counter-culture represents something of a departure for me. Although every nationalist is a cultural critic of sorts, I am not a very practised one. I tend to a critique which is more psychological in its address, with an occasional gesture in the direction of philosophy. Where possible, of course, psychology prefers fact over proposition. The hard ground of genotype and sociobiology ... of Nature intruding into the Mind and into the lived life ... is an amenable place for a fact-junkie like me to seek permanent truths and, too, an understanding of Nature’s bounds and limits, and of the pathological pretence in the culture beyond that the natural bounds can not only be broken, but that we can be freed by breaking them.
Culture ... that fabulously coloured, capacious, elusive thing ... is a carrier of the natural too, of course. The trick for anyone seeking to interdict or reform or revolutionise it should be to exorcise its pathologies by means of appeal to that nature. It should be straightforward. After all, people are able to struggle for existence, and in that cause to discriminate for good over evil, and for truth over lies. They routinely refer to their instinctive interests and preferences as determinants of what is good, and what is natural, healthy and normal, and so on. So you might think this would be easy … that the mind’s supervenient natural qualities must predominate ... that working with Nature’s grain must lead to a life-giving outcome.
Yet, the condition of our people in the pre-Globality (let’s call it that, in the absence any generally accepted term) is such that little common understanding and agreement obtains on what constitutes pathology and what health, and little perception even that anything really fundamental is wrong. Life’s truths have been forced down into a morass of moral relativism and bare-faced ideological aggression, and disgorged of their vital, identifying signs. As a nationalist, one actually has to teach health, such is the confusion within the people whom we love and, because we love, seek to advantage and to serve.
The revolution in the European cultureOf course, there is no doubt as to why. In large measure, a double revolution - one philosophically Jewish revolution of the left of liberalism a half-century ago and one rooted in Austrian School economics of the right a decade later – saw to it; building, as both did, on older, telling deficiencies in the religion, philosophical canon, and economic culture of our race. The former, particularly, was a revolution not of politics but of campus culture, linguistics, and the activism of the left. The governing generation of the West, which in its youth had been used up in a six-year, fratricidal war and was still standing guard, facing down the Soviet bloc in the 1960s and 70s, was not just out-manoeuvred in the cultural blitzkrieg, it didn’t even notice something was wrong. Its old-school moral order fell to the culture of youth almost at once, without a single effective ideological shot being fired in reply.
Nor was there any significant resistance from elsewhere among the elite class. In Britain since the 1930s at least, students enrolling upon a course in the humanities encountered a steadily marxising professoriate – people who, as Orwell had it, hated their country with a will. The nature of the beast was already difficult going on impossible. The spark which initiated its change of revolutionary focus from economics to sociology was the setting up of an historians group by the Communist Party of Great Britain in 1946. That was only two years after Horkheimer and Adorno published Dialectic of Enlightenment, and pre-dates the latter’s The Authoritarian Personality by four years. The other intellectual pillar of the New Left, Marcuse’s selective attack on prescription and control, One Dimensional Man, was still eighteen years away. Class war would remain a staple of the Labour Party until the 1983 election defeat, and of the union movement until the defeat of the miners in 1985. It would be killed off, finally, by the momentous events in the east in 1989. But by that point the university left had decamped into Critical Theory and culture war decades earlier, and decamped again into postmodernism. Somewhere along the way the professors’ hatred of their country had morphed into a po-faced, snotty hatred of their people.
As for their students, they proved to be meek and suggestible, and fell in with it all, including the hatred. We, as nationalists and dissenters by spirit, can only gaze upon their bland, innocent faces and wonder at such lightness of being and incapacity for independent thought. But, then, obeisance before authority is the human condition, and moderate intellectual ability provides no immunity, just as vanity and ambition provide susceptibility. As graduates, the infected individuals carried the pathology into the orthodoxy of government, the media, judiciary, and the public sector generally. As doctorates they entrenched it in the academy. They were not simply unwilling to question the new dogma or to face up to its logical consequences; they were actual proponents and agents of it, as Gramscian theory predicted.
By the middle of the 1980s – the point at which postmodernism began to assert itself as a force in the arts, a decade after it had done so in architecture – these new activist elites seem to have relegated serious thought to the sidelines, and said “Enough, we know what we must do!” Perhaps the post-structuralist Derridian obscurities simply did not yield enough hard politics for their taste. Perhaps, as mere Gramscian captives in most cases, captivity was the only framework in which they could think. Perhaps, with Reagan politically dominant in America and Thatcher in Britain, party politics as an agency of change was closed to them, but a coercive, destructive extra-political contingency was not - even the literary theorist Terry Eagleton, a bona fide culture warrior, once crisply observed “We are the worm in Thatcher’s apple”. It suited their temper, anyway. Certainly in Britain, there was a terrible, destructive energy abroad as the Tories systematically dismantled union power and struck (in two ways I will address in the next essay) at the very roots of the left’s communion with the traditional working class. It had to go into something.
In any event, beginning on the American campus with, one must presume, very second-rate sociology teachers, an activism arose which, while it is in line with basic post-structural paradigms, reduced the latter’s linguistic idealism to the crude but spectacularly effective stratagem of appropriating the language for the revolutionary agenda. It is not too extreme to define that agenda as the literal erasure of the identity of the European peoples, their kinship, their past, and their future. It was, and is, a strategy of ideological enforcement by denunciation and threat – and by physical violence where possible or necessary (the former not being especially contingent on the latter). As such, it has powerful echoes of the coercive ideological homogenisation which characterised the 20th century totalitarian states, and may owe its appearance in our time more to that than to any line of descent from Jewish-authored philosophy. Its undoubted schwerpunckt, anti-racism, was also imported from without the philosophical line, though its adopted form was still Jewish originated (half-a-century earlier by Magnus Hirschfeld).
Rather meekly but successfully labelled “political correctness” by the American right in the early 1990s, its working method is threefold, regardless of which minority or interest group it purports to serve: (i) it makes a specious claim on truth; (ii) it dehumanises all opposition to that claim, (iii) it licences destruction of the opposition. Thus in respect to race and immigration: (i) multiracialism of the European living spaces is “enriching” … is “a strength” … is “historically normal” ... is “human progress”, etc, while homogeneous white society is “dull” and even “hideous”, (ii) the defence of European peoples in any form is automatically “racism” … is “hate” ... is “xenophobia” ... is “supremacism” ... is “fascism”, etc, (iii) “racism”, “hate”, “fascism”, etc, are the ultimate crimes in our time; “racists” and “haters” and “fascists” are anti-human, and their existence in “our” society … on “our” streets … in “our” world cannot be tolerated. And so it goes.
By this means, not eggshells but linguistic land mines were scattered beneath everybody’s feet. The freedoms of speech and association – common goods for which our forefathers fought and died - were put away as if they had no value at all, because “the project” was the only consideration of value. Therefore, ideologically correct thought was the only legitimised basis for saying anything actually relevant to life. Because the project is an expansive, escalating, trespassing thing, ever more unnatural, polarising causes were adopted, each cleaved to with a blind, partisan intensity. Inevitably, within a very few years a general climate of moral paralysis and self-censorship obtained among our poor, benighted kind.
Today, it is so bad that an extensive industry of offence-taking by proxy has sprung up, and barely a day seems to go by without its well-publicised, synthetic fury falling upon the head of some unfortunate who has said too little or too much, or the wrong thing entirely. Characters are routinely assassinated. Livelihoods are destroyed. Fines and prison sentences are handed down by the courts. If, at its post-war beginnings, the revolution had some pretense of service to the common good, rather than sheer, bloody spite and racial destructiveness, its outright intolerance and repression leaves no doubt as to its nature now.
None of this presents any kind of moral crisis for politicians and governments across the West. The most sincere response of British politicians to every outrage committed by the diverse and enriching is to instruct us in tolerance. In Germany, the strange creature Merkel considers it “haughty arrogance” for Germans to question the slow but steady Islamification of their nation (which she is striving to accelerate). In Sweden a former Prime Minister has stated that it is the immigrants who own Sweden, not the Swedes who “invented borders”. The newcomers, after all, are creating a New Sweden and this, for some unexplained reason, will be a “stronger” Sweden. Besides, the old Swedes are “an uninteresting ethnic group”. When, finally, some degree of border control does have to be asserted, the Swedish Deputy Prime Minister announcing it cannot hold back her tears! Of course, little Nicolas Sarkozy, with his demand from 2008 for métissage, holds the world record for outright offensiveness - but then there is always that question of who he really is, ethnically speaking. Anyway, the sainted Enoch Powell would not have hesitated to describe all of them as “mad, literally mad”, and who are we to argue?
Plainly, tolerance without limit, even unto the perception of the dissolution and replacement of one’s own people as a great good, is completely demented. It is a post-Christian religious mania. But it is also the only non-statutory means the political elites can concoct that could, in their wild imaginings, do for the multicult what blood and love, land and history do for real peoples. Naturally, it will not work. But the essential thing is that the elites can point to us and say that that is our failing. Yes, they have to prevent ISIL outrages, mass sexual assaults at train stations, the trafficking and prostitution of white children, negro lootings and arson, etc. But they do not regard any of those as reasons to question, never mind terminate the multiracial project. Rather, these setbacks must never be allowed to “stoke up bigotry” and “far right extremism” among the existentially guilty ethnicities of Europe. They really do think that it means nothing ... nothing at all ...to kill us, and that the world will be better without us. There is simply no other interpretation which can fit the facts. They just can’t admit publicly to it.
Official deceit, therefore … a cold, deathly need to propagandise and lie to us ... hangs over government thinking and policy-making (and over the media which unfailingly gives succour to that). And, ultimately, this, too, is a product of the revolution in the European culture; a product of denying Nature; of subjecting the normal to a violently radical redefinition; of dehumanising dissent and criminalising conscience. To reprise, all official respect and regard for the person and life of our people ... all official recognition of our natural right and interests ... everything that should be accorded us quite automatically and unreservedly, as it should any people of the land, is withdrawn. Indeed, the very idea is spat upon. In our case … solely in our case ... belonging, mutuality … the things of identity, the things of the blood … are officially repudiated. Indeed, these, too, are spat upon and associated directly with racism. At every opportunity, meanwhile, the foreign flood is lauded and, if at all possible, excused its vilest crimes against us. In every conceivable way its trespass is incentivised and facilitated. Not a moment’s official thought … at least, thought that is not hostile ... is given to the meaning of it all for us. We are utterly betrayed. Short of a full-bore genocide by moving us off our own land, the situation could hardly be more extreme and unbearable.
But that is by no means the whole of the revolutionary problem. In the mid-1970s a second revolution took place, this time on the political right, and this time in the economic culture of the Anglosphere and beyond. In part 3 of this series I will investigate the long-run effects of that momentous event.