of the voting public MPs had all the expert advise and creative thinking they could possibly need.  Politics could function for four or five years at a stretch without once taking account of what the people thought.  And why not?  The votes still rolled in on election day.  Blair won three general elections.  Brexit notwithstanding, he made politics safe for politicians.

For nationalist parties trying to mount electoral challenges dependent on unbridling the will of the natives his dispensation presents a near-insuperable barrier.  How do you make a breakthrough when your own arguments are simply, cleanly excised from every area of the political, and all anyone ever hears of you is the usual mechanical abuse and condemnation?  How do you make a breakthrough when you don’t really understand why the political is so impossible to penetrate ... not just ideologically because the Establishment and the media are hostile to nationalist thought, but literally, because the political is filled to the brim with the unholy marriage of economically hyper-individualist policy and socially hyper-egalitarian policy.  There is no room for kinship when all is individualism.  There is no room for particularism when all is universalism. 

The question, then, becomes one about how to drive a nationalist wedge into the rockface - or, perhaps a better analogy, how to strew the political ground with nationalist seeds.  The good news is that it is possible.

This is dedicated to and inspired by a most-evocative and salient expression of the Joy of Sexual Creation:
In the strength of a champion, one could rejoice, one’s family could find safety.

Note the singular “champion” and the implicitly (hence plausibly deniable) invocation of the simple “nuclear” household headed and protected by a father.  The plausible deniability is key to the sexual mutilation of Euroman.  In this Brief History—provided without academic references or much elaboration—we’ll explore the deep history of this denial and why JudeoChristianity is, at its heart, the parasitic castration of Euroman’s uniquely powerful identity with deity.

READ MORE...

Culture war advanced from the neo-Marxist left is, by its careful targeting and its singularly existential consequences, race war against us native Brits.  But it’s a race war that need never declare its true nature and meaning publicly.  Its constitution is such that the leftist race-warrior can break every moral bound and act towards our people as oppressively and hatefully as licence allows, yet still claim to be acting culturally and in the interests of an equalitarian and universalist human freedom, ie, excising “racial oppression” and “hatred” from this land.

It is only the latest in the long, doleful line of utopian struggles to rid the world of all conflict.  That it denies Nature and human nature and the Darwinian principle of fitness and selection ... that its demand for the obliteration of identity and difference is anti-human ... that it is a genocidally destructive process for us, as the native people ... that it commits all this trespass simply doesn’t enter into it.  Quite the contrary, any action in defence of our people’s precious life, however culturally we frame it as our people’s way of life or by the proxies of “Christian values” or “Western civilisation”, immediately draws down upon us all the same old barely contained violence and hate-labelling, like Orwell’s vision of a boot “stamping on a human face forever”.  There is no conversation to be had with the owner of the boot.  The owner, ultimately, is the universalising, equalising, homogenising dynamic of utopianism, and it is deaf and blind to us.  For all its rejection of racialism, UKIP found itself stamped on in its day.  Already, Laurence Fox is finding that the boot needs must stamp on him, too.

So while it is fair to say that there is no culture war at all, and never was ... that everything was always about our ethnicity and race, always about obliterating us by any and all political means, because our obliteration is both the goal of and the latest way to the utopia of sameness ... while that is all true, nonetheless the rules of the political game are that everyone must proceed as though the left is indeed innocent of all sin and, far from being pathologically, hypocritically anti-human, is the proper moral arbiter on nationalists and nationalism.  This is how the left, as the client of the British Establishment, the corporate Establishment, has achieved the marginalisation of nationalists and forced the culturists, civicists, and conservatives to walk on the thinnest of eggshells.

All this serves one purpose only: to remove the life-cause of our people from the debate and practise of politics and confine it in moral quarantine as far away as possible.  Our job as advocates for our people, whether we are nationalists, culturists, civicists or traditional conservatives, is to put that life-cause back into the political, with all that implies for discrimination against the human Other - the Establishment’s tool of our replacement and dissolution.  Discrimination for the life-cause of one’s own genetic kind is necessary, natural, and good, and is the true human universal.  Discrimination for a greatly abused and discriminated-against, colonised people is likewise wholly moral and necessary.  Our people must live, for that is what Nature commands; and, besides, that life is a higher cause by vast orders of magnitude than the utopians’ pathological and obsessive, profoundly unwanted dream.

Nationalist politics in this country went into crisis from the moment in autumn 2009 when Nick Griffin was humiliated on Question Time, and the revolt by senior BNP activists began. By the time that Griffin stood down as leader - all of five years later - the party was vitiated. Membership had collapsed and nationalism had lost all political momentum. Online activists took up the slack, growing their audience as the social media platforms grew and adding a degree of thoughtful analysis to the general diet of polemic. But this year, again, we have seen a setback in the form of the programmatic, “wokist” purge by those same platforms of even the mildest non-liberal opinion, all conducted under the specious, self-defining rubric of “hate”. In the longer term it is entirely possible that the new free speech platforms will render the “mainstream” social media a boring irrelevance. But we are a long way from that today.

This has been happening, of course, while politicians, public sector managers, journalists and the police have been patronising Black Lives Matter, and thereby facilitating a paradigm shift in wider Establishment attitudes. The race dicta has moved within a hair’s breadth of the general judgement that “white” equals “racist”. It certainly equals “unconsciously biased” - a novel pathological condition that can, apparently, be “trained out”. For now this is the Establishment position. But the possibility of “training” alone holds back the judgement that white lives don’t matter. This is where we now stand, even as we are being replaced in our towns and cities by populations which have been taught to hate us.  Something truly terrifying is being prepared, and the forces driving this do not have a moral stopping point.

There is, let it be said, some cause for renewed hope in the appearance of Patriotic Alternative under Mark Collett and Laura Towler, whose refreshingly novel activism has caught the imagination of many. There is, in consequence, a renewed momentum in political nationalism (which explains the all-too-typical hit-piece published in The Times some days ago). As and when PA wins party political accreditation from the Electoral Commission it will be a safe bet that the other micro-parties who lay claim to an ethno-nationalist philosophy will be hard-pressed to justify their existence - Britain First has already been forced to add repatriation to its policy list. Further, PA claims to be pulling support away from the non-racialised parties of dissent. Its website traffic already exceeds that of the For Britain and UKIP sites. There is, in addition, a reasonable possibility that by the end of the year, or perhaps early in 2021, PA will pivot in a new and original direction which could have far-reaching implications for political nationalism in this country.

We must also note that there is some positive action, too, in the political mainstream. This government, under the influence of Dominic Cummings, is doing something at last to fight the culture war - the first time any Conservative government has even acknowledged its existence. There is push-back against the deep-seated, liberal patrician or mandarin culture of the civil service. The BBC’s equally ingrained urban liberal values are also finally coming under attack. It is reasonable to expect that, in time, other quite weighty blows will be landed by Cummings on the progressive edifice that is maintained at the tax-payers’ expense. Education, arts and culture, and the quangocracy are likely targets.

But elsewhere there is only deterioration. The race dicta in government very much reflects the standard globalist conjunction of neo-liberal economic policy and neo-Marxist social policy, the latter perfectly open to colonisation by BLM’s marxistic and anti-native politics. The corporate demand for basement-level labour costs and non-unionisation, high immigration and an ever-expanding population, all of it got by campaign donations to the Conservative Party and the promise to ministers of lucrative non-executive directorships when the Westminster career is done, always supercedes election-time promises to the party faithful. As a result, Boris Johnson’s government is driving immigration blindly onward, threatening to import half of Hong Kong, seeking to advertise jobs in vast swathes of the British economy anywhere that potential migrants with “points” might be found. Further, an historic liberalisation of the planning system, sweeping away the local power of decision and so attacking the principle of consent and the democratic process itself, is being engineered with the obvious (if not aim then certainly) by-product of colouring the rural Home Counties and the south.  We English - many, in this case, who have already fled from urban “diversity” - are having the last vestiges of our control over who we live with stripped from us.

Add to this the Brexit marathon, add the Covid epidemic with its effect on social and work practise, its impact on liberty, its debt economics, and a picture emerges of a nation in a time of flux and struggle, a nation being pushed towards the unfamiliar and to the extremes in every direction, with nothing remaining in its place and no realistic or immediate prospect of stability.  But that’s not to say that it’s a one-way journey to hell.  The political parvenu and ex-actor Laurence Fox’s embryonic but nevertheless reactionary, culture-warring party Reclaim, with £5 million to spend but no politics as such, is clear proof that anything is possible in this historical moment. As moments go, it is at once the worst of times if you are one of our people, but by no means the worst of times if you are a mainstream political activist. Yet it is also as good a time as any for us to act, and act we can.