Any novel and genuine politics of change must possess a set of interlocking core principles derived from a theory of Man’s reduced condition and a countering and inspiring vision of what he properly is.  That latter must be reflected in the ultimate value advanced by these politics, and the whole must be eminently communicable, indeed politically virulent; and for that people have to know that it is true.  One shortfall in any of these respects and historical purchase will not be possible, even when the prevailing system is grown stale and unproductive, and the people yearn for a relevant and fresh, hopeful way forward.

So poorly mapped out is ethnic nationalism, so poorly has it been served by thinking nationalists, and so unsympathetically, oftimes deceitfully, by liberal academics, that all three of these necessities - structure, ultimate value, and truth - are scarcely addressed at all in any formal sense.  Properly resolved they would advance our nationalism considerably towards becoming the holistic and original philosophy we desire it to be. 

But they are not the only unresolved issues.  The problem of becoming, or human purpose, and the problem of the individual and his freedom also cast a long shadow, as does the problem of the sheer scale of the revolutionary endeavour.  With all that in mind, then, we will now try to make some progress, or at least some useful observations, commencing in this essay with the problems of structure and of becoming.  Value, truth, and the individual must await a part four, and even five.

The problem of structure

As explained previously in this series, we routinely profess ourselves to be ethnic nationalists, espousers of a communicable philosophy.  Really, though, the most that can be said of us is that we are nativists.  Nativism at least has a structure to it.  It is defensive and survivalist.  It is the politics of the place of arising ... home, the source of the people, the parent of their distinctiveness.  It is important.  But it can never rise to the station of a positive, organising system for living ... never get beyond defence of the people’s life and land.

Descriptively, a nationalism of ethnicity must be holistic, naturalistic, existential, authenticising, universal (in the sense of true of all peoples), defensive before it is expansive, and preserving before it is conserving.  As the political expression of the native principle, it is the politics of ethnic genesis on the soil and so of the natural right ... the native right ... to defend kind and home.  It is, then, the active politics of genetic interests, of the kin relation.  As the politics of all settled peoples it is the politics of peace and the complete antidote to liberalism’s post-Christian and anti-European universalism.  It is the politics of consciousness of being.  It is the politics of the authentic in us individually and, therefore, collectively, because consciousness in a people, like natural wisdom in a crowd, is accreting. 

But what are the principles underpinning all this?  How do they articulate socially?  The following (tentatively proposed) structural scheme may take things forward:

It exhibits a rather extensive collection of base principles and, in the upper range, a row of states leading to triads of active processes.  All are arrayed across three distinct but interlocking dynamics, shown here as rising columns.

READ MORE...

Why do corporations whose business model is constructed on mass production and mass consumption think they can continue to survive in an age of reduced and reducing population and “sustainability”?  Who will buy Fiats and Fords when no one owns a vehicle?

Owning a car is outdated ‘20th-century thinking’ and we must move to ‘shared mobility’ to cut carbon emissions, transport minister says
Owning a car is outdated ‘20th-century thinking’, junior transport minister says
Trudy Harrison, 45, said the UK should move to ‘shared mobility’ to cut emissions
Almost 80 per cent of UK households own at least one car, latest figures showed

Owning a car could become a fad of the past, a government minister claimed this week.

Junior transport minister Trudy Harrison, 45, told a sustainability conference owning a car was outdated ‘20th-century thinking’ and the country should move to ‘shared mobility’ to cut carbon emissions.

Ms Harrison, who is also a former parliamentary private secretary to Boris Johnson, said the UK was ‘reaching a tipping point where shared mobility in the form of car clubs, scooters and bike shares will soon be a realistic option for many of us to get around.’

She told a virtual audience at shared transport charity CoMoUK what the country needed was a move away from ‘20th-century thinking centred around private vehicle ownership and towards greater flexibility, with personal choice and low carbon shared transport’.

And so the deceitful drip-feed of the bad news about the future continues.

Car-owning is just one area of dispossession slated for the little people.  According to the infamous (now deleted) WEF article everything ... even the clothes on our back ... will be rented from a corporation.  Consumption will crash.  Manufacturing will die.  So why do no major manufacturers or industry bodies resist?

Well, the car manufacturers, certainly, seem to expect continued high-volume sales of their products to the rental markets of the smart city pod-scape and the blob-on-a-bed of the metaverse.  As some deluded management geek wrote at Forbes:

Customer loyalty will gradually move from brand and dealerships to integrated and convenience-driven services and associated mobility options. New business models of pay-per-use and subscription-based mobility will be the way forward.

But there isn’t any customer loyalty to the manufacturer in pay-per-use.  The pleasure of ownership leads to an entirely different qualitative expectation from that of mere utility, where competitive pressures and the absence of customer loyalty will inevitably lead to low-quality, throw-away products with minimal profit potential.  So why are the car producers - or, indeed, any of the quality-oriented life-style mass-producers - eagerly going along with a fake “sustainable” market system that they can’t survive?  They’re not mad environmentalists.  Their chief executives are not paid to crash the company.

One wonders if the real reason is peer pressure at the Davos forum and the other nests of globalism, and cowardice and fear about standing out from the lemming-herd does the rest.

A comment on Judaism, which I made in response to a perfectly decent and honest Orthodox Jew at the Disqus page for a Speccie article on Arab anti-Semitism in London.  The comment pulls together much of my current view on the Jewish Question.

On balance, I’m in agreement with Koestler about Ashkenazic origin. There is ample evidence in the ancient historical record. But, of course, it cuts across the biblical claim of return; so it must be dismissed out of hand.  But we can let that pass.

The point about Judaism as it developed between the destruction of the Temple and the authorship of the Talmud is that it is a Jewish nationalism in eschatological form.  It is a political project. Moshiach is a political, not spiritual, leader. The anointing of Jews as the priest class speaking directly to G-d and ministering over humanity is accompanied by the most material possible ambitions - basically the ownership of everything.  Meanwhile, the rest of humanity has no function but that of chattels.  One would like to believe that this is only the husk of the fruit.  But if that is all there is, it is an extraordinarily coarse and vulgar vision when compared to the sublime and towering spirituality of, say, Indian mysticism or the compassion of Buddhism.

From the outside, certainly, one observes Judaism’s methodology not by the greater spiritual attainment of Jews (there is, after all, the issue of chosen-ness, which renders such struggle unnecessary, hence the emphasis on intra-tribal respect and law) but by the stripping of specificity and identity from the rest of humankind, and humanity’s impress into the role of the servile gentile at the End Time.  One expects that Jews sincerely believe this estate to be the pre-requisite for a Pax Judaica.  But it’s really something quite different.  No people desires such a violent fate.  All peoples desire to be free, and possess no lesser right than Jews in that regard.

Psychologically, we might explain Judaism’s extraordinary, hyper-competitive teleology as a neurotic over-evaluation of evolutionary group fitness. Given the history of enslavement of the biblical Jews it is not too difficult to understand. Interestingly, when one looks at Germany after Versailles and through the period of hyper-inflation, we can see that some political forms present in Judaism also appeared in National Socialism. We can identify the Fuhrer, the Thousand Year Reich, racial supremacism, the enslavement of neighbouring peoples, all of which mirror the Judaic model in an absurdist style.  The real commonality, though, is the degradation and humiliation of conquest by a foreign people. The great difference is that the absurdist German model was not an evolutionary survival strategy.  Germans still held Germany and still, therefore, had an evolutionary point of reference in the soil. Jews did not have this, and made their evolutionary point of reference their host peoples.  There are many interesting adaptions to the European sociobiological character, of which the high Ashkenazic average intelligence, especially verbal intelligence, is the most marked.

Obviously, Jews are not going to see Olam Ha-ba.  Humanity is being ushered instead into the Fourth Industrial Revolution, and Jews have no special destiny therein.  In the meantime, we Europeans still have to cope with all the sociobiological impulses which inform the Judaic project, which carry on regardless.  It would be better for us both if Jews could lift their heads and survey the real world, as Richard Herrnstein did in co-writing The Bell Curve just before his death in 1994.  He understood the coming elitism.  He tried to warn his own people and ours.  No one listened, and instead he was attacked as a “racist” by the very kin he was trying to help.

Yesterday, after trailing his skirts for several months, Eric Zemmour finally announced his candidature for next April’s French presidential election.  He did so with a brilliantly crafted speech, which I reproduce below.

Nationalists, meanwhile ... real ones ... have likely already discounted the possibility that a Jewish anti-Islamist and culturist would, if elected, deliver a nationalist outcome.  Yes, he says “The Third Worldization of our country and our people impoverishes it as much as it disrupts it, ruins it as much as it torments it.”  But he also says, “So that the French will feel at home again and so that the latest arrivals assimilate to their culture and appropriate their history.”

Then there is much confusion caused by his adoption of Renaud Camus’s grand remplacement terminology (which Marine Le Pen has not taken up).  Does that signify adoption of the theory as such?  Is he at all hostile to non-Muslim foreignisation, if those foreigners integrate culturally?  Yes, he says “we will not allow ourselves to be replaced”.  Yes, he speaks of “the minorities who never stop tyrannizing the majority”, but is he speaking only of Muslims, Islam and jihad?

The one certainty is that his language and his candidacy will push the future of the true French to the centre of the campaign, and force the traitor-parties to speak of the one thing of which they are most afraid.  If, as seems possible, Zemmour beats Le Pen and the other challengers to proceed to the second round against Macron (presumeably), the Great Question of nationalism is very likely to become the great question of French politics, win or lose.  That much this man can do for true nationalists.

Here is his speech:

READ MORE...

The following is an extended reply to a conversation with Thorn and a question from him on the matter of faith and conversion.  To answer that, I am not going to answer that.  I am going to contextualise my non-answer by talking a little instead about the parallels between spirital liberation and the beatific on the one hand and the nationalism of ethnicity and awakening on the other, and about both of these and authenticity.

For all of us as human beings, an awakening consciousness of our own Being assorts as either a spiritual or ethnic liberation according to its character and content.  Both question that which is formed in us quite mechanically from the world around us.  Both seek the freeing, conscious experience of the essential.  But the way to that estate is narrow.

A spiritual liberation properly commences with an individual’s detachment from the voiding psychological mechanicity of his ordinary inner functioning.  As a human event, this liberation is esoteric in nature, and its understanding and undertaking is really only possible for men and women with the most remarkable dedication to and discrimination for truth.  Luck also plays its part.  Just to have the psychological grounding to generate the required epiphany (that “the problem” lies in our enworldment and its powerfully habituating effect upon certain mind-functions) is rare and remarkable in itself.  That alone makes a searcher of the subject, and brings him or her to the boundary of the esoteric.  For a Westerner then to go on and (a) find and (b) gain entry to a source of the necessary, extremely carefully curated technical (not religious) knowledge is akin, chance-wise, to a non-trivial win on the lottery.

Fragments of that knowledge ... just strings of words ... appear in the New Testament, but nothing can be reconstructed from them.  Likewise, odd references appear in formal Christian belief and rite, but they are lost to other familiarities.  There are reportedly surviving elements in the spiritual devotions and exercises of the dwindling roster of religious orders.  But this knowledge is preserved to a much greater degree in Sufism, Hindu mysticism, and Buddhism.

READ MORE...

After the closing of comments at Klondrive, The Crows Nest is the second site to operate as heir to Morgoth’s Review, allowing the commentariat to continue its labours.  Its owner Gentleman Jim posted a fine podcaste from Morgoth, which I now embed here; with some comments below which give my reaction:

The initial comment is from a decent poster Tsnamm:

tsnamm • 4 hours ago
The age old question postulated by Milton, “is it better to rule in hell, than it is to serve in heaven.”
On the flip side from the gospel of Matthew “where your treasure lies, there will be your heart also. “
As it stands today we’ve been indoctrinated to believe the former at the expense of the latter. The corruption of the west has been sold as “choice”, “free will”, and “individual rights”. Yet all of these things have been perverted to the extreme so that what passes for our treasure today is the celebration of destruction of the core of our being spiritually, as a good. All of this being done concurrently with the physical contamination of our lands and replacement of our peoples by outsiders. It’s beyond an existential crisis.

My first reply:

Guessedworker  tsnamm • 2 hours ago
Very good formulation. I am cautious about the words “spirit” and “spiritual”, which do not have a precise meaning, and which tend to be used to indicate something that is just hovering about with which everybody is familiar anyway. They are attractive to people, not infrequently liars and rogues, looking for a mechanical agreement to an agenda, perhaps religious, perhaps philosophical, cultural or political, without feeling the necessity to explain in what, precisely, that agenda is constituted.

For me, anyway, the problem of “spirit” is resolved by the concept of emergence of properties which are in and of our nature, and from which we cannot resile. Where there is genetic expression there is phenotype, and in this case the phenotype is behavioural. We are always seeking its application to the world. That might be denied by the dictates and circumstances of the day but it does not change.

We are not East Asians. Conformism as a herd behaviour to centralise and harness group power is not our evolutionary survival strategy. Authoritarianism does not belong to us in that sense. The authoritarian Christian g-d is not our true god, and release from its authority only supplies us with release into the notions of liberalism because liberalism is also a Judaic model, albeit one in which Man the Creator dispenses salvation by self-authoriality ... by the same breaking of the bounds of our nature.

So, yes, while I like Morgoth’s presentation I do not agree with the central dichotomy. We do not have to live forever inside the Jewish mind. We do not have to be in this cage of authority contra hyper-individualism. Neither are emergent properties of the European mind.

And my follow-up

Guessedworker  Guessedworker • 36 minutes ago
There is an article at TCW this morning by a doctor - the subject is Covid, as usual for TCW - but she had this to say about the supinity of her colleagues before the government Covid juggernaut:

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/why-have-we-doctors-been-silent/

It is typically those of us most conditioned by the expectations of society, utterly obedient and deferent to authority, who gain entry to medicine. One can see the path: we were good, compliant children and then good, compliant students. Now we are good, compliant doctors. I’m beginning to understand that goodness is measured in a different way, and obedience is not a virtue.

Obedience is learned through fear, threat and intimidation; it is in fact trauma programming and achieved through small control gestures when we were young and helpless. Now we are adults but still operating under these childhood programmes of beliefs and fears. We still feel helpless and beholden to a higher authority. We still submit to an authoritative decree even when it overrides our inherent moral compass.

Our inherent moral compass.  That is what is true of us, or a non-trivial part of it.  That is what belongs neither to the Jewish g-d nor the self-authoring individual.

In other words, our liberation from liberal modernity is also a liberation from Christianity’s Judaic content.  What there is in Christianity that is not Judaic is another matter, and one probably best explored by nationalists with religious sentiments.

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

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

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

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

READ MORE...

Revolution?  What revolution?

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

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

In any case, here are both logs:

READ MORE...