As every thinking nationalist should know, the dominant modus of thought informing selfhood in the West is liberalism.  But one could be forgiven for thinking that its time as the epochal Idea, the organising system of the European life, is past.  Certainly, the will of the eponymous “individual” of Enlightenment philosophy, by name the Common Man, is no longer unfettering.  The Third Worldisation of the urban space, the marginalisation of European masculinity and the africanisation of the European genome, the homosexualisation of marriage, the trans-sexualisation of what it is to be a woman, the toxification of white skin, the forced mass vaccinations of the Covid era, the utterly shameless electoral fraud in “the greatest democracy on earth”, and shortly, we are to believe, the enslaving Great Re-Set ... all of this is happening only because the common will has been assiduously suppressed and the common opinion traduced and demonised.

No, the great arc of liberal thought has come to rest in the neoliberalism and the weaponised neo-Marxism of the Western political class and the corporate elites they represent.  These things never belonged to Europe’s peoples.  They only ever belonged to elites.  The only will unfettered by them is theirs.

Historically, these elites have by no means been monolithic in form or singular in their interests.  They are human beings, after all.  They shift generationally and, because they are opportunists and hustlers, always with the flow of political possibility.  There is a natural tension between worldviews, not least those of Jews, always mindful of their ethnic struggle for Olam Ha-ba, and WASPs totally unmindful of that or, of course, of their own peoplehood, and simply, mechanically given to modernity and a narcissistic, even sociopathic individualism extending no further than their own epidermis.

Importantly, there has, too, always been a tension between banker and producer ... between money-as-debt which, by its nature, seeks to extend its suzerainty over the loanee, to enslave and own him, and the principle of progress and techne, which seeks to free its own creative hand from such blind and selfish constraint.  This latter (which, in modern parlance, has been an ideological “thing” since the time of the Russian Revolution) has turned out to hold the winning historical ticket.  If only for the sake of clarity then, let us attempt to delineate it from the old money-based power of the Jewish banking families and the old Anglo-American Establishment, which may or may not have an attachment to tauroctony and masonic symbology, and which is in serious and seemingly final retreat.  Of course, we can do so most succinctly by defining it as a power centred (now) on Davos and grounding itself in the interests and potentials of science-led industries, the American social media platforms, hedge funds, asset managers and, increasingly, FinTech.

Asset-holding, it turns out, is this new elite’s means of eradicating the bankers’ web of debt.  Accordingly, there is an on-going tectonic shift of personnel and institutions towards Davos as it becomes ever clearer that the fiat system, as a guarantor of value and a bestower upon global elites of wealth and agency, will founder on the hard reality of asset-value.

We could say that banking parasitism is giving way to predatory corporatism.  Perhaps another way to look at it would be through the lens of personalities, so the Rothschilds and the European royal houses versus the Rockefellers and the US political Establishment.  Another would be methodological, so supra-nationalism and immigrationism versus the smart mega-city and inclusiveness (both pairs being destroyers of the natural human fundamentals as they express in nation, kind, home, love).  Yet another would be Marxism versus scientism; and another the New World Order versus Sustainable Development.  We might even identify one more in the priest-class of Judaism’s Olam Ha-ba versus Homo davosian, the wired transhuman of the fourth industrial revolution.  Or we could lighten up a bit, and contrast and compare the doomed Merkel and her sad little, pyramid hand signs with the business-like photocalls of the mischling technocrat Schwab.

While we are in a lighter mood, and following the heavy hint of the stage design, the Bregenz sequence from Quantum of Solace, written some time after 2006, contains elements quite specific to what would later become the Davos stratagem:

A conspiracy hidden in plain sight, the corporate language, the manipulation of Washington, the participation of the Deep State, the ownership and control of strategic assets- indeed, in this case “the world’s most precious resource” (and so wholly fitting to the real-world contest with fiat money).  It’s not a bad attempt at making an ageing spy movie franchise relevant to the modern age.  A little further into the movie we learn that to advance its criminal cause Quantum hawks a fake environmentalism, complete with talk of global deforestation and soil depletion.  It deplores corruption in government while corrupting government; and we see how “acting out of necessity” drives the other governments into an alignment of interests with it.

Well, something changed Boris Johnson from a breezily triumphant, newly re-elected prime minister in December 2019 confidently telling Downing Street staff he would not have them going off to Davos the following month “to drink champagne with billionaires” into a catatonic, serial witterer about the Great Re-Set, saying only a few days ago at the G7 conflab amid the delights of Cornwall that “We must build back better with a global economic recovery based on greener and fairer foundations.”

This is politician-speak for total submission to the Davos agenda, which is the UN 2021/2030 agenda, and which amounts to a bare-faced lie told to the weak by the powerful not just so the powerful can rule over them - even in perpetuity - but so that they can make the whole Earth and the future of everything their own.  They’re doing it, too.

The news that we are all destined to give up meat-eating for bug-crunching does not seem to be going down terribly well with the Telegraph commentariat.  Following a comment-free article dated 1st February titled The best insect snacks for environmentally conscious snacking and written by an avant garde environmental snacker-person called Jack Rear - yes, where do they find them? - the Globalist Tendency on the DT editorial team invited some Yoruban female with a few hours of journalism training to pose the burning or, certainly, roasting question on all our lips: When will insects be on our supermarket shelves?

Again there is a definite shortage of bug-happy commenters excited about the disappearance from their diet of a tender fillet steak or juicy lamb chop.  Instead, among the handful of Telegraph readers who can be bothered to comment at all there is this guy:

Carpe Jugulum 28 May 2021 10:28PM

I teach biology in a sixth form college and regard myself as being logical .............. until it comes to eating insects.
Food ‘security’ can foxtrot oscar. The day will not dawn when I find myself crunching a locust butty complete with locust intestine contents.
The authors of this nonsense presuppose and accept bug munching will be a consequence of an ever rising population. Perhaps it will be the spur to removing all procreation subsidies and unskilled immigration?
Threaten the public with Kentucky Fried Cricket or a Big McMealworm burger and I doubt you would find them receptive.

... and this one:

Joseph GRM B 28 May 2021 3:18PM
I’m saving the planet by eating my birdie num-nums, living in my pod, and consoooming my social media and my racial cuck porn. I own nothing and I am HaPpY. Clown world.

... and all the rest are decidely bug-negative.  What could possibly be putting them off a “food” they would normally prefer to squelch underfoot?  Don’t they want to cut methane emissions?  Don’t they understand that Net Zero is inevitable?

The idea that the planet will be “saved” if only we all do as we are told and eat wriggly, crawly, buzzy creatures with six legs farmed by the customary mega-corporations has been around for a couple of decades.  So it didn’t originate with the Davos set.  But it was certainly making headway in the private jet community by 2013 at least, when the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN stuck its sticky finger in the maggot pie.  Only two more years passed before we serfs could really celebrate protein diversity, as wikipedia informs us:

The World Edible Insect Day, being held on 23 October, was introduced by Belgian entrepreneur Chris Derudder in 2015 to raise awareness globally for the consumption of edible insects, with a focus on Europe, North America, and Australia.

This seems to be Climate Chris.  You know your hobby-horse has arrived when it gets a “World Day”.

The moral zombies who believe they should dictate the future of the world (because, well, they want to and they have all the wealth and own all the politicians) then moved on to the problem of how they are going to shut down First World livestock farming, carpet-bag the land, and force us all onto the required diet of Pygmy delicacies.  Last December they alighted upon pet food as a handy accustomising strategy.  Well, it’s not as if Fido will notice.  Not that they would give a damn if Fido did.  They don’t give a damn about any living thing but themselves.  And their agenda.  When we Talmudic cattle are being force-fed the bug-filth and are trying to squeeze the resultant gunk out of our intestines, they won’t be dining on it themselves, anymore than their travel to vital international conferences in faraway luxury resorts will be inconvenienced by the kerosene ban on the rest of us.

They are “leaders”, you see.  Fido’s doggy dignity is collateral damage.  You are surplus population.

The following short article marks the close of my efforts to bring PA to seriousness.  I have said what I wanted to say.  There is no point in going on saying it.  Whether it will have any effect over the time remaining to PA itself, before it is proscribed, remains to be seen.  Where responsible and intelligent political advocacy for our people will come from, heaven knows.

Last week the Sweden Democrats announced that three of the four conservative opposition parties in the Swedish parliament were talking to them about entering a power-sharing arrangement after the September 2022 general election.  It signalled an end to the long-running consensus among mainstream conservatives that they would never cooperate with Jimmie Åkesson’s party.  Given the current unpopularity of prime minister Stefan Löfven’s Social Democrat government, it is entirely likely that the Swedish will follow their neighbours south of The Öresund in accepting the principle of a nationalist component to government.

Of course, the road to electoral relevance is never the same in any two European homelands, and nowhere is it bound to produce unending success.  Political fortunes wax and wane.  In Denmark, for instance, the experiment with nationalism in government has lasted only one parliament so far, between 2015 and 2019.  But if the Danish People’s Party can maintain its electoral relevance it may return; and that is as much as can be asked at this very dark moment.

The ideological keys to electoral relevance are pragmatism and moderation.  By their nature, democracies tend, over time, to encourage all serious political parties to moderate to the prevailing political consensus just to become and remain relevant.  In our time in our benighted country the weight of national security laws and the manner in which they are worked by the security apparatus of the state also place an absolute obligation on politically ambitious nationalists to follow the same path.  It’s not as if there is a real choice.  So the question, really, is how, not if; and for starters the how is to switch out of the negativity and reaction which has characterised the nationalist past ... the racism, the anti-Islamism, the WW2 guff, the anti-Semitism, the white nationalism and alt-rightism, and all the rest.  Yes, our people have the right in Nature to struggle to exist in this world, and we can advocate for it.  We can advocate for respect from government.  We can advocate for fairness and freedom.  We can prosecute our right under constitutional law and human rights law to come together and choose our destiny, if we so wish.  None of that changes, and in Sweden that coming together is a key ... perhaps the key ... nationalist appeal.  The front page of the party’s website reads “Välkommen till folkrörelsen”.  It means: welcome to the popular movement. 

The party’s wiki page opens with the following:

The Sweden Democrats or Swedish Democrats (Swedish: Sverigedemokraterna, SD) is a nationalist and right-wing populist political party in Sweden founded in 1988. The party describes itself as social conservative with a nationalist foundation. The party has been variously characterised by academics, political commentators and the media as national-conservative, anti-immigration, eurosceptic or far-right. Jimmie Åkesson has been party leader since 2005.

The party originally had its roots in Swedish fascism and white nationalism, but began distancing itself from its past during the late 1990s and early 2000s. Under the leadership of Jimmie Åkesson, the SD underwent a process of reform by expelling hard-line members and moderating its platform. Today, the Sweden Democrats officially reject both fascism and Nazism.

That, or something very like that, is how the Tyndall-esque movement we, in many respects, still are can develop into a real and responsible servant of our people’s life-cause.  It’s no great mystery.  Yes, we have to change mightily to do it.  But it’s not as if we have a choice.  It’s not as if those who would argue otherwise have any positive and hopeful, patriotic alternative.

This morning ConservativeHome, the only really salient website for politically-minded British conservatives, ran an interesting piece by Rebecca Lowe.  She is described as “the former director of FREER, and a former assistant editor of ConservativeHome. She is co-founder of Radical.”  The latter tells us that she is part of the feminist rearguard action against the trespasses of trannyism on womanhood, her judgement being that the broad offices of state have fallen to it, and it is now a radical act to speak of woman in her nature and whole being. 

The article is titled What consequentialism and Peter Singer have taught me about the gender debate.  In it she is much exercised by the Jewish radical Singer, and spends a fair part of the article sniping at his approval of parents murdering their disabled babies.  But her principal concern is “the gender debate”.  It’s a good and properly conservative article but, of course, it does not situate Singer in the wider historical paradigm, the failure to recognise which ensures that conservatives continue operating on the enemy’s ground and on the enemy’s terms.

One ConHome commenter (whose similarity to other such, long-banned commenters of a nationalist persuasion, offering an identical nationalist critique, we need not dwell upon) offered the following, minor observation in an attempt to open a few tight-shut conservative eyes:

FickleFate
Good to see a properly thoughtful article at ConHome raising issues of an importance greater by orders of magnitude than the customary political fayre.

Consequentialists are active nihilists: deniers of all that is content-ful in the human being. What resides in and belongs to us, what we receive from the past, what connects us, what is particular and of the essence of us, what is emergent from our nature, what we discriminate for and, most of all for nihilists, moralise about ... this can have no place in the utopian end time, where all otherness is the same as self, all boundaries and borders are gone, and all human cause, all struggle, all desire, all need, all conflict is forgotten.

That self-estranged and denatured , artificial human estate, sans nation, sans kin and kind, is the final equality. It is not at all at odds with our Abrahamic religious and post-Enlightenment secular philosophical paradigms; which is why conservatives, who stand, in theory at least, against it, can never slough it off. They stand and fight on ground which inclines towards it, and are for the most part captured by gravity, defending only the last slip downwards from the next, but always relenting anyway, always sliding again in the end.

We need a clear philosophical exposition of why it is only truly conservative to level the ground. Scruton strove throughout his life to speak of such.  There are some less exalted nationalists and anti-modernists, routinely and mechanically traduced by the crazed left, who speak of much the same.  But will you listen, or are you too complacent, too self-absorbed, too materialistic, too disinterested in the struggle for the human tomorrow?

Official release poster (part)

A couple of nights ago, as our daughter was home for the weekend, we three settled on the sofa in front of the television in her rooms to watch the Netflix drama The Dig.  Its storyline may disappoint Anglo-Saxonists.  It is not really about the discovery of the Sutton Hoo ship burial.  Neither at the dig nor in the conservator’s lab do we get to gaze upon the glories emerging into the light of day after fourteen centuries.  No, this is a movie of the lives of those involved in the dig, most of them real people, and their place in that most pregnant moment in history.  Starring Ralph Fiennes as self-styled excavator Basil Brown, Carey Mulligan as the landowner Edith May Pretty, and Lily James as Peggy Piggott, it was released to general approval - and some disapproval - in January this year.

To be clear at the outset, the film as such is of secondary importance in the thesis of this short essay.  It is really only a vehicle for a commentary on our nationalism.  So let us dispense with it quickly ...

The plot is thin.  War with Hitler’s Germany is imminent.  An old Suffolk archaeology hand is called in by a dying landowner to excavate some barrows on her property at Sutton Hoo.  He uncovers a 6th century Anglo-Saxon boat, and the big names in British archaeology in the 1930s come bouncing in and take over.  These middle-class folk do some middle-class things, including snobbery, professional in-fighting, and extra-marital sex, some of which latter, we are led to believe, is homosexual (completely illegal at the time).  But they also unearth the greatest archaeological treasure in British history.  The excavation closes.  War is declared.  The End.

And that’s it, really.  If the action is boorishly, predictably infected with the modern, the Suffolk coastal landscape breathes history and regulates the action with a heavy sense of the timeless.  Its photography is rich and beautiful, and the lead acting performances match it.  Feinnes revels in the broad country accent and the native intelligence and simplicity of his character - a man who can say “My father taught me,” and for it to mean all the long line of fathers in our past.  The important lines, the ones which reveal meaning, all belong to him.  Feinnes delivers a performance that is at once austere and entirely human in scale.

READ MORE...

This is the second part of my re-work of the original Journey posts.  A third will follow.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

The entrance to that part of the secret state
concerned with countering domestic threat.

The text on Jon Dunstan’s mobile read, “1.00 pm same place”.  It was initialled “B”.  He understood that this was not a request.  But the short notice rankled.  Obviously, they knew very well that he could have client commitments but they didn’t care.  They knew he would obey the call.  He would attend what was, in fact, a final briefing, given that Driscoll’s personal secretary had booked one of the first-floor private rooms at Rules - hardly the most chic of eateries - for dinner that very evening.  Still, the game was commencing and that was what he had signed up for.

He found “B”, a middle-aged woman of unremarkable appearance and cool demeanour whom he knew only by the pseudonym Beatrix, sitting primly in the sun on one of the benches by the tennis courts in Lincoln’s Inn Fields.  There were no niceties exchanged.  “Do you want to sit or walk?” he asked her.  She rose and the two of them began to stroll slowly around the perimeter of the Fields.

“We were disappointed to learn,” she stated, “that you will only be meeting with Driscoll.  How did that happen?”

Dunstan didn’t know.  “I sent you Driscoll’s text.  The Prof couldn’t make it, that’s all.”

“I doubt if that’s all,” she responded, “If Upton is distancing himself or not taking you seriously we want to know why.  We want to keep on top of things.”

Dunstan nodded dutifully although, in truth, he was not at all the dutiful sort.  “I’ll ask,” he said, “but I really need to stick to law as much as possible.  I’m not sure what else I can safely say to Driscoll if, as you say, he’s just the money-man.  It might be wiser to postpone altogether.”

“Postponing now would only make you look suspect,” she retorted, “We started with him, remember.  So it follows that you must want to see him.  About what, precisely, it doesn’t matter nearly as much as you think.  You’re on the same side.  You haven’t got to explain everything.  It’s more subtle than that.  Watch his face.  Sense his working assumptions about you.  Where they are positive let him run with them.  Where they’re not, throw in a redirection or put him off by cross-examining him.  Never allow him to cross-examine you.  Always be aware of the underlying power-dynamics.  It’s trade-craft.  Surely it must be second nature to any half-decent advocate?”  Something close to a smile yet not a smile, a schemer’s relish, played on her lips.  But it was gone without trace in an instant.

“Yeah yeah, OK,” said Dunstan, sighing wearily.  She had this way of beating him down which felt intentional.  Was that because she was “aware of the underlying power-dynamics”?  He was a junior of thirty-one, for Christ’s sake, and he knew perfectly well how to handle himself.  He was not charmed to be told otherwise, even by MI5.  He didn’t hide it well, either.

“Am I boring you, Mr Dunstan?” Beatrix inquired with quiet malice.  “This is a formal operation, in case you have forgotten.  It has a clear objective, a plan of action, a codename, and a budget.  What it does not have is room for cavalier attitudes from you.”

“No, I’m sorry,” he said, knuckling down again,“of course I will do as you ask.”

“You will have to,” his handler stated flatly, “You’re in now and there’s no getting out.”

READ MORE...

From time to time I endeavour to pull the old-style nationalist writers at PA away from their Nietzschean assumptions.  This is a typical effort, on a thread honouring the anniversary of Jonathan Bowden’s death, and specifically in response to the author’s defence of “the will”:

Nietzsche held nationalism in contempt, seeing not love, relation, sacrifice and creativity but submission to human smallness and weakness. He understood Man in another way entirely, as a being of cultural not ethnic definition and in moral not existential crisis. His presentation of the will, while it seduced the fascist mind and has perverted nationalism for a century, is fantasy. Human beings cannot declare themselves heroic possessors of iron intent without drowning in lies. No people, including our people, can become a figurative hero, was ever a figurative hero, and will ever be a figurative hero.

What the fascists could screw out of deluded youth was murderousness and arrogance towards the weak, which duly collapsed because lies will be found out. The fascist heroes were found out by humble Englishmen like my own father, who bombed the blazes out of them.

We betray our nature, we betray ourselves when we allow ourselves to be seduced by the fascist misreading of Nietzsche. How, anyway, can a creature seduced by such a deceit truly love his people. He can love only himself. Our people will never come to the side of such a man.

Enough. We do not have the time to continue in intellectual error. We must break with the failure of the past and think anew.

GW

The Coronation Oath Act of 1688, as it appears on statute

Having seen the front page illustration to the British Constitution Group website, making a big song and dance about how “The People Retain Authority over their Government”, our close friend John Standing thought he might ask a question of these lawyerly folk.  Here it is:

Dear Sirs,

May I, as a lay person in matters of British Constitutional law, ask why you hold the view that “the people” are sovereign, yet quite evidently from the illustration which graces your website you don’t mean the indigenous people of this land but anyone from anywhere who has been able to acquire citizenship.  I suspect that you have confused “the people” with British nationality or perhaps even the electoral roll.  Allow me to explain.

First, you are right that the primary constitutional documentation shows the people to be sovereign, and the same documentation and likewise The Bill of Rights 1689 and, by implication, the 40+ Representation of the People Acts from 1832 onward show that people to be the final source of authority (which is only ever lent to elected representatives, never given).  But the person of the sovereign is not a fluid as the demos is. It has an identity specified in the Coronation Oath Act of 1688; and that identity is “the people of this Kingdome of England” and by extension Wales and, with the Acts of Union, Scotland.  Note that the specification here is “people” not of course “subjects” or “citizens”, and “the people of”, not “a people in”.  Words used in founding constitutional documents are definitive, not descriptive; and this document defines the people of England in the year of 1688 as separate and distinct from any other, including the peoples of the Dominions, and thus they can only remain, sovereignhood being transmitted by succession by descent.

Once a people is identified as the sovereign, therefore, then sovereign it must remain unless it consents to the contrary; for its ethnic person is constitutionally inviolate.  There is no power in the land (not the monarch, not the executive, not parliament, not the judiciary) and no novel legal instrument (not, for example, the Nationality Act of 1948) which can constitutionally force change upon or replace the sovereign, or meddle with the rule of succession by descent.  For such would be a usurpation.  To be doubly clear, neither government nor parliament can constitutionally possess the power of usurpation.  If either does take that power to itself it does so unconstitutionally, and the sovereign has the constitutional recourse to all necessary action to defend itself.

If you have a contrary argument as to why immigrant populations which the sovereign people has never consented to accept but which, on the contrary have been coerced upon the sovereign people with extreme governmental prejudice against any and all dissent, can themselves be sovereign then I would be most interested in hearing it.

Yours sincerely,

John Standing