It’s “THE Left”, they want to take away your Christianity, they’re not dealing with reality!

David Horowitz and Paul Gottfried occupy two axial points of Jewish motivation to promote a marketing campaign against “the left” and characterology thereof, while altercasting manipulable right wing reactionary positions for Whites given intersectionality with the (((progressive stack of PC victim groups))) against their Jewish interests, their need to get ahead of the reaction to NeoConservatism’s Operation Clean Break / Wars for Israel and reaction to the 2008 financial meltdown/ bail-out.

While I have called attention to David Horowitz as a leading Jewish figure in advancing the marketing campaign - in Jewish interests, obviously - against “THE Left” and indeed, he has contributed to exposing the Cultural Marxist/PC Anti-White Left, I have focused more on Paul Gottfried in terms of posing “The Left” in opposition to White identity and nationalism by definition. Nevertheless, both conveniently ignore the possibility (and necessity) of a White Left Ethnonationalism, instead altercasting any White identitarianism which might respond as some kind of Right -

Gottfried continues to orchestrate a program against “THE Left”, as best he can, presenting Christianity as spunky “rebellion” that “the left” wants to do away with, while Spencer was enlisted to advance a youthful, secular element to align with Paleoconservatism.

Alt-Right in Gottfried’s case, with flunkey Richard Spencer figure-heading the addition of new tents, more youthful, flagrantly rebellious and anti-social, secular, along with Paleoconservative and Jewish right wing (Alt Lite) tents - moving to “Dissident Right” after Charlottesville and “Hail Trump”, Spencer then falling to the wayside in favor of a more streamlined but still edgy/ironic Paleoconservatism (Christianity being what it cannot deviate from) and Third Positionism (includes right wing elements, obviously) - But I have not talked as much about David Horowitz’ part in the marketing campaign, positioning White identity against “The Left” and altercasting White Nationalism as some kind of Right (come Third Positionism, or neither left nor right populism, susceptible to infiltration and ineffective if not self destructive right wing reaction).

Related:

Though J.F. Gariepy claims to be thinking independently in his terminological deployment, the discourse parameters he follows are within the altercast box prescribed by Jewish interests and serving them; as ever, a caveat thus in regard to Gariepy’s use of the term “The Left” and its “characterizations;” while this usage and characterology is fairly true when looked upon as a Marxist Internationalist or Cultural Marxist Left, assailing White national, group and personal boundaries, absent the delimiting working hypotheses of the White Ethnonational Left, viz., unionization to structure accountability and gauge correctivity for Whites, Gariepy’s advice is more free floating (and, he admits, nihilistic) than it should be - providing feedback looking toward the more objective facts irrespective of our subjective and relative interests, but lacking the radical orientating context without the centering calibration of White Left Ethnonationalism’s relative, systemic interests.

JF Gariepy discusses recent Youtube bans, including Red Elephants: He adds (6:31)“But then, lets not fool ourselves into thinking that the current order is a liberal one. We don’t live in a liberal society. In a liberal society, you can’t lose your channel like Vincent James just lost it today. That is bullshit. These people are not liberals.”

And in regard to his assessment given the recent Youtube bans, viz., of Vincent James, actually, Gariepy is off the mark. The internationalist Marxist, anti-White Cultural Marxist agenda is about liberalizing White National borders and boundaries to the extreme completion - to where we can conserve nothing (not even a Youtube channel with the aim of conserving any vestige of White human ecology).

The discussion below, from NPR Fresh Air, does well to place David Horowitz in the scheme of things. However, it only provides a semblance of explanation of his motivation for terminological and conceptual misdirection of White interests in order to serve Jewish interests as they’ve been intersected by their former client advocacy positions….

All text except for images and captions are from NPR, Fresh Air:
.....

NPR, Fresh Air, 24 Aug 2020

Guerrero is an investigative reporter who formerly was with KPBS, the radio and TV station in San Diego. She previously covered Mexico and Central America for The Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones Newswires. She’s the author of a previous book called “Crux: A Cross-Border Memoir” about growing up with a Mexican father and Puerto Rican mother.

It’s impossible to understand the Trump era, with its unparalleled polarization, without tracing Stephen Miller‘s journey to the White House. That’s what my guest, Jean Guerrero, writes in her new book, “Hatemonger: Stephen Miller, Donald Trump, And The White Nationalist Agenda.

[...]

GROSS: So David Horowitz, who we’ve been talking about, who became a mentor, a far-right mentor to Stephen Miller - you know, Horowitz started off as as a leftist. He was one of the editors of the leftist magazine Ramparts. He, I think, was, you know, an ally of the Black Panthers. Like, what do you know about why and how he changed so radically? He moved from, like, one pole to the other.

GUERRERO: Yeah. I mean, David Horowitz had recommended his friend Betsy (Van Patter) to work on the accounting for the Black Panthers. She’s a white woman. And she ended up being murdered. And the murder was never solved, but David Horowitz blamed the Black Panthers Party and became convinced that they had murdered her. And after that, you saw David Horowitz go through this transformation where he became convinced that the movement that he had been a part of, the left, had waged a unfair war on whiteness - is what he called it. He felt that whiteness was actually something that needed to be preserved.

And, I mean, he tries not to write about it outright as whiteness being preserved. But he talks about how the only important racism in society is racism against white people and that racism against Black and brown people is a figment of your imagination. And it really goes back to the murder of his friend Betty, who he blamed on the Black Panthers.

And it really started to lean into these, you know, misleading statistics that are put out by publications like American Renaissance, this white supremacist publication that paints brown and Black people as innately more violent than white people. And David Horowitz is the one who introduced Stephen Miller to websites like American Renaissance. He describes the founder of American Renaissance, Jared Taylor, to me, as a very smart man, who he claims has a perverse ethnic view because, again, David Horowitz, you know, tries to distance himself from the white nationalist movement because he knows how important it is to launder these ideas through the language of heritage and national security if you want them to appeal to the mainstream.

GROSS: This is FRESH AIR. Let’s get back to my interview with Jean Guerrero, author of the new book “Hatemonger: Stephen Miller, Donald Trump, And The White Nationalist Agenda.” She is a former investigative reporter for KPBS, the public TV and radio station in San Diego. She’s now freelance and continues to report for public media. She previously covered Mexico and Central America for the Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones Newswires.

So we’ve been talking about how David Horowitz mentored Stephen Miller. And Horowitz helped Stephen Miller launch his career. He first got him a job with Michele Bachmann when she was elected as a congressperson, and she was very conservative. So what job did he get working with Michele Bachmann?

Christian Zionist Michelle Bachmann

GUERRERO: He was hired as a press secretary for Bachmann, and that was his first job. And that’s kind of where Stephen Miller starts to learn about, you know, how to write these very hyperbolic press releases. And he starts to, you know, bombard reporters late into the night with his press releases and links and FYIs.

GROSS: So David Horowitz first gets Stephen Miller a job with Congressperson Michele Bachmann. And then from there, Horowitz gets Miller a job with Jeff Sessions when Jeff Sessions was a senator from Alabama who, like Stephen Miller, was very anti-immigration. So what was the relationship like between Sessions and Miller when Miller was working for him?

Jeff Sessions by Gage Skidmore

GUERRERO: So Miller - you know, he really helped to turn Jeff Sessions into sort of a very combative personality. He - I mean, Sessions was already a leading nativist on Capitol Hill when Stephen Miller joined. But Stephen Miller started to model Jeff Sessions, his remarks, after the far-right, combative media personalities that Stephen Miller had been familiar with his entire life - so really pulling, you know, talk radio talking points onto Capitol Hill and having Jeff Sessions, you know, talk about how too much immigration is going to, quote, “decimate” this country and how anyone who supports immigration reform is part of a globalist elite who wants to destroy the country through limitless importation of cheap labor in the form of mass migration. So these ideas of demonization Stephen Miller really incorporated into Jeff Sessions’ rhetoric.

GROSS: So he becomes Jeff Sessions’ press secretary, and then Sessions and Miller end up in the Trump administration. And Steve Bannon helped get Stephen Miller into the Trump administration, and Bannon was another one of Stephen Miller’s mentors. What was Bannon’s role in Stephen Miller’s life before Bannon was pushed out of the Trump administration?

Stephen Miller and Steve, “ethnonationalism, it’s losers and we’ve got to crush it more”, Bannon

GUERRERO: So Bannon, you know, gives Stephen Miller a platform on Breitbart while Stephen Miller was working for Jeff Sessions. Basically, Stephen Miller was given free reign over a lot of the writers at Breitbart to just kind of shape their stories and provide them with ideas that they were expected to turn into stories. And during this time is when Stephen Miller was feeding, you know, articles from white nationalist and white supremacist websites to Breitbart and having them do stories about them, you know, painting immigrants as an existential threat.

So Bannon - you know, he gives him a platform on Breitbart and helps connect him with the people on the Trump campaign, where Stephen Miller was initially providing free labor for the Trump campaign, you know, sending over talking points and memos and then eventually gets himself hired in 2016 as the senior policy advisor and top speechwriter for President Trump.

[...]

GROSS: The book “The Camp Of The Saints.”

GUERRERO: “The Camp Of The Saints,” yeah. It demonizes people of color. But it also demonizes their allies. It demonizes anti-racists as agitators and anarchists and as mobs, which you then now see Trump using that exact same language to talk about anti-racist protesters ever since, you know, the police killing of George Floyd. So Stephen Miller is really drawing - whether he’s doing so consciously or not, I mean, Stephen Miller read this book. He promoted this book. And a lot of the language in this book you are now seeing Trump using.

[...]

GROSS: Well, among the many riddles surrounding Stephen Miller is - you know, he’s Jewish. His grandparents were immigrants. And he espouses some views that are espoused by white supremacists. White supremacist hate Jews.

GUERRERO: Mmm hmm.

GROSS: They would like Jews to, like, leave the country or at least live in a separate space on their own. How does he reconcile that? I’m sure you don’t know the answer to that. But don’t you wonder?

GUERRERO: I do. You know, I - one of the stories that I found the most interesting in my research for the book is the story of Stephen Miller’s grandmother Ruth, who on his - his grandmother on his mother’s side who spent her retirement compiling the family history, you know, how they were refugees who fled the nationalist agitators and, you know, these pogroms against the Jews, these massacres against the Jews and came here to the United States. And she recorded the family history. She said she was recording it for her grandchildren, like Stephen Miller, so that they would never forget the value of people who come to this country with nothing but the clothes on their back and speaking no English, just as Stephen Miller’s ancestors came to this country.

GROSS: How have people in Miller’s extended family reacted to his extreme views?

GUERRERO: You know, I interviewed a number of his relatives. And most people in his family, with the exception of his parents and his siblings, who declined to talk to me - they’re very ashamed to be associated with Stephen Miller and the legacy that he’s created around the family name because of the fact that, you know, they know where they - where the family comes from and the fact that they - you know, they initially came here without any knowledge of the English language and without any money in their pockets and started out as, you know, peddling fruit on the streets and eventually made their way up and made something of themselves and contributed in a very strong way to this country in the way that, you know, many immigrants do.

And so a lot of them told me that they see him as someone who needs to be punished for crimes against humanity. You know, one of his aunts was telling me that she truly believes that he’s unleashed what she calls a Pandora’s box of hatred in this country that is going to be very difficult to contain after they leave office, if they do.

..................................

Related at Majorityrights:

If you are able to articulate public relations manipulation so well, how did you wind up altercast?

Paleocon Bannon arrested, indicted in private sector crowd-funding fraud, build-the-wall campaign.

These Are White Nationalists? What Is Behind TRS And The Alt-Right’s Gushing Effusion For Trump?

(((Mike Peinovich, the “Serbian”))) who hates Albanians and thinks they should have been genocided.

Here’s How Breitbart And Milo Smuggled Nazi and White Nationalist Ideas Into The Mainstream

Paleoconservatism as “Cultural Controlled Opposition” to Neo-Conservatism and its Clean Break Memo.

In a recent podcast, Dangerfield ran clips from an English village in the 1970’s celebrating The Queen’s Jubilee.

Dangerfield remarks among his derision of “Post Modernity” read (((post modernity))) as opposed to White Post Modernity, and “The Leftists”, read international, red leftists as opposed to White ethnonational left, that these “Leftists” will denounce the celebration of “The Queen’s Jubilee as right-wing reactionary nostalgia.”

This is not really quibbling on my part. Rather, it provides a good example of why it is important to understand Post Modernity correctly, viz. White Post Modernity as opposed to its (((red caped))) misrepresentation along with other language currency counterfeiting the depth grammar of left and right.

Dangerfield says, “these leftists want to say that these English villagers celebrating the queen’s jubilee” is an expression of right wing reaction.”

However, Post Modernity proper, viz. White Post Modernity/left ethnonationalism, would say, on the contrary, that it can be fine and good for these English villagers to celebrate the Queen’s Jubilee. Unlike the rule structure of Modernity, a practice (and a people) does not have to be different and new in order to be good; and should not be put at risk to uncontrolled experimentation.

If it is a healthy tradition, one can feel free to participate and reconstruct the practice/people without the pangs of self loathing for the appearance of conformity (as opposed to modernity’s paradoxic mandate to the individual: “be different so that you can fit it”); one invokes a willing suspension of disbelief in the hermeneutic (liberated from Modernity’s mere facticity) and one does so understanding when it is healthy for one’s people (while one is free to Not participate and can give way to Modernization when a tradition is not healthy for one’s people).

You begin to see why it is important to have a clear understanding of Post Modernity, viz., White Post Modernity.

For one clear example, for capacity that it provides for Optimal Competence, as per Aristotle’s description of performance requirements: minimal, satisfactory, optimal.

A minimally competent person could not participate in the Queens Jubilee appropriately, because they would not understand it well enough - thus, not understanding how to reconstruct the practice normally, or adjudge where the practice might be right (despite modernist derision) or where it might be going wrong (despite its having been tradition).

A merely satisfactorily competent person can ONLY participate in a rather verbatim reconstruction of the practice. But given the disorder of Modernity, lacking the stability that once underpinned the practice with assurance (e.g., The Queen has our interests at heart and would never decry those against immigration as “racist”, nor lord accountability to the universalizing Jesus over us, as opposed to accountability to our native people, nor have a grandson married to a Mulatto), there is no such thing as the kind of stable criteria for one to reconstruct; one must have more understanding of the context.

Hence, given the disorder of Modernity, especially (((weaponized))), as it were, there is no stable traditional order to practice satisfactory competence, one is either minimally competent or optimally competent.

* Aristotle’s discussion of minimal, satisfactory and optimal competence uses the example of fairness in exchange and knowing the difference.

Satisfactory competence can only make an equal exchange.

Minimal competence doesn’t understand an equal exchange, might make an equal exchange by accident, or give less than the appropriate value or more than the appropriate value, not really understanding it.

Whereas optimal competence knows the equal value of an exchange but can exchange less without being niggardly in truth or can give more without being ingratiating in truth.

It is not only necessary for English and all European peoples to understand Post Modernity properly, but it is also quite possible, not too hard at all for the vast majority of our people to understand its performance requirements; minimal/optimal. Hence, we must not be deterred by Jewish red-caping of terms and concepts.

Related at Majorityrights:

White Post Modernity: corrects reactionary chase of (((red capes))) fucking up necessary pomo ideas

White Post Modernity

Superchat question (52:40): “I wonder at what point we have to choose to either digest these people in our society, as the hippies were in the ‘70’s, or to understand that their culture and mores are indigestible and must be cast out of our society.”

Styx (53:01) “You mean the far leftists? Well, they’re already being…

Ramzpaul (53:38): “And your point about the hippies is good, because, I did a video about this (”Revolution Fatigue”), why you have to catch the momentum…I think the left, these radicals, they think they’re going to have a revolution like its 1917 Russia or its The French Revolution..or they think they’re in Weimar Germany and they’re fighting the Nazis. But see, that type of thing, there’s a lot of differences and you need to really make it happen pretty quick. Whereas I remember, I don’t remember, but I read about the late 60’s, early 70’s, there was like The Weather Underground, they thought they were going to topple the United States and have a revolution. But by the time that I got to university in 1981, they were already considered very dated…people who had that mindset were considered old.

DanielS:

Your understanding of “hippies” is idiotic. The Weather Underground were not hippies. The hippies were not Marxists in their essential motive; in fact, they were notoriously frustrating to Marxist revolutionaries. It matters, because the adversaries of Whites love to blame hippies; it is a way to blame White men as opposed to the culpability of liberal/Marxist programs spearheaded by Jewry; and because they wish to turn White right wing dolts against their own people, while burying an understanding of the profundity of the hippie motive for White men: a fundamental and profoundly important motive on behalf of White male Being / (Dasein/MidtDasein for White men especially) as opposed to their being considered so intrinsically valueless as to have to go to war in Vietnam, exploited for the custom, habit and tradition of their gender role as obligated to war - even in this case, where there was no clear and immanent danger to them and their people; where there could have been other means of dealing with Vietnam rather than conventional war).

A White ethnonational left would not be in “revolutionary” mode where the interests of our union - a union of our people - are being served by those in power. If they are not, i.e., if our interests are not served, then we would seek revolutionary transformation so that the union of our European peoples are secured. This is a big difference between a White ethnonational left and the Marxist, internationalist left. When our ethnonationalist union is secured, we are no longer in revolutionary, transformative mode, but are, rather, elaborative and self corrective.

Note that the hippie epoch lost all impetus once the Vietnam draft was over….

The grievance that caused “the hippie union” “to strike” against the powers and ways that be had been “settled.”

The Beatles, “Revolution” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGLGzRXY5Bw

Ramzpaul and Sytx are weird and annoying in their very insistence upon normalizing Jewish discourse.

_____________

For the sake of invoking a provocative perspective, I would like to momentarily change the pronoun in the anti-war song, “Walking in Space”, from “how dare THEY try to end this beauty, to how dare SHE try to end this beauty…

How dare she try, to end this beauty…

Right wing women who go along with the Jewish cover-up -

- ignoring the underlying motive of the hippies and wanting to blame them instead for having created “our problems”, suggesting that men should man-up in universal maturity, rather than manning-up to create group boundaries (e.g., by unionization process), or manning-up where our people’s boundaries are violated (as opposed to the other side of the world, in Vietnam, nowhere near our people’s boundaries, or where Jewish/Israeli boundaries are threatened)

- are particularly annoying…

I also interpose the pronoun change to suggest that this valuation of impervious confidence to the sacrifice of intellectual, critical apprehension of the power’s directives is a tendency in female predilection, and that the hippie movement was a (un-articulated intellectual/political) White male motive by balancing contrast to female valuation, e.g. of sheer confidence.

This also suggests a “foundational” reason as to why intrinsic value should be attributed to White males, for their perspective, as its predilections can, if anything, be better than female predilections; but in any event, provide a necessary systemic corrective in balancing the human ecology of European peoples.

Again, this momentary pronoun change is provocative. Of course women aren’t to blame for men getting sent to Vietnam to kill and die. However, traditional gender roles could have destructive consequences for men as well (second wave feminism kicking off in the 60’s as well), when hidebound, “foundationally” inflexible to the natural emergence and interactive development of White masculinity and its requirements (in praxis).

Related at Majorityrights:

A Conspiracy Theory of A Conspiracy Theory to Divert From White Male Dasein.

..the need to coordinate with (as opposed to antagonize) the Genus European and other Species of Native European Nations and diaspora remains…

...it seems that we may have had some positive influence on Brutus and co.

...but his claim that “anti-Christian” is synonymous with being anti English Nationalist is not really true.

...he’s a bit too accepting of warring and supremacism as a natural fact.

...too simplistic in his view on gender relations.

...maybe should add a few more words to his catch-all go-to - “kick the foreigners out”. Maybe

While there are these disagreements with him and his colleagues to be had, in regard to episode -

Banter Nationalism 93 -  I want to deal with a nuance of agreement and disagreement.

As they are English Nationalists, I absolutely agree with them in critiquing “Patriotic” Alternative and other British Nationalists where they might place their cause simply under the rubric of “White” and where they might rally by the 14Words (let alone by German American WN’s Hitler redemptionism 88).

Brutus’ concern to make and emphatically maintain the distinction between English ethnonationalism and White Nationalism is very important, well taken.

However, while Brutus and co. can be forgiven as being in an initial stage, tad over-corrective break-out into appropriate concentration on English ethnonationaism, they do over-correct a bit.

You see, “White” merely represents the genus, European.

The term is not only necessary to avoid confusions as to who is being advocated when speaking of European diaspora, but it is also the case that we are under attack as a race - i.e., All White people, meaning the American sense of the term, “White” - all people of European descent, and therefore we are all in the same boat with a common cause in having to defend ourselves for our race - wherever we are.

Now, White as the genus, European, is not mutually exclusive to the species - e.g. English - defending their national kinds and borders as well.

I agree absolutely with Brutus and co. in emphasizing this distinction of concern, which I will call a distinction between genus and species. Where I disagree with them is in making the concerns mutually exclusive, antagonistic, even.

And regarding the 14 Words, while David Lane made a mistake in playing a role in killing the Jewish radio shock jock and David Lane paid the price for it, the 14 Words are, nevertheless, a beautifully composed, inspiring rallying cry for many.

It does remain true, however, that the 14 Words are not unproblematic when our enemies and doltish true believers (in “88”) try to re-attach them to the “88”. That again, was a mistake by David Lane, i.e., to make that association in the first place. However, the conscientious, such as TT and his admirers, have always been clear to say the 14 Words without the 88. The 14 words remain valid as such.

Even so, it is true that “White” and The 14 Words speak of the genus and do not distinguish the very important species difference - such as the English.

Brutus’ concern to make and emphatically maintain that distinction is importantly well taken.

I hope that they’ll steer clear of some supremacist way of marking the difference - from what I hear of “37 words” I’m not sure if it’s in their personality to manage that…

Obviously we can defend ourselves better if we are not fighting each other - 88 - and have alliance with other European nations/peoples.

The coordination of genus (race) and species (national kinds) of European peoples is not too difficult an intellectual task for Brutus and others to manage.

Perhaps something like English/14

German/14

French/14 and so on…

...to mark the species divisions of the genus.

I will not insist on people using the 14 words, but they work quite well for some, especially diaspora when separated from the 88 - 14/88

The other day, while contemplating the paper I am writing for submission to PA, I came to the realisation that while the argument for democracy must (a) work and (b) be restored to our people is central to the demand for a referendum on our future in our own homeland it is actually quite tricky to navigate the civic nature of the beast.  The civicism itself is an active element in our disenfranchisement, meaning that we cannot make a straight, positive case for the referendum.  It ineluctably becomes a negative claim.

I asked Daniel what he thought about that and received some consideration which I think I have incorporated.  But I am still uncertain as to whether the case is made - it is certainly weaker than I would like and weaker than the other arguments for the referendum that are in the overall draft so far.  So I am posting a draft here if anybody is interested in commenting and strengthening the claim.  All constructive contributions gratefully received!

Any demand for a referendum is necessarily an appeal to (a likely resistant) authority for self-determination by the people.  There is solid support in international law for the principle of the self-determination of peoples, specifically in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by the UN General Assembly on 16 December 1966 and entered into force 23 March 1976.  It states:

Part 1, Article 1.1
All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Of course, it’s all in the definition of “people”.  Only if we were living in an ethnic democracy or an ethnocracy¹⁹ – two of around twenty models of democracy which academics have identified – would the people and the demos definitely and always overlap to a degree useful to us.  Given not only that current citizenship law is anything but restricted to us, and the gateway to franchise²º is wider by an order of magnitude than citizenship itself, our referendum demand would fall foul immediately of the absence of any recognition or point of reference for ethnic self-determination within the system²¹.  It would be all-too-easy for politicians to dismiss our demand just by saying: “In our vibrant national democracy every individual of eighteen or over, regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation, possesses the same human dignity and rights, and enjoys the same access to the democratic process.  You do not have the privilege of using the process to attack or disadvantage your fellow citizens.”

However, since such “liberal” opinion is relying upon novel and extra-ordinary change in the demos, brought about without recourse to the democratic process itself, it is a statement of force majeure and fait accompli - the former because, obviously, state power has been employed to sweep away all dissent and utterly change our ethnic home, the latter because the politicians, having striven to make it (as they believe) impossible to undo their handiwork, now instruct us with steepling arrogance that we have no choice but to submit to the consequences.

Such thinking has strayed so far from accountability it signals that a usurpation has taken place.  Democracy is non-operative, at least in the matter of our people’s survival and continuity (which is the most vital of all matters of state, and from which arises the general recognition that defence is the first duty of government).  The political class as a whole has made itself unaccountable.

Usurpations are not about tolerance or liberty or equality, or any other prostituted liberal principle that politicians and power elites routinely ascribe to themselves.  Usurpations are always about power.  The drive of the political class for a multiracial Britain is a power play intended to leave us, the British people, and our constitution and democracy far behind.  The Britain we knew and understood was a union under a single crown of three traditional nations, indeed three landed descent groups with intertwined histories, each sovereign under the constitution.  That state of contentment has been replaced by a proposition nation populated by individual human units gathered around liberal civic values.  The politicians have set their face against our native reality and relation, and assured themselves and us that we natives are but one social group and one culture among a multitude of civically equal groups, each of them exactly as British as we are regardless of the fact that we are children of the soil and they arrived, relatively speaking, at Heathrow passport control yesterday morning at 9.00 am.  The demos has been universalised, erasing its prior ethnic content and rendering it as an equalitarian company of uncharactered individuals connected to other living creatures only by political and socio-economic choices.  What actually matters about us has been put outside, and in that much we have been disenfranchised.

That’s the complaint.  Let us now dig down for some solid principle.

Revolutionary change in the nature and meaning of the demos brought about not by democratic means but by the use of force cannot, by definition, be democratic.  In a time of peace when the nation is secure, unconquered, and self-governing, any outcome procured through coercive governmental action against the known will and natural interests of the sovereign and native people is procured illegitimately.  That was the case on 22nd June 1948, before the Windrush sailed into British territorial waters, and it is no less the case now.

The passage of time does not grant legitimacy to the wrongs done to us, whether or not those wrongs are capable of reverse.  A fait accompli does not grant legitimacy, and it does not prohibit or de-moralise reversal, or make it any less necessary.  Abusive and unjust, untrammelled power does not justify its trespasses and treacheries by the claim of irreversability.  Only the interests of the people are irreversible.  Only the people possess the constitutional right to be governed according to the will of a parliament reflective of, and faithful to, their interests.  As the people, that right was ours alone before 22nd June 1948, and it was taken from us without warning or explanation or public debate, and awarded to strangers.  It must be our choice, and no one else’s, whether that situation obtains into the future.

In simple, force majeure is not a democratic value, and not an ethical value of any kind.  An appeal to it is a demand for our weakness and submission.  Those who make such a demand are not democrats and not ethical people.  Their arguments are flawed, arrogant, self-serving, and prejudiced against us.  Correction is due and we are bound to seek it, not least because that’s how a healthy democracy is maintained.

William Shakespeare never conceived of a betrayal more monstrous than that of our politicians, or a fate for his people and ours more completely final than the one they have engineered.  The phrase “We were never asked” is not counted among the scores of familiar Shakesperian quotations.  But perhaps one might argue in the native manner of Hamlet to Horatio that the ecumenicalism of British democracy, as it evolved from Magna Carta to the Windrush, was “a custom more honour’d in the breach than the observance”²², the breach being the implicit understanding of English peoplehood and right on the soil.  Certainly, if politicians had dismissively lectured the Englishmen of Elizabeth’s reign that Africans and south Asians and the rest have just as much ownership of this civic space and as much civic right upon it as them, that opinion would not have survived the sudden appearance of perfumed heads on pikes atop the city walls.

As it is, after the Windrush the rules of succession in our democratic Elsinore became those of the Claudian usurpation: citizenship on the nominal basis of jus soli but the effective basis of universalism squared, duly excused and commended by Brownite racial apologetics, aka civic values²³.

But the palace is still haunted by the ghost of Prince Hamlet’s murdered father.  We native British might have had all manner of poison poured in our ears but we still know this land to be our sacred ancestral home and not merely a civic space or a market economy or a race experiment²⁴; and we cannot permit it to become any or all of those in perpetuity.  Democracy must function again.  Our people must decide.

READ MORE...

This is the third section of the scene-setting, opening division of my referendum paper.  It is probably the last section I will post here, at least at this very early this stage in proceedings.

The religious and philosophical antecedents of the political struggle aside, what are we to say about the contesting forces and their respective causes?  Is it even necessary to measure the motivations of a repressive class against the rights and interests of the people it represses, or the expansionist interest of a coloniser against the defensive and life-preserving interests of the people of the land it colonisers?  Would any fair observer dismiss the victim people as consumed with hatred, and label their cause illegitimate on such self-evidently specious and confected moral grounds?  If we do not dismiss the victim people mechanically and out of hand, how can we not find for them?

But such objectivity is entirely missing from the picture.  That entity which the Tories, lost in their petty economism and managerialism, call “consumers”, “tax-payers”, “voters”, and which the Labour Party, lost in its absolutist ideology of sameness, used to call “the workers” and “the masses” but these days calls “racists”, and which nationalists call “our people” (which, of course, is what they are) … that entity bears all the violations … the child-rapes and racist murders and terror outrages, the abuse from creatures damaged by racial self-contempt, the antipathy, betrayal and deceit of successive generations of politicians, the crass social engineering, the totalitarian omerta in the media, the official assault on “ white male hegemony”, the abandonment of white boys in education for the sake of the Other, the catch-all lie of dissent-as-hate, the “service” from the police, employers’ impertinent obsession with what we say outside work, the African faces pushed at us through our TV screens every few seconds, the sheer unrelenting and unlimited extent of the change to our towns and cities ... all this they ... we ... bear with tact, grace, and an obdurate stoicism.

These are true signs of who we are.  They are not the signs of a disparate crowd of individuals indifferent to anything that has no pecuniary reward attached to it.  They are not the signs of some too too hideous monster from the history of empire, whose moral nature is shot through with irrational hatred and who has to be got out of the way, basically⁸, so non-white victims everywhere can be freed into the utopian forever-future of racial justice⁹.  Most importantly, they are not the signs of a people buckling under the repression and blanket propaganda.  They are the signs of a people of the highest moral quality.

For sure, tact and grace are receptive feminine virtues, and do not contain the reactive and assertive energy, the recoil, to make change.  But stoicism is a male virtue, and it signals that many blows have had to be absorbed but not a single backward step has been taken¹⁰.  It is a quiet and unfussy, prominent part of the native character.  It is the modern equivalent of a shield wall.  It produced, for example, the two greatest feats of endurance in British military history, which are the British Army’s long, costly defence of French soil in 1914-18 and, in relative terms, the even more costly offensive of Bomber Command in 1939-45, which for two years after Dunkirk was conducted as the sole means by which this country could carry the fight into the enemy’s home, and which produced negative crew survival rates during the great battles of the air of 1943.  Still they flew.  It is the quality on which we, today, have fallen back in the present unequal and undeclared conflict, while the attack against us grinds onward unopposed and we wait for the means and moment to reply, and to carry our voice, our will, our kinship, our native right, our interests, back into the realm of the political after an absence of several decades.

That is what a referendum, as a clarifying and reforming mechanism, is really for: our reclamation of the political.  That is what those who populate politics today are so afraid of, and with good reason because they cannot defend their own project against our people’s demand for life.  The abstract values they have inhaled from the liberal air, and which they hold to be absolutes, instantly collapse in contact with it.  Likewise, the malign and intellectually featherweight, self-serving ideological ejaculations of the anti-racist left turn to dust¹¹.  It is to be expected.  The demand for a secure existence and a sovereign and free life for our people issues from their possession of life itself and from life’s unquenchable appetite for continuity.  Everything, even the principle of power, even that of human freedom, is secondary to it.  There is no higher cause than this, which is the cause at the heart of ethnic nationalism, and no instance of that cause more just than when the life in question is that of the children of the soil.

And what, in contrast, is the moral quality of the cause of the Establishment, in whose politicians’ gift the granting of a referendum resides?  What moral defence is there for any part of its race project?  Can any Establishment speaker even explain the presence of replacement populations in our home?  Perhaps that was possible in the beginning, when Bernard Montgomery was demanding a standing Army of the Rhine of 500,000 of our young men to confront Soviet expansionism in the west, because labour shortages at home were already chronic.  But in those days we were assured that the imported labour would be returning home as soon as practicable.

That all changed within a single generation.  With Enoch Powell safely marginalised and race relations already an obsession of the political class, we started to be instructed that the West Indian and south Asian populations were now our permanent new “ethnic minorities”, and, in the words of the Conservative Party manifesto for the general election of 1979, “... there can be no question of compulsory repatriation”.  By the mid-80s Roy Hattersley, then Labour deputy leader, was touring local radio stations to announce that this was now a multicultural country.  Not a sound from the Thatcher government was heard.  It was all agreed.  Prior to the London terror attacks of 7th July 2005, when fifty-two people lost their lives, nearly every senior politician of all the parties would solemnly inform us how “Diversity is our strength”.  That lie rarely passes their lips now, unless they are addressing a non-white audience.  They dare not tell that to us.  They have fallen strangely, uncharacteristically silent.

Indeed, throughout everything no one of any party troubled to explain why this was happening.  There has never been a formal explanation.  Politicians preferred to present the whole thing as some irresistible force of modernity which had to be managed as best it could.  As to its fundamental cause, that could be a gift of the jet engine, as some have argued, or of some timeless and unstoppable, Nature-given human practise of people “moving around the planet” (the current UN and EU narrative of the migrant who, mysteriously, cannot be shut out of European lands, like floodwater at the door), or it could just be the world’s refugees righteously seeking “safety” or asylum, or the world’s poor and the world’s brain surgeons seeking betterment.  It could be any cause, frankly, but that of destructive elites deliberately mixing-up the world’s populations in our home in pursuit of objects too shameful to be allowed into the light.

For the benefit of clarity, these peoples whom they force upon us are, first, replacement populations invited here to settle in our home without end; and, second, transformative populations brought here to gene-kill us by miscegenation.  Their status in our home is not that of an authentic ethnic minority, as we are instructed to think, but a coloniser.  They are not an oppressed victim, either.  An “oppressed minority” which enjoys the unremitting and total support of the government and opposition, the liberal Establishment, the media, the corporate sector, academia, law, and Third Sector is not a victim.  It is a pawn.

Who the chess-player is, exactly … if it has a single identity at all ... we do not formally know.  We can only make educated guesses.  But it’s not the politicians.  They are no better than hired help.  They get a good deal.  As irredeemably self-important beings, they have what they want, which is power over the political life of the nation and potentially a lucrative post-Westminster career.  They have the trappings of that power, perhaps even an office of state and the responsibility that comes with it.  If not, well, there are regular opportunities to display “humanity” before the cameras, perhaps in a refugee camp or in the children’s ward of some inner-city hospital at Christmas time.  Or Eid.  It’s the proven method by which one attains social elevation and the good public opinion of one’s liberal peers.  The speeches in the chamber, the clamour of journalists, the in-fighting, the late-night cutting of deals, the freebies and boondoggles, the whole venal mess … it’s intoxicating and exciting.  It’s a good life for an eager PPE grad from Oxbridge or London South Bank, or wherever.

It is also the true condition of any mediocre individual who lives so much on the surface of things.  The surface, of course, does preclude an holistic sense of the age, and because these people have no holistic sense of the age they are its unquestioning creatures.  In consequence nowhere are there free and creative agents, men and women of a stature sufficient unto the day.  On one side there is a great surfeit of pliant, principle-free drones, small thinkers and careerists given by character and ambition to the management of small things.  On the other there are repressive ideologues with no ideas of their own, creatures of passionate intensity¹³ at war with their natures and ours.  Powerful they may be - as powerful as we are weak.  But this generation of politicians are afraid to look our people in the eye.  They will not speak our name.  They do not ask any question of us.  They do not want answers, because answers would require decisions and decisions actions about matters of concern, matters of existence itself, which they have abjured themselves from ever acknowledging.  It is one of the reasons why their denunciation of nationalists is so rabid and unreasoning.  They are pushing away their own insupportable guilt and hypocrisy.

This is the dysfunctional political class we would have to lead towards giving our people the last thing in this world they want to give us, and to do so in the knowledge that it would likely rock their political lives to their core.  It is a seemingly impossible task.  But now let’s take a look at the matter in detail.

READ MORE...

This is the next passage in the referendum paper I am preparing.  It is commentary on the historiography ... the ideological ancestry, if you like, of all the negatives which nationalism seeks to address, and the “genetic defects” which that ancestry transmits to the current mainstream political generation.

Long before the late 17th century development of the urban industrial centre, and the conflicts of class and labour which accompanied it, the life of our people was already subject to challenging and pervasive transformational currents.  The class system itself, as a rigid socio-economic impost, entered the bloodstream of England with the Norman Conquest.  The capitalist landlord then emerged from the system of indenture and the bond of debt which was medieval serfdom.  The ideas of the 18th century Enlightenment owe their development to Descartes, Hobbes and Locke (Karl Marx actually said “We are all Hobbes’ children”), and they, in turn, to the intellectual canon arising, on one hand, out of Western Christian intellectualism (with its non-biblical roots in the Greeks and Islamic scholars) and, on the other, out of Renaissance humanism.

Not one of the Enlightenment philosophers was anti-Christian.  On the contrary,  they were conventional Christian gentlemen of their time writing about Man, not God.  The secular nature of their writings in no way precludes a broad and uncritical acceptance of Christianity’s own conception of Man.  The very model of the unfettering will derives from the proposition that is the Christian soul seeking salvation by the grace of the god of Abraham, and that, in turn, derives via Paul from the Judaic conception and treatment of the gentile.  It is a conception and treatment born out of the humiliation, after numerous other tribal humiliations, numerous other physical and psychological exiles, of the Roman occupation of Jerusalem from 63 BCE; and it works by weaponising the self-same alienations and estrangements of the Jewish exile and inflicting them upon the perceived existentially hostile gentile Other.

Thus with the conversion of the tribes of Europe to Christianity our ancestors acquired as their most abiding and formative moral and cultural artefact another morality and another culture integral to it and inseparable from it.  It is a culture of imposture, and of the existential critique of self and others.  Inevitably, its effects in time have been all too profound, colouring and characterising all that followed, instilling a sense of humanity sans bounds, a novel sense of individual identity, and of what our connection to others is for.  These three altogether estranging moral gifts, simple in themselves though they are, run uninterrupted through the greater part of the Western intellectual canon⁶ and the political, social, economic, and cultural life … our political, social, economic, and cultural life ... which flows therefrom.

The situation – always dangerous, of course - has gone critical in our time.  Our natural identity and our natural relation, both of which wholly belong to, and should go wholly unquestioned by, every European, are all but missing from the lived life.  That life is impelled onward not as our creative expression at all but as that of an always dynamic and developing struggle for human artifice and caesura in direct opposition to our human authenticity and belonging, and to the native principle itself (the principle of blood on the land, and the natural rights and interests pertaining thereto).

To re-emphasise, because it is important: the most fundamental contest of our age is that between artifice and authenticity in the European life and person, the former giving power over us to others, the latter giving us power over ourselves. 

Those on the political right who are held captive by the former look upon us, the native British, and see very little but interchangeable units of economic cost, unmindful of anything more human, more enduring than the consumption of ever greater quantities of goods and services.  The denizens of the modern left, meanwhile, consumed by the most absurd moral vanity, likewise see not our humanity but the endemic and indelible stain of hate and prejudice (usually “racist” hate and prejudice) in the white-skinned oppressor who alone bars the way to the post-racial utopia of radically equal beings, and who can only make recompense by an unending self-abnegation.  If these pathologies are taking peoples of European descent out of existence today – and they are – then it is, ultimately, because over the centuries we have determinatively accrued the substantive moral and intellectual framework of our own fracture and debilitation, and on that framework dangle all the 20th century philosophies and reductive human models⁶ which deliver us into artifice and to the will of others.

In the absence of effective philosophical and political analyses British nationalists spent most of the period between the end of WW2 and the end of the millenium asking themselves the wrong questions (rooted not in our politics at all but in the humiliations of an adopted “defeat” in WW1 and the challenge from communist revolutionaries to the continental European liberal democracies): how do we tell everyone about the JQ … how do we live the life of glory, what do we do to model greatness ... how do we re-kindle the spirit of our race … how do we beat the left on the streets … where is the leader?  Our people, meanwhile, were left with just one active defender: their own instinct.  Opinion polling suggests that it has stood up pretty well to the decades of Establishment social engineering and projected racial self-contempt⁷.

Finally, at the turn of the millenium, the main body of British nationalists began a turn of their own, away from post-fascistic Nietzschean thinking and towards an inchoate and largely unwritten nationalism of our ethnicity, being, and identity.  Two decades later that turn is still underway.  Patriotic Alternative, for example, evinces elements of the old thinking and the new.  But the party and the movement as a whole is facing towards the universal politics of life which is ethnic nationalism, and now can, if the understanding is there, articulate it as a total and profoundly moral refutation of the hypocritical elitism, coercion, lies, hatred, unnaturalness, and ethnocide on offer from the Establishment parties, activists, and media.  Further, we can make the most positive offer imaginable to the people, restoring their land, no less, to their own children, and a life of freedom, belonging, security, peace ... and boundless potential.

We will always appear weak when comparisons with the Establishment cohorts are made on the basis of the prestige of office, corporate funding, organisational structure and manpower, campaign professionalism, mainstream media reach, and so forth.  That cannot be a surprise.  Said cohorts have been the beneficiary of history, as explained above.  But it is a history of political crime and philosophical error.  We, on the other hand, are the upholders of what is right and just and true, and the expressers of our people’s real interests and instinct for life.  As with the Leave campaign in 2016 we do not have to rely on grotesque lies and bullying.  With the offer of England to our people, a big enough coalition and on-going help from the other side’s extremists we must have a fighting chance.

READ MORE...

I have set aside my philosophical writings for a time while I work up a full paper on the political benefit, methods, and viability of campaigning for a United Kingdom referendum on securing the future of the four native British peoples.  It is a suggestion I made recently at Patriotic Alternative’s site, and the subject of a limited correspondence with Laura Towler.  I’ll be publishing some sections of the paper here, but the full paper will be sent to Laura in an attempt to kick-start nationalism in this country.

Introduction

On 23rd June 2016 the voters of this country went to the polls after a four-month national campaign to render to government and parliament their decision in the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum.  It was the latest of fourteen referendums held since Edward Heath’s Northern Ireland referendum on Irish unity of 1973.  A pointless and ill-conceived exercise though that was, it nevertheless set the precedent by which British governments have since resorted to referendums on constitutional matters ranging from parliamentary voting reform to devolution for the north-east of England.  In that time also, two further referendums were planned.  But circumstances intervened and they were never held.  Although in British politics referendums still constitute an extra-ordinary process of consultation (many, including most nationalists, would argue deference¹) they are now firmly established as the democratic instrument by which enduring national questions over which parliament understands itself not to possess constitutional competence are passed to the people to be settled.

That said, we should not run away with the idea that this is ever done from politicians’ dedication to high principle, and quite without the worldly stain of political calculation.  The politics of referendums is very plainly beholden to the politics of keeping or getting of power.  In all but one case², referendums in Britain have either been resorted to by government in response to a long-running public campaign³ or have flowed from the election of a new government which, in opposition, had adopted the campaign’s cause⁴, invariably for its own electoral purposes.

Political opportunism and self-interest, therefore, are material considerations for any government asked to hand the people definite and direct control over a great constitutional question.  Accordingly, governments can and do refuse to turn to the people even when doing so may be morally unimpeachable, just and strictly logical, and the cause popular.

A striking example is the point-blank refusal of successive governments in the wake of Scottish and Welsh devolution to grant the electorate in England a vote on England’s representative inequality within the Union.  The formal discussion has been of the constitutional disruption⁵ a parliament for England and a government of England would produce.  But one’s overwhelming suspicion is that the real issue is the craven self-interest and careerism of the Westminster class, which will brook neither challenge nor change.

This being the case, how much less likely is it that any Westminster government will cede a demand from, by its own estimation, politically irrelevant British nationalists and “populists” for decision in the matter of our respective ethnic survival in the lands which bear our respective names?  The political class is only too well aware that the population change it has deliberately wrought upon the natives of this land has never been legitimised by our consent, and it is only too well aware why.  It has, in consequence, done everything in its power to close its ears to our voices,  sullying itself by sullying that voice; and this it has done, and will go on doing, for the sole purpose of erecting a justification, as it supposes, for its total betrayal of us, its total betrayal of our children.  Why, after the setback that its internationalism suffered on 23rd June 2016, would it call down destruction upon its head by ceding to us control over its demographic weapon and, thereby, over its own fate?

This paper will explore how Patriotic Alternative, acting as the wellspring of native opinion, might set about breaking the illusions of representation and respectability with which the political class clothes itself, and by which it commands the political stage, and our people with it.  In essence, what are the difficulties of actually engaging with government and making the demand for a referendum on the survival and continuity of the four native peoples of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.  What are the difficulties of making such a referendum necessary for government … any government ... to grant or at least to attempt, in the glaring light of day, to publicly refute and refuse?  How could those difficulties be overcome?  What are the benefits for nationalism of fighting the fight anyway, win or lose?  And how might it be possible for the nationalist cause to triumph against all the odds, as the Leave cause triumphed against the exact same forces a little over four years ago?

To each of these questions this paper will attempt to provide an answer.

READ MORE...