In political thought, perhaps the most basic, formative and necessary intellectual task is to adequately define that which one opposes or seeks to change.  This is especially true for us, devotees of an inchoate and wholly natural politic; and true for us, too, given that there is such a variety of opinion about what it is, exactly, nationalism is fighting.  An adequate definition of that lends coherence to our cause, and refines our purpose.

I thought it might be interesting and revealing to invite such definitions from readers.  Here are a couple from an email conversation between Graham Lister and me last February, which I happened across this evening.  I can’t speak for the care which Graham devoted to his.  Maybe he wrote it on the hoof.  Maybe not.  But I recall thinking quite hard about mine, which follows, and which, when I read it today, I must say seems a little formal and lacking in bite.

Anyhow, to get the ball rolling, here is Graham’s:

Liberal humanism treats the human individual subject as an abstract universal; it is premised on the paradoxical idea that all individuals should be treated the same, regardless of who or what they are by virtue of their status as radically differentiated and discrete phenomena. What grounds the reality of the social order is the universality of the ‘unencumbered’ and autonomous self, free to volitionally exert its will upon itself and the world. It offers a deflationary and reductionist ontology of the social and an inflationary account of the status and significance of the free-floating individual subject.

And here was the definition of the foundational “problem”, as I see it, which I wrote in response:

Liberalism is a product of the humanist strand in the Christianity of the high and late Middle Ages and early modern era, and the intellectual flowering of the Renaissance throughout this period.  It treats the human individual subject as an abstract universal which is capable of full autonomy but is ordinarily defined, and thereby restrained and bounded, by the given in Nature and in society.  It seeks, therefore, to liberate the subject from this definition and empower it to differentiate and author itself.  Besides this process of radical liberation, it particularly commends equal treatment, universal respect and fraternity, and continual progress towards its own goals as the chief desiderata of society and politics.

re-evaluating and re-ordering motives for an optimal process of the White Class

READ MORE...

The punditry are convinced that secession talk in the US is driven by angry reaction to Obama’s reelection.  They have the analysis wrong.  Here’s why:

READ MORE...

As well as the publication of the Leveson report, tomorrow sees three parliamentary by-elections - in Middlesborough, Croydon North and Rotherham (all currently Labour-held). Of these, it is the latter that Labour is concentrating resources on.  A combination of factors - the date (which will reduce turnout), the child grooming scandals, Denis MacShane’s resignation over false invoices, a divided local party and, most recently, the UKIP fostering row - means that the result is increasingly hard to predict.

The opening paragraph of a New Stateman article on the forthcoming by-election in Rotherham, South Yorkshire.

About this time tomorrow night we will know something new about a question which nationalists ask themselves whenever conversation drifts onto electoral politics.  What does it take - indeed, is it even possible - for a minor party to win a Westminster seat under First Past The Post?  The United Kingdom Independence Party, a one issue party of disaffected, golf-club Tory Eurosceptics, is thought by some to be in with a shout of overturning the disgraced Denis MacShane’s majority in one of the safest Labour seats in the country.  That is unlikely, and probably highly so.  But there appears to be a tide flowing for change in the constituency.  The Labour Party has taken an enormous knock in the town, and to continue voting for it requires either a considerable act of political faith or pig ignorance.  In the past the party has always been able to rely on a heavy supply of both.

Anyway, I thought it might be worthwhile to start a thread on the by-election.  A solid result for UKIP would be third.  But it would not surprise anyone if they finished one place higher, ahead of the Tories.  They don’t have to win to provide at least a partial answer to the question, “What does it take ...”  But they do have to get close.  That, though, would require both a collapse in the Labour vote (currently running nationally at 43%, while UKIP is at a record 11%) and a major shift of Tory, Libdem and Labour votes to the challenger.

How could a nationalist government, operating more or less within the moral standards of Western democracies, persuade the millions of the immigrant populations to return to their own lands?  Here are a few possible policy initiatives, in the UK context.

Political necessities

1. Leave EU, ending right of abode of EU citizens.

2. End immigration completely.

3. Enforce existing law on illegal immigrants.

4. Repeal all race legislation.  Restore full freedom of speech and association.

5. Give work permits to some immigrants in reserved occupations.

6. ID register all ethnic minority respondees to the 2011 Census.  Those found to be non-respondees to the Census to be declared illegal.

7. Favour indigenous applicants in all public sector employment and in university selection.

The stick

1. Ban polygymy.

2. Ban animal slaughter without stunning.

3. Ban genital mutilation.

4. Ban mosque development.

5. End public funding and charitable status of all non-Christian faith schools and minority groups.

6. Retrospectively declare all post-war asylum cases illegitimate.

7. End welfare payments to UK accounts of minority claimants.

The carrot

1. Offer re-settlement grants scaled according to length of time in the UK, with a validity of three years but with the sum declining by one third each year.

2. Offer short-term welfare paid in the country of destination.

3. Offer training and business development grants, again paid in the country of destination.

4. Tie overseas aid wholly to acceptance of returnees by the destination countries, where required.

Today I had an informative and occasionally bloody exchange with some rather vituperate drug-takers on a DT thread to an article by Brendan O’Neill.  Brendan is only moonlighting at the Telegraph.  His daytime job is editor of the left-wing mag, Spiked.  He is one of a small band of liberal-left journalists who abuse the DT readership in various none-too-subtle ways.  Today, Brendan was making a particularly vapid argument not only for the decriminalisation of cannabis but of all drugs.  It certainly brought out the libertarian tendency.

Ever since I was a very young man first encountering people socially who took “illegal substances” I have found the breed to be very annoying.  I don’t think I ever met one who was not wholly consumed by the fashions and fads of the times, or who really had both feet planted on the ground.  Indeed, their personalities were as light as a feather.  Now, I am sure that somewhere there must be many decent people who happened to smoke weed when they were young and impressionable, and perhaps still do from time to time.  But I never met one.

What I did meet were socially needy people who had few inner resources, who liked novelty, who considered themselves “free” because they did this apparently daring thing, when all the evidence was that they did it because they were in chains.  It meshed neatly with my then nascent understanding that you can’t live seriously if you are not psychologically serious, and the number of serious people I met in the daily rounds of a south London life circa 1970 were not exactly encouraging.

Well, all that was a very long time ago, and I haven’t given it a great deal of thought since.  But it all came flooding back as I read the “wisdom” of the attenuated specimens posting on the thread.  I found myself arriving at the same conclusion: if a man gives himself and his brain chemistry up to some street drug he has already proven that he is too weak and suggestible to make responsible choices.  The proper course for public policy cannot be legalisation until a real degree of personal psychological stability and self-knowledge obtains.

Of course, all these druggy creatures on the O’Neill thread were libertarians, and so they were perfectly convinced of their own “sovereign will”.  They had not the slightest inkling that they are incomplete and shallow men.  One of them informed me:

If anything we are a Pleasure seeking Pagan Isles and it us druggies who are the free English who are doing what the English do best.

I responded:

While you are indulging your weak, pathetic self in those thoughts, the African and Asian populations are steadily colonising and replacing us.

What use are you to Englishmen?

He did not reply.  They never do if it gets difficult.

Governments agonise over what to do about the drugs issue.  They should forget that.  It isn’t drugs that cause the drug-taking.  It’s the kind of human personalities we are producing.

As a follow-on to my criticism of the happy talk of Harpending and Cochran, I offer for your edification and amusement the recent bioinformatic research into the biohistory of IQ from Stanford’s Gerald Crabtree from which he draws the conclusion:

‘I would be willing to wager that if an average citizen from Athens of 1000 BC were to appear suddenly among us, he or she would be among the brightest and most intellectually alive of our colleagues and companions.’

Professor Crabtree’s research is presented in Our fragile intellect. Part I and Our fragile intellect. Part II.

The basic argument is that the evolution of humanity’s general intelligence involves many pleiotropic genes on many chromosomes.  Moreover this multigenicity of intelligence as a phenotype is more synergistic (multiplicative) than it is additive.  The multigenic chain therefore can be easily broken by just a few mutations.

In other words, the 10,000 year explosion may be blowing human intelligence to smithereens.

Notwithstanding the vast amount of straitening post-election commentary that has appeared across the right-wing media, I thought it might be in order to offer one or two thoughts of my own.  Apologies now to anyone who doesn’t mind if they never read another word about this sorry issue!

As every politically-minded person has surely realised, the impressive block-voting of non-whites has put demographics at the centre of political calculation. The GOP in its current form is already electorally obsolete.  Two-thirds of a static white electorate will never again be sufficient to command an electoral majority.  The one-third of white Americans, particularly single women, voting Democrat were already gestured towards by the GOP’s rejection of Bachman, Cain, Santorum, Gingrich, and the libertarian Constitutionalist Ron Paul.  Romney was supposed a flip-flopper, a RINO, and therefore electable to all those Republican voters lost in 2008.  Now he is the point from which the party has to migrate to find a majority.  It has to reach out to blacks and Hispanics, and it cannot even rely any more on conservative minorities like Alan West.

For mainstream political observers the interesting question is how the GOP will adapt to this new reality and retain its present constituencies.  Nationalists, however, already know that the constant pursuit of conservative movements is not principle but relevance.  Ultimately, it’s about power, and nothing is likely to change this time.  The party managers will take the Christian Right for granted.  After all, where can it go without entirely marginalising itself?  The new party line will say little that is critical of illegal migrants, abortion, or homosexual politics.  It will trumpet a more anti-statist and economically liberal platform.  This, in turn, will redefine the political centre, and narrow the national debate even further, and that will generate a new bout of radicalism on the left.

Now let’s look for a few aspects in this of particular interest to nationalists.

READ MORE...