Drinking from bone china while London burns

Vandalism at the University of Cape Town, South Africa

The Conservative Party and many who vote for them, sit around at home in the Shires or their bungalows in suburbia drinking tea, chatting and saying ‘How awful.’ ‘ Did you see what happened in Bristol and London?’

But they do nothing.

When will they realise what is happening and the danger that our country is in?

When will the Conservative party stop talking in nice, clubby platitudes and actually grasp that they need to address the issues of immigration, law and order, Islam, creeping Marxism and Antifa? When will the bone china brigade stop blindly voting conservative and start to realise that not only will the past not come back but the future is dangerous and will directly affect them, both economically and culturally – possibly even violently. Perhaps one day the mob will descend on the roses and garden gnomes of Acacia avenue. Maybe soon the mob will be smashing the windows of new houses with such quaint names as ‘The Burlington’ or ‘The Windsor.’ Perhaps in the near future more than statues will be being thrown into the river.

It feels like the dining room scene from the film ‘Titanic’ where the orchestra keeps playing even as the ship rapidly sinks – only when it is far too late to get into a lifeboat and water is gushing around their feet, do they suddenly panic.

The past is gone. Conservatives must realise that soon there will be nothing to preserve. The time is now because time is rapidly running out.

‘Action this day!’ said Churchill. His statue has been boarded up indefinitely on the orders of Mayor Khan.

Those who would destroy us are among us.

The Fall of Rome. ‘‘The trembling senate were unable to guard against the secret conspiracy of their slaves and domestics, who either from birth or interest were attached to the cause of the enemy. At the hour of midnight, the Salarian gate was silently opened, and the inhabitants were awakened by the tremendous sound of the Gothic trumpet. 1163 years after the foundation of Rome, the Imperial city, which had subdued and civilised so considerable a part of mankind, was delivered to the licentious fury of the tribes of Germany and Scythia.’ Gibbon

Subscribe to the quarterly print magazine

Subscribe to the quarterly digital magazine

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

62 Comments on Drinking from bone china while London burns

  1. Harry, what you say is not true. First, the moral blunder of Christian universalism, second, the self-estrangement generated by the Christian’s relation to the Abrahamic god and not his own kin, and third, the pursuit of a non-existent reward when dead in place of the normal, healthy pursuit of gene interests, including shared interests … these are not trifles. Why do you think it is that the religios here are so adverse to coming to the side of their own people in this gathering disaster? Why would they ever contemplate preferring the foreignisation of our home to acting in our own people’e cause? It is because Christianity has warped their values, as it was always designed to do.

    When Christianity gets in the way of our survival it doesn’t merit tolerance. It merits criticism.

    • Yes Guessedworker.

      I see the direct threats to Western Civ in certain kinds of immigration, in differences in birth rates across various groups, in the marxist-inspired dumb-down in the education systems, in the marxist-inspired propaganda that accounts for 90% of output of the mainstream media, and in the naive idealism in the light treatment of violent criminality, and in the increasing proportion of wealth that must be spent to maintain the life-styles of non-productive and destructive people.

      Separately, all my life I have been helped by Christians.

      By this, I do not claim that all Christians are helpful to others, or that some/many non-Christians do not help others.

      Yes, many officers and plain members of some powerful branches of the Church are now animated by a combination of marxist-inspired ideology and naive idealism which is destroying the West.

      But I do not think that the assault on Western Civ and our prospects for continued material abundance and free enterprise, for our personal freedoms, and for a relatively peaceful civil order and safety from violent criminality derives directly from the beliefs held by contemporary Christians about the nature of God and the after-life.

      Still, no Saviour is coming to help us -it’s up to the plain folk now.

      That’s my view.

  2. Catherine Blaiklock, thank you. An honest article on this blindingly obvious vision of the future. Such a rarity these days where politicians of all mainstream parties and media, just spew out the usual platitudes and allegedly deep thinking intellectual nonsense. It’s often tantamount to nothing more than the fact they haven’t the foggiest how to turn this around, they are too afraid to even try and politically a good many don’t want to because they are part of it.
    What will happen though I should imagine is more and more concessions will be given, and the majority of people will be lulled back to sleep. British values, British tolerance will be the soothing words to keep people thinking everything is just fine and dandy.

    We need a robust, straight talking political party full of people such as Catherine Blaiklock if we are to at least try to salvage something at the ballot box. Some already say it’s too late, which it is in some parts of our Country.

  3. To Mark Mantel:

    Would you please set out what you see as the essential elements of Christian Anthropology and Christian Aesthetics?

    Might be worth a full article at some point -but for now, just a few headlines to start would be helpful, for me anyway.

    Thank you and Sincerely,

    Harry.

    • Mark-

      -to be more specific, I seek your views on the forms in which the key matters comprising Christian Anthropology and Aesthetics can be presented to the plain folk so that they might live their lives in ways more personally flourishing, and in ways more constructively contributing to their communities, than they would without such precepts.

      Best, Harry.

      • Harry, Forgive me for butting in on this but are plain folk any more likely to be interested in, or motivated by, principles of Christian Anthropology and Aesthetics, than they are in rival schools of moral philosophy? Something must come from, and speak to, the heart. There must be a relationship with God, and it must be founded on love. I think that goes for academics and aesthetes too. In other words, we cannot do without the Church.

        • Thomas, thank you for coming in on this.

          Interesting question you raise.

          From what I have seen in my own experience over many decades, and from what I read, there are folk who find something significant in their hearts when they guided to find it.

          I say this not to disagree with you -rather to point to a feature in some human beings that I observe.

          With our society teetering on The Abyss, I am interested in the variety of constructive, peace-seeking features that might be engendered in many hearts and how to do the engendering.

          Instead of pursuing answers in the Church and/or by learning within the education systems and/or by supporting/pushing politicians to do the right things, many people have given up on those institutions-

          -and instead have taken to low-end entertainment and/or acting out their life’s disappointments by way of recreational drugs and/or rioting and smashing up private and public property, while demanding that “the government” fix everything up, and pay them compensation/reparation for those disappointments.

          Anyway, I am open to non-marxist remedies to all of this.

          Best wishes to you Tomas,

          Harry.

        • There isn’t a deity, Tomas. There isn’t a Creator of all the energy/matter in the universe who is crazy about judging your moral choices. It’s a fiction. What deities have been imagined to precede and exceed it life’s founding moment … deities equipped with all the magical baggage of design … are themselves only the designs of men who found the prevailing mechanicity an intolerable affront to love, meaning, purpose, and hope of life and hope in the sublime. Their gods, their spirits, their mythos, their very faith need not detain us

          • Guessedworker, what I see are many immediate threats to our personal security, to the civil order and to the future of Europeans-

            -and none of these threats reside in or derive from what some Christians believe about a Creator Diety.

    • Guessedworker: He lost me at the word “pathologization” – the ninth word of his title (I see where you get it from.) I regret calling him merely a nutter. He’s an illiterate nutter, and probably an illiterate leftist nutter, at that. (In my experience of the so-called “far right”, once one looks past their ridiculous hatred of the Jews who are hiding under their beds, the rest of their political programme is entirely socialist.)

      • PJR, read the chapter. Fight against your learned need to defend Jews from criticism. Also, understand what “social” means in nationalist thought, which has no connection to what it means in the liberal canon.

        Our people are dying, our race is dying; and you want to prevent action in support of our life. You want to hide away in the safety of your received opinions. It’s unmanly. It’s irresponsible. It simply makes no sense.

        • Guessedworker: I’m not aware of any need of mine, learned or otherwise, to defend Jews (or anybody else) from criticism. Please don’t fight against straw men.

          There’s no glory in winning a battle of words against an unarmed opponent, so at this point I’ll step back, wishing you health, happiness, and security from surprise attacks by the Jews who are out to get you.

          • I know you are not aware of it. That is because it operates as a pavlovian sanction against understanding, exactly the same as anti-racism does in the minds of its captives. I have seen it many times. Inconsequential moral sensibilities arise up and present a towering obstacle to consideration of the critical proposition. The liberal mind (or, if you prefer, the Christian mind in our time, for both are united by their suggestibility) simply will not break its bounds in this respect, ironically. It is a type of bigotry masked as a reaction to a “bigotry” identified again and again.

            Historically speaking, this is something still quite novel, afflicting generations of impressionable Westerners only since the 1960s. Ultimately, they are choosing Olam Ha-ba and the multicult in our home above the free and sovereign life of our people. No matter what weight of evidence MacDonald brings to bear, even the thinking types among these people simply cannot face their own folly and weakness.

  4. Mark Mantel,

    You head is full of Christian universalism, which is why you are hostile to your own people’s life and natural right. It is a kind of pathology. In that respect, Christianity is anti-life – it functions against your natural identity and natural (genetic) interest. The only good in it is the beauty of European spirituality, which obviously predates Constantine by several thousand years.

    That said, you reify beauty as the ultimate human value, but it isn’t, is it. The survival and continuity of one’s family, then kin-group is the ultimate human value. Capiche? You worship at the alter of a lie.

  5. Mark Mantel (referring to your reply to GuessedWorker about Heidegger, where there’s no reply button):

    You’re right that Christian theologians have tended to emphasise truth and goodness at the expense of beauty, but there’s more to Christianity than the scribblings of theologians. To name but three examples: Dante’s Divine Comedy, Bach’s B minor Mass and Salisbury Cathedral. When truth and goodness are securely established, beauty results.

    If one hopes to produce beauty, perhaps it’s an advantage to live in a time and place when there’s no argument about what’s true and good.

    • No real argument with you PJR. My prior reply to Guestworker was essentially your point: Where’s the Heideggerian architecture, the Heideggerian music and mystics, poets and painters? And that the singular genius of Christianity has birthed not only these, but in its breadth proffers place for administrators, saints, holy fools, craftsmen and diplomatists.
      Yet I do think, precisely in theology, that the Western tradition departs from the Greek East in regarding it as a systematic and rationalistic business (as opposed something emanating from the saints’s direct experience of God and the resulting transfiguration of Creation). I suspect, maybe, that if theology starts with Beauty, it might offer a way out of the linguistic, epistemological & ontological dead ends our post-modernity has happily reached. (None of this is, of course, even remotely my idea. Theologian like Von Balthasar have long proposed it and I merely agree. And In light of the broader question posed here: “what are conservatives to do?” we get some hint).

      No, I don’t think much ground will be gained by winning elections and plebiscites. We must create culture and nothing less! The progressives are at least doing it (uglifying life in the process, but creating “culture” all the same). We cannot win the game (if game it be) by some political sleuth of hand, seizing cultural ministries and the like. Things work the other way round. Liberals are grabbing our institutions precisely because they’ve got the cultural advantage at the moment (It just isn’t the case that they have cultural ascendancy because of some institutional advantage).

      Why must it be so? Think of the great poets of the 20th Century. It is fair to say that MOST had a conservative bent: TS Eliot , Ezra Pound, Yeats, Wallace Stevens, Marianne Moore, EE Cummings, Frost, Geoffrey Hill, etc. In earlier days, in France: Baudelaire, Balzac, Francois Mauriac, Chateaubriand, Bloy, Huysmans, Villiers de L’lisle-Adam, Barbey D’aurevilly etc. (Not to mention Coleridge, Hopkins, Dryden and Dostoevsky). True, we’ve got some composers like Avro Part and others now, but progressives are winning the culture war, even with their horrifically disintegrating works.

      How many conservatives are in the film schools or dancing ballet? This is our problem! We ought to think less of the latest political poll, less even of parliamentary majorities and more of how to conjure up a veritable poet here and there (or even a damn actor). This must, PJR, start in a genuine Christian Anthropology and Aesthetics. (I say all this not to disparage my own team. But to see us win).

      Best,

      Mark

      • Mark Mantel: I have no real argument with you either.

        I’m not sure if I ought to be pleased or disappointed to discover that I’m not (as I previously thought) Villiers de l’Isle-Adam’s only living reader. I no longer have the satisfaction of feeling unique, but there’s a kind of satisfaction in knowing that there are two of us. But your list of 20th Century English poets is certainly one I can endorse, though I might swap Marianne Moore for Roy Campbell.

        I have no enthusiasm for Arvo Pärt. I think the main stream of music dried up with Webern, though Ernst von Dohnányi continued to row his intellectually rigorous boat in his personal backwater for a while.

        We certainly need a great poet, but (as Eliot explained) great poets arise from great cultures – cultures in which there’s certainty about truth and goodness – not from troubled times like ours, in which the common language offers nothing for the poet to use.

        There are, of course, no conservatives in the film schools for the same reason that there are no conservatives in the police. At the first sign of conservatism, they’re expelled.

        There used to be Christian Anthropology (e.g Chesterton’s “Everlasting Man”) and Christian Aesthetics (e.g. Eliot’s prose works), but nothing much has been built on their foundations. I suppose you want me to try to build on them. OK: thanks for setting me a vast amount of homework, teacher!

        • PJR: For my part, I am most comforted to learn L’Isle-Adam has another steward walking earth at the moment. Whether we can find two other souls of the next generation to hoist him on is of course another matter!

          I suppose our main difference is that you feel Beauty needs Truth and Goodness in place first, while I (not necessarily disputing this) wonder if maybe turning the order around, a la Von Balthasar, might not do the trick. If only I had a clue. But no better remedy readily comes to mind…

          As a practical matter, I just can’t think of any better way to move these mad students and academicians shaking the cosmos. Perhaps I feebly hope the immediacy of Beauty will do what disputation couldn’t. But on the bright side, anything’s better than the Tate Modern! (Outwitting Foucault or Derrida is one thing. Producing an artwork that beats somebody’s soiled underpants -or whatever the latest thing is- might not be so awfully hard).

          • Mark Mattel: I couldn’t go so far as to assert that beauty depends for its existence on the prior existence of truth and beauty. Beethoven and Baudelaire would suffice to refute any such claim. Not only were they immoral, dishonest men, but they lived in immoral, dishonest times.

            But there have been times when truth and goodness were almost universally highly valued, and those, I think, are the times that were most conducive to the production of beauty. In the parts of Europe undisturbed by the Reformation, there was a continuous tradition of musical excellence from Josquin to Victoria, including many hundreds of masterpieces. Even in Elizabethan and Jacobean England, when the upheavals of the Reformation were fading from memory and a local consensus about truth and goodness was widely accepted for a mere few decades, there was a greater amount of excellent poetry written than at any other time in our history.

            It isn’t necessary even for the consensus about truth and goodness to be one that Christians would agree with. The poems of Homer (which are the greatest of all poems) were the result of five hundred years of oral tradition, in which ideas about truth and goodness hadn’t changed much. The same, I daresay, is true of the Tassili paintings and petroglyphs. But only Christianity, with its ideas about truth and goodness, has ever produced beauty in vast amounts. (England has an architectural example in almost every village.)

            If you insist that I create art of my own to beat the winners of the Turner Prize, may I suggest putting my bloodstained gardening gloves in a glass box? I propose to entitle the exhibit “Nothing is truly thornproof”. The implication that this is also true, in a very real sense, of the glass boxes in which we lead our lives will prove my genius and ensure my Arts Council grant.

  6. To Guessedworker.

    Please say:

    1. In your view, how would one lead one’s life if one were to live by the ideas expressed by Heidegger?

    2. In your view, how would the West be different if vast multitudes of Westerners lived according to these ideas?

    I ask in earnest fashion, as I do want to expand my comprehension and appreciation of the various theories of human being and what is possible for Western societies.

    Based on my reading of various long-standing wisdom traditions, West and East, and various schools of contemporary psychotherapy and their underlying models of personality, I see that self-reliance and the never-ending work of dealing with life’s challenges are universal themes.

    Please say what you take from Heidegger.

    Thank you, Harry.

    • To Guessedworker.

      Please say:

      1. In your view, how would one lead one’s life if one were to live by the ideas expressed by Heidegger?

      2. In your view, how would the West be different if vast multitudes of Westerners lived according to these ideas?

      I ask in earnest fashion, as I do want to expand my comprehension and appreciation of the various theories of human being and what is possible for Western societies.

      Based on my reading of various long-standing wisdom traditions, West and East, and various schools of contemporary psychotherapy and their underlying models of personality, I see that self-reliance, the never-ending work of dealing with life’s challenges and seeking to contribute positively to the lives of others are universal themes.

      Please say what you take from Heidegger.

      Thank you, Harry.

    • Hi Harry, I will also accod your question a proper reply, and not just a bit oif the usual knockabout!

      Heidegger’s call was to a life lived authentically in the midst of artifice. But that said, you be right in thinking that his philosophy, as it stood prior to 1939, was incomplete in its agentive potential, and after 1945 it was stultified and taken over, eventually, by the poststructuralists for the exact reverse of its intended purpose.

      Personally, I don’t believe that, in itself, the interrogation of human being is sufficient. For one thing, to have practical effect in the world… to have sufficient agency to change history … any philosophical form must model not only the meaning of (a people’s) being, which is an historically passive thing, but the art of its life, which is not.

      That utilitarian approach aside, the simple fact is that Nature’s sole imperative of survival and continuity, which imbues and animates every living being, every human being, every people, cannot be holistically addressed simply through the existential contexts of world, Other, and death with which Heidegger furnished his principal figure, Dasein. The art is missing. Even as a ground from which such an art might emerge, Heidegger’s ontology is, I fear, too static and ruminative and by an order of degree too private and reductive in its unitary basis. In consequence, as is the way with extrapolations from the singular, it is too universalising, too indiscriminate, too much given to the too too basic divisions of, logically, the ontic and the ontological and then, onto-logically, the non-human and the human to incorporate the further relations of difference which the fundamental of differentiation itself and that of relation bring, wholly literally, into human being.

      All that being so, still Heidegger is the only take-off point we have for a politics of human nature or truth or genetic interests … call it what you will … by which we might escape from the artifice and propositionalism of the liberal system; and if we Europeans are really going to fashion a revolution and get out of that system, a systemic philosophical revolution which is not just for kin but for kindness in itself, life-affirming and not life-denying … not given to the reactions which Hegelian and Nietzschean thought have visited upon the world … is the starting point.

      We are an awful long way from that, measured in intellectual miles; and time is not on our side.

      • Gastarbeiter *Guessed worker I was looking for a good narcotic to put down cats and found reading your entry aloud to a doomed moggie better than sodium thiopental (Fatal PLus) for inducing the big sleep. I was wondering if longer readings of your thoughts about Heidegger might replace ivi drugs in state executions in the US.They have had difficulty in getting hold of barbiturates for executions.

        • Do you have a substantive criticism of Heidegger … a grown up one, y’know … or are you only sniping “humorously” in the hope that I won’t be tempted to bite your brain in half? You are quite safe, providing you control your aggression.

      • One can’t “install” Disqus. One can only let disqus.com take over. A reasonable alternative would be to install the free software from wordpress.org (not to be confused with wordpress.com). But most of us have got used to working around the deficiencies of whatever software the SR is using. If you don’t like it, other discussion forums are available.

  7. Dear Catherine,
    That is a great piece and should be read by everyone in the United Kingdom. The enemy have already taken the mass media, who have given up even the pretence of unbiased reporting, they have taken education, and they have the civil service. They don’t have the Army… …yet, but are moving in the direction of subjecting it to the Trojan horse of diversity.
    The Ulsterman knows what it is to live alongside the enemy and is organised, and capable of resistance when required, on the eastern shores of the Irish Sea that isn’t always the case. Should English, Scots or Welsh working men object to the changes that are being forced upon their homelands they will be called ‘fascist’, racist, or ‘bigot’. The Britons have the will but have no network to co-ordinate and organise our efforts. Hearts of Oak is a good start, and there are occasions in history when a mass demonstration is called for, and this may be one of those times. It requires at least 100,00 and preferably five times that number (much like the Countryside Alliance) to march through London, and say ‘enough is enough’, this is our country, our history, and Churchill, Drake, Nelson, and the soldiers represented by the Cenotaph are our heroes, and if you don’t like that you can find your self another part of the globe to live in.
    I would recommend several marching bands as well, to distinguish our walk from the performance art and tuneless attempts at drumming that our enemies prefer.

  8. Gibbon is perhaps the greatest of all English prose stylists, and his “Decline and Fall” is perhaps the greatest of all English prose works, since no other English book I know marshals so much variety of evidence in support of a single argument so successfully through six fat volumes.

    I have to confess that I live in a bungalow, drink tea and have a few roses in my garden, though I draw the line at garden gnomes. When the barbarians arrive, I hope they’ll be like the Germans (admired by Tacitus for their simple, manly virtues), not like the Scythians (memorably described by Josephus as “scarcely different from wild beasts” – “brachy ton therion diapherontes”).

    Part of the problem for the last Romans was that they foolishly regarded the Germans and Scythians as indistinguishable from each other. Perhaps we can avoid their mistake if we ally ourselves with the equivalent of Gibbon’s Germans (e.g. Indian Hindus and Nigerian Christians) against the equivalent of his Scythians (e.g. Pakistani Mahometans and Somalian Mahometans)?

    We can no longer hope to preserve our culture unspoilt, but perhaps one day there will be an Indian Bach and a Nigerian Goethe.

    No analogy is perfect, and I’m already aware of some flaws in mine, but I offer it as something to think about.

    By the way, Catherine Blaiklock, thank you for your lucid and persuasive discussion of pensions in the current SR magazine. In general, I regard all economists as no better than astrologers, but there are occasional exceptions.

    • PJR, don’t be so defeatist. And understand human descent and sociobiology.
      Indians and Nigerians are low-IQ peoples (IQ 81 and IQ 71 – the same as, respectively, Pakistanis and Somalis). It so happens that a high IQ cohort of the former pair has migrated here – migration, in any case, is a filter for IQ. But regression to the mean is still operable, and will have the last say.

      Regardless of that, of course, these peoples are not us, will never be us, are colonising us like all the rest of the foreign populations, and we cannot survive that process. As we have to secure the existence of our people and an English future for our children, it will have to stop. Join Patriotic Alliance, say, or even one of the civic nationalist parties – For Britain or UKIP – and work for our people’s life and rights as best you can. That is all that can be asked of us today. More may be asked tomorrow.

      • Guessedworker:

        I was a member of For Britain for a few weeks. I joined because I agreed with all the “evil” opinions about Islam expressed privately by Anne-Marie Waters in a TV exposé, and I resigned because their private Facebook forum was full of anti-Jewish crap.

        If you believe in IQ, how do you feel about the embarrassingly high IQ scores of Japanese and Chinese people?

        I’d be delighted to have an English future for my children if I were English, but I happen to be a Scot. My IQ must be pretty low, eh?

        • Have you read Kevin MacDonald’s scholarly trilogy, or at least the third part The Culture of Critique? Until you have some acquaintance with it you might want to reserve judgement on “the anti-Jewish crap”. Never allow yourself to be directed into aimlessness by moral judgements and barriers across the road.

          The Japanese have an average IQ of 106. The Chinese average 100, but that might rise with better health and nutrition. The high mean is not the whole story, however. The East Asian distribution of IQ in the population is extraordinarily narrow, producing little range above or below relative to the distribution in other groups: little by way of East Asian idiotism but also little by way of East Asian genius.

          Together with the evolutionary survival strategies of conformism, and relative low sexualisation, this concentration produces a address to Nature (ie, in response to the challenges of the cold-climate north) which is quite different and more restrained to that of the European sociobiology. We are not disadvantaged in any way in terms of civilisational capacity and creativity. The capacity for origination is actuated at around IQ 138, a fairly well populated point on our distribution curve.

          • Guessedworker: I had never heard of Kevin MacDonald, but I’ve now looked him up. I think I’m too old to receive sudden enlightenment from the ravings of a nutter. As for the rest of your comment, all I have to say is that you might be taken more seriously if you tried to write something like plain English. “The capacity for origination is actuated…” made me laugh out loud.

  9. They tell you it’s about culture and tradition and Western civilisation. But it’s really about race and ethnicity, and the defence of our common blood.

    They tell you it’s about “the left”. But it’s really about the working out – finally, after three centuries – of the idea of the unfettering will as the controlling cause of our age.

    They tell you it’s about turning our back on Christianity. But it’s really about losing our timeless truth in our devotion to Christianity’s false model of the soul seeking ever-lasting life by salvation from sin.

    They tell you it’s about being decent and “British” and moderate. But really it’s about not being weak and cowardly.

    They tell you they are conservatives. But really they’ve conserved nothing, fought for nothing, understood nothing in decades of Conservative power, and thought of nothing more than their own petty selves.

    • Guessedworker, you remind me of some old acquaintances of mine who abandoned Christianity for Odinism, and Conservatism for the BNP. But Christians don’t have to be weak, and Conservatives don’t have to be passive. Christianity has sometimes been weak and sometimes strong. At its strongest, it conquered most of the planet! As for Conservatism (in the largest sense of the word), it doesn’t have any simple philosophical appeal, but every alternative to it has made people’s lives, which were already nasty, brutish and short, significantly nastier, more brutish and shorter.

      The Odinists and BNP supporters merely make the Left’s work easier.

      • I have never been religious. I am, more or less, a Heideggarian, less any of the man’s rumoured vestigial Catholicism, of course.

        Christianity has no esoteric core. It is not a religion. It is a form of nationalism, cast as universalism for the practising out-group. Go figure.

        Conservatism has no anchor in human being. It is just an attitude, and as such has proved wholly incapable of standing its ground since Reform. The last actual Conservative government was Liverpool’s second ministry, and the last genuine Conservative was Salisbury (who died one hundred and ten years ago).

        Being a conservative today is a state of failing to grasp the existential nature of the political struggle; because having been lost to liberalism in 1832 all conservatives can see is the hating left. They miss the liberal mote in their own eye.

        • Guessedworker:

          I haven’t read much Heidegger. The most recent philosopher I’ve read extensively is Nietzsche, whom I love as if he were my brother, no matter how much I disagree with him. I’ve spent forty years in fraternal debate with Nietzsche, but my brief acquaintance with Heidegger didn’t persuade me that he ought to be part of my extended family.

          It’s nonsense to say that “Christianity is a form of nationalism”. In Colossians 3.11, St Paul includes even Scythians among those who can be saved, and I’ve already mentioned what Josephus said about them. Christianity is the religion of the multinational Roman, Spanish and British Empires.

          I agree that there’s a “liberal mote” in many conservatives’ eyes: I see traces of it in many otherwise excellent SR articles. But is there a “liberal mote” in my eye? I see it more in your eye, since you’re more inclined than I am to use such phrases as “the existential nature of the political struggle” – phrases which I haven’t encountered in the writings of such notorious non-liberals as Thomas Hobbes, Archbishop Laud or even G K Chesterton.

          • Christianity as it has been shaped by Paul is Judaism for the gentile. Matthew 5:17 – “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.”

            How so? By severing the rest of humanity’s natural bonds to kin, re-formulating every man and woman as an individualised sinner and soul in a singular relation to the Abrahamic G-d, by whose grace alone can be granted everlasting life (which Judaism does not teach teach – it remains a political and nationalist, indeed supremacist teleology which is realised, not replaced, by the Christian act of faith).

            Christianity is not a real religion. It has no interior of the kind that Islam does in Sufism, for example. It is really only a faith of self-estrangement.

        • In what conceivable sense has historical Christianity been nationalistic? The early Church had a Latin element, there was the Alexandrian and African Church, the Cappadocian fathers, the Syriac strain and the Byzantine imperial part- ever in dialogue, ever cross pollinating. The Medieval Roman Church and nobility was about as “jet set” a crowd as that time would allow. (And all the while there was Celtic Christianity and Holy Rus intermingling poets and saints). The socio-genesis of nationalism was in the rise of the Merchant classes! (True, trade itself was international, but it brought forth the mercantilist ethos, and concern for the “balance of trade,” which was the real seed of nationalism. Christianity may have its ills, but nationalism isn’t one of them.

          I won’t get into Heidegger other than to say that he certainly isn’t the thing to fill any ontological gaps you believe Christianity has. How is mankind to live a Heideggarian life? Has anyone ever tried it? Whatever it’s faults, Christianity has had the breadth to take in every human type – the theologian, the able administrator, the starry-eyed saints and poets and mystics. It gave us an architecture, painting, music, liturgy – a way to live and look at the world that could take in the humblest peasant to the worldliest courtier. Where is Heddegarian music and poetry? What consolations has he given to lost souls or grieving hearts? Where are the noble Heideggerian architectural works or the saints that bring together the living and the dead and those yet to be born? To compare him with Christianity, for all its real or supposed blemishes, is to compare a fly to the entire cosmos.

          • I will give you a proper answer about Heidegger, in the context of your Christian concerns.

            His project was not to replace the Christian religion but to re-found the Western canon. Heidegger made an historiographical distinction between the focus on epistemology which has, by his reading, dominated Western philosophical thought since Plato, and the contrary focus on being which he considered to have been neglected to the point of near-absence from the canon. For Heidegger, the latter as thinking about (specifically human) being as it is engaged in-the-world was Man’s original mode of contemplative thought, and a return to that mode of thinking is utterly necessary for us to live well and free of the illusions and pathologies of the modern day. That, in turn, necessitates a definitive re-founding of the canon (which, of course, we still await).

            It’s not just that European Man has been denied a philosophy of being, which he is due. It’s worse than that. As the massively dominant force in the canon, traditional epistemology has by its innate focus on the question, it’s modish intellectual default of critique and challenge, its consequent tendency to relativism and, therefore, how we justify our interpretations of the external world, our beliefs, and our actions, inevitably lent itself to the clouding and cutting away at if not the solid in us itself, certainly our ready experience of it. The great gift of the dominance of epistemology’s question, and its never more than propositional answers, has not been self-certainty, ratio, and self-assertion but self-questioning, self-doubt, and latterly, among the “educated” but, of course, not intelligent and not at all self-aware fraction, racial self-fear and self-contempt.

            By that errant path , then, philosophy has completely lost its way, or has been spun into loss with a little help from elsewhere . Actually, at bottom it has relinquished its own non-trivial part in the essential struggle with that always inescapable and general, entropic decline into psychological fracture and immersion, which is the maternal parent of human misery and debasement. Its great mission to determine the good is over. Its redemptive possibilities are neutralised, but not, alas, its formative power.

            The trajectory on which all this plots was already clear to Heidegger in the post-WW1 period. He began working on his solution in 1923, finally bringing it to the world four years later. That solution was to prioritise human being through the non-novel medium of Dasein or there-being, to which he appended a small number of contexts and conditions (for example, in Division 1 Chapter 6 of Being and Time, sub-titled The Question of the Primordial Totality of Dasein’s Structural Whole, he imbued Dasein with “care for being”).

            But let us be clear about what he means by Dasein, and how it lies beneath your Christian symbology.

            Daseon is neither subject nor object. Nor is Dasein a self nor some possession or quality of a self. Nor is Dasein a mystical experience of beatific union with the divine. Nor is Dasein a physical organism – not a being of any kind, even a human being. Nor is Dasein a human’s being which we may abstract and ponder singly, as if in a perfect vacuum. Dasein is to be understood parsimoniously, but not that parsimoniously!

            Dasein is the being of a human being in its pure temporal and locational contexts, that is all. Temporalised in the All, Dasein ineffably and inescapably participates in it – and can only ever participate in it – on the knife-edge of the present moment.

            This is not the relationship of the physical organism to Time, which stretches out prior to the physical organism’s birth and after its death. As long as the physical organism survives, Time gifts it a trajectory to death and, thereby, a history of life; and as long as its relational constants survive, some part of it, got by descent, also survives. Within its own confines, the physical organism’s very mortality accords it personalisation and a certain propriety in respect to Time. If it existed, Dasein’s history would be the milling of that history. But Dasein is devoid of historical substance, for Dasein is only ever in and with the present moment. That said, the All is as much locational as it is temporal and, as with Time, so Place stretches out beyond the physical organism’s present location. But Dasein is not everywhere. Dasein is confined “there” as it is confined “then”, which two confines, when observed, constitute that stillness-in-transport which is the real. Dasein is human being nailed to the cross of the real.

          • A small addition to my comment on Heidegger, in respect not to your understanding of him but of nationalism …

            I noted above that conservatism is only an attitude; and, as such, it is all too swept around in the currents du jour – it has no anchor.

            The anchor is human nature. Nationalism in its ethnic form arises directly from the most primordial foundation of that nature, namely in the essence of continuity, and expresses through the relational constants which flow from that.

            If you merely assume you know what ethnic nationalism is, and can toss it aside as some malady, you are rally only cheating yourself of the politics of human truth.

          • Guest worker: I am mindful of Heidegger’s hope to get us out of the epistemological dilemmas and conundrums (starting probably not with Descartes but as far back as Scholasticism and Nominalism and the surrender of western theology to Cataphatic and rationalistic thinking at the expense of all else. In that sense, his efforts were perhaps noble. However, procedurally, it is all more of the same: using rationalism to get us out of rationalism.

            But there is a better way! There are three transcendentals, not just one. Not just Truth. There is: Truth, Goodness and BEAUTY. Western theology has made Beauty almost an afterthought. In reality, it is the ground upon which the others are grounded. Beauty shall save the world said Dostoyevsky and he had it right. That is the way, NOT Heidegger! The theologian Von Balthasar, in his Theo-drama worked our way out way better. Out of narrow scholasticism to restore Beauty its rightful place: First. (Josef Pieper and the neo-patristic synthesis in figures like Father Georges Florovsky also found a way out in Beauty. That is the direction thought and philosophy ought go, not the Heidegger/Wagner return to blood and soil.

        • Christianity is not nationalism rather it is the first mass non-tribal/race-based globalist movement wrapped up in a bit of old fashioned magic but arranged to be eternally subservient to those who don’t buy this BS and seek power over those who do (give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s)

      • Sainted Editor:

        You might equally have read that sort of stuff in Das Kapital. In the latter part of the 19th Century there were two rival forms of Socialism: Marx’s Socialism (which led to Stalin) and Wagner’s Socialism (which led to Hitler). For all practical purposes, there’s no difference between the two, because both were (and still are) equally murderous. Socialism and fascism are the same thing. So-called far left and so-called far right are the same thing. In their SR Forum comments, Werdna and GuessedWorker are the same thing. The only difference is in the kind of “captatio benevolentiae” they use to try to gain supporters. Having one of each type to argue against is fun. Thank you for not banning either of the fools.

        • PJR, fascism is a specific philosophy of Italian origin which is as distant from ethnic nationalism, as pursued across Europe today, as is, say, international bolshevism from anarcho capitalism; the first pair being polar opposites of the nationalist worldview and the second polar opposites of the liberal worldview (to which you adhere, and which does NOT include any true nationalism).

          Understand, the politics of genetic interests is not the same, systemically, as the politics of the unfettering will. Thus, socialism in one (the kinship of the folk) does not refer to socialism in the other (equal socio-economic outcomes).

          Don’t be ignorant. Ask for understanding of nationalism from a nationalist.

          • Guessedworker: Thank you for letting me know that I adhere to the liberal worldview. Without your help, I’d never have guessed!

            If I were your sort of nationalist, I’d have to be a Scottish nationalist. Would you approve of that? But in fact I’m a Scottish patriot, which is compatible with being a UK patriot and a European patriot. (It’s as a European patriot that I loathe the EU, and it’s as a Scottish patriot that I loathe the SNP.)

            If you want to understand why patriotism is superior to nationalism, try reading G K Chesterton instead of babbling Germans and nutty Americans.

  10. Acacia Avenuers are not the problem.
    The Tory Bullingdonian Grandees, complacent with a 4 year 80 seat majority are unaffected by the storms destroying Acacia. Time for Wat Tyler return, to burn that 3% who hold 98% of the country as hostage to their aristocratic indifference.

  11. In other news, the civilised part of the internet is now clapping on the football hooligans to sort this mess out for us all.

    I’m not sure which colour pill it is you’re now offering, Mr Morpheus.

    • Awesome Welles: When the only options on offer are “BLM” or “Tommy Robinson”, it’s understandable that some might choose the latter, not least because he’s the underdog in this fight.

      What we urgently need is to have a third option offered to us – not something in between the two but something that transcends both. What that option is I don’t know, but I hope I’ll recognise it when I see it. (And I think I’m more likely to find it in the columns of the SR than elsewhere.)

  12. The “bone china brigade” were most likely ready when you founded the brexit party, just a shame that you were usurped by Nigel farage et al, who then proceeded to capitulate to the Tories instead of standing for election.

  13. As long as the sheep wear face masks, complicity agree to, lock-downs, tracking, tracing and believe the line that 5G “is good for you” our country slides towards left wing nazification, all whilst governed by a so called conservative party.

    Just look how easy it was for them to turn the NHS into the Nazified Health Service.

  14. Must be ready for things even worse than hinted at in this item.

    The revolutionaries and insurrectionists will have been preparing for a time such as this.

    And they occupy positions in all institutions, not only in the media and education systems

    • Harry Black: The unprecedented problem with the current revolution and insurrection is that the /ancien régime/ mostly supports it. Of course, our current /ancien régime/ has been in complete control only since the Attlee Government of 1945, but that’s long enough for it to have taken over all our institutions – our schools and universities, our Boy Scouts and Women’s Institutes, our police and army, and every detail of our daily lives.

      For 75 years in the UK, we’ve lived under the Mensheviks. Why are we surprised that the patiently calculating Bolsheviks are now taking control?

      For anybody who’s musical, I recommend reading /Testimony, the Memoirs of Dmitri Shostakovich/, because the morally compromised life that Shostakovich had to lead under Stalin’s tyranny is difficult to distinguish from the lives we lead in the UK today.

      But short of a counter-revolution and counter-insurrection (which might lead to our being ruled by football hooligans), what can we do?

      Catherine Blaiklock and others identify the problem, but what can we do about it? And who is to be our leader? “Tommy Robinson”? No thanks!

      • RJR:

        What can be done it about it, short of strong, pragmatic counter-actions?

        Nothing that would be useful, nothing that would save us.

        In situations where all seems lost, ancient Stoics who happened to have big responsibilities in affairs of state recommended imagining the very, very worse that might happen-

        -and then see what clever ideas might pop up, as one’s natural impulse to survive and to flourish reacted to the imagined doom.

        But I doubt there is a low-cost way out of this one.

        • Well, Harry Black, I’ve suggested in another comment a “divide et impera” strategy, in which we ally ourselves with the less odious of the barbarians against the really nasty ones. But I can’t work out any way of making it happen. It isn’t going to happen. It’s just a fantasy.

          In response to Catherine Blaiklock’s call to arms, we’re a bunch of Mouldys, Warts, Shadows, Feebles and Bullcalfs. (I apologise to our new masters for quoting the racist William Shakespeare.) But what else can we be? As soon as one of us does anything, the cultural-marxist police will give us the smacking our new masters think we deserve.

          The Second English Civil War has already happened, and the wrong side has won. Only the reprisals against the losers remain to be done.

          I take some consolation from the fact that I have no children to endure the horrors.

      • Excellent. Make sure the Tommy Robinsons have no say in the future of the country. Antitank, Black Lives Matters but, especially, Islam can bring us through this difficult period. As we like to say in Canada, only by working together can we succeed. As our Prime Minister boasts, we are proudly a post-national country.