A Decrepit Coronation for a Decrepit Country

I am not old enough to remember the Queen’s Coronation in 1953. But I know people who do remember it, and I have read enough about it. That coronation was attended by much hot air in the media about national renewal and the beginning of a second Elizabethan age. In fact, it occurred fourteen years into a national decline that it was becoming impossible to hide. The leading power outside the Soviet sphere of influence was the United States. The Empire was falling apart. The British State was heavily in debt, and the post-War economic recovery was running out of steam – creeping inflation, loss of competitiveness, poor industrial relations, and all the rest. Even so, Britain was easily the leading second class power. We were still the only power of note in much of the world. We were dominant in various critical industries. Our people were well-educated and industrious and broadly united and happy. We were more than reasonably free. Our future was open. If our long imperial adventure was coming to an end, it was inconceivable that we would not remain at the front in terms of scientific and technological development. Indeed, assuming a speedy end to the Cold War, and an American return to isolation, we could look forward to a stabilised position as the centre of a vast trading and military alliance, with British bases by 2000 on the Moon and Mars. The 1953 Coronation was a reminder of a glorious past and a statement of belief in a no less glorious future.

Seventy years later, we are approaching the end of the greatest self-inflicted national collapse in history. The Spanish collapse of the seventeenth century is nothing by comparison. We are an atomised and barbarised, and perhaps genetically degenerate, population, ruled by an extended police state that wants us cold and immobile and fed a diet of bugs and expensive vegetation. Our main enterprise is counting and laundering the money made by more creative peoples. Except as more of the same, we have no future. Or, if we have any hope, it involves a Caesaristic dictatorship that will break up the United Kingdom and create a new England, less free than the old – though less suicidal – and far less tangibly in contact with its ancient past.

Last Saturday’s coronation ceremony was one of those moments of clarity, where the national rot is plainly on display. It was like the moment when an old man takes off all his clothes and looks in the mirror at his ravaged body, or when a shaft of sunlight comes through a window to show the cracked plaster and crumbling woodwork in a dilapidated house. If it is no one’s fault – or the fault of no one now alive – that Charles III was too old to show well in the ceremony. The cameras could not be turned entirely away from his bloated fingers and trembling hands. Towards the end, his wife had to be carried about her business by the two bishops flanking her. But Edward VII, if younger, was in worse shape at his coronation, and everyone agreed that his ceremony went off well. The real problem was the ceremony in itself.

I read somewhere that the King would have a less lavish coronation than his mother. Instead, it was a pretty faithful imitation, and seems to have cost twice as much in real terms. Compared with the static cameras of 1953, and frequently weak colour and resolution, the filming of last Saturday’s event was a technical marvel. The cameras seemed to float about the Abbey, capturing every detail in sharp focus and perfect colour. But, as with everything else in our civilisation, technical perfection was balanced and more than balanced by everything else. Justin Welby did well that day as Archbishop of Canterbury. He oversaw the proceedings so well, and with such brisk efficiency, that it was probably more his day than the King’s. Even so, there was no doubt that Geoffrey Fisher, who crowned Elizabeth, believed both in God and in the Church of England. His Church of England was orthodox in its faith and respectable in its morals. The theology of Justin Welby’s church is political correctness and greenery. Its most committed worship is at the ara pathicae voluptatis. The traditional language of the Church was so unfamiliar to him that he read everything from a script. Even then, he fluffed his lines in several places.

Or I turn to the music. I dislike most English music of the twentieth century. But, if my musical tastes are narrow, I can appreciate that William Walton and Ralph Vaughan Williams and Herbert Howells and Arthur Bliss and Arnold Bax were composers of note. The music they provided in 1953 was both contemporary and fitting to the occasion. Last Saturday’s Coronation March owed more to John Williams than to Elgar. Andrew Lloyd Webber’s Coronation Ode was as mediocre and forgettable as everything else he has not plagiarised from Mendelssohn. This was the greatest musical failure of the day, as the King had asked for something memorably tuneful that would outlive its occasion. Except it may be played endlessly on Classic FM until even the presenters are sick of it, this Coronation Ode has already sunk without trace. As for the other music played, this was played without enthusiasm. Parry’s I Was Glad lacked grandeur. The Holst and Walton were too fast. I have heard more thrilling midi files of the Handel. The Greek Orthodox choir did well. Everything else was embarrassing.

Or we have the spectators. I am no fan of Winston Churchill. But he was a man touched by greatness, who was generally considered in his day to have done his country and the world a favour. He was also a writer of some ability, and a grandson of a Duke of Marlborough. The others in the Abbey that day in 1953 were the undeniably great and good of England. Many held ancient peerages. Most of the men had fought in two world wars. They carried out their immemorial duties without self-consciousness, and even with a sense of fun. Last Saturday’s spectators were mainly heterogeneous trash. I recognised Mrs Biden and her daughter, dressed like air hostesses in the blue and gold of the Ukrainian flag. Mr Biden himself was happily absent. He would only have lowered the tone still further, with senile ramblings about his Fenian sympathies. That, or he would have soiled himself again. Boris Johnson shambled in, fat as a pig and with a creased collar. Since 2020, he has probably outclassed even Tony Blair in evil. Tony Blair, however, had the decency to look glossily evil. Boris Johnson put on his usual performance as gross buffoon. He believes that this endears him to the public, and will let him back in once the Conservatives decide that Rishi Sunak is unelectable. I doubt the public thinks at all well of him, but fear the Conservatives will bring him back in any event. As for the Prime Minister, I should compliment him for his modesty and for his competent reading of the lesson.

Then there was the procession. What happened inside the Abbey was the equivalent of a good but elderly film, digitised and colourised into a shadow of itself. But it was still a version of itself. The procession said everything that needs to be known about modern England. The few police stationed along the way in 1953 had their backs to the crowd. Mostly, the crowd kept itself from spilling into the road. The army of police present last Saturday had their backs to the procession. The crowd was already monitored by drones and helicopters and face-recognition cameras, and risked being shot at if someone pulled out a handkerchief too fast.  It still had to be watched by the sweaty, unsmiling pigs of the Metropolitan Police. Behind the crowds, the few republican protestors were harassed and arrested in probable breach of some very police state public order laws.

The republican protestors were wasting their time. They probably thought they were making a stand against the ancient traditions of England. But these ancient traditions were long since overthrown. The public rituals of our Constitution have always been a fancy dress party for the ruling class. The difference between the two public rituals I am comparing is that the first was a fancy dress party for men who had some commitment to the ancestral rights of the English, and the second for those who have none. The difference puts me in mind of the Spartan Diamastigosis, where boys would offer themselves for ritual flagellation. When Sparta still existed, it was a bloody but valuable ritual, preparing those who took part and those who watched for a military career of hardship and sacrifice. But, long after Sparta had ceased to exist, the ritual continued as an entertainment for voyeuristic Romans. So it was with our Coronation. It was an entertainment laid on for a ruling class that sees England as nothing but a trading platform with a few expensive shops and the occasional outing to an echo of the local culture.

I might add the Coronation’s use as sedation for the people. So long as no one in the crowd looked up at the omnipresent surveillance drones, or thought about his own life, the idea might have been that nothing important had changed, and we stood firm in our own country with roots connecting us to High Middle Ages. But I think this deception has lost its force. Whatever lies the Establishment media may dribble, last Saturday’s crowds were smaller than in 1953. Aside from a few Potemkin events, organised and paid for by the town councils, I am not aware of any street parties or processions.  At 2pm on Saturday, just as proceedings in the Abbey were reaching their ceremonial climax, I went shopping. Except for some vestigial bunting in the High Street, it was business as usual. No doubt, the other shoppers were making their own recordings, as I was, to watch later. But I saw no great pride or anticipation. As recently as the Golden Jubilee in 2002, our police state was hidden so well behind the forms of the Ancient Constitution that people like me seemed eccentric when we drew attention to it. Today, the velvet glove is so threadbare that no one fails to see the mailed fist it once concealed.

I have no idea who our Caesaristic dictator may be. But I can hope he was among the armed guards who lined Saturday’s procession – that somewhere in that sea of gormless redcoats stood one in whom beats the heart of a Pinochet.


  1. I broadly agree. Though, to be fair, whatever the situation in Deal, around here in Oxfordshire there were flags and bunting on private houses and pubs everywhere, and plenty of village events, picnics etc. Not to mention the traditional ‘bun-throwing’ in Abingdon! But certainly it was nothing like as all-pervasive as in 1953. Not really surprising, as millions of people now living and working in Britain are from cultures and countries that have little interest in old English traditions. And a younger generation mentally inhabit either the USA or cyberspace.

  2. Unfortunately, the including of Muslims, Hindus etc, showed the Coronation Oath to be a tissue of feeble lies. I didn’t think it was necessary to hide the anointing behind a screen. Now we read that 38% of British people want Prince Charles – I still call him that – to be a political king. This can only end badly.

    • The weather was indeed similar to the last coronation – I was a toddler perched on my dad’s shoulders watching the procession, and I remember being cold and bored and wanting to go home. But my father did successfully impress upon me the significance of the occasion.
      Watching clips of Saturday’s performance, I could not help but be reminded of South Park’s ‘Canadian’ skit on the Royal Wedding, complete with (royal pudding).

  3. The link to “Plagiarised from Mendelssohn” was brilliant. Reminded me of Flanders and Swann. The archetypal Englishman Donald Swann, incidentally, was a Quaker, born of an Azerbaijani mother, who herself claimed to have been born on a camel. Not sure how that works exactly, but I’m sure that’s what she said.

  4. A conveyor belt of heresies. With the prime minister, known by all to be a Hindu, reading from the Bible, there was never even a pretense of sincerity. A great big obvious lie in all respects.

  5. I’ll take your word for it. I attended my Son’s Wedding – a Presbyterian Wedding with a real Preacher who preached the Gospel. It is the only event which will ensure I recall the date of the Coronation. Does anyone else foresee a short Reign of KCIII?

  6. There are two issues:
    1. The status of the Monarchy itself: after the Maastricht Treaty came into force Gerard Batten MEP noticed that Article 8 abolished EVERY legal class of person Europe-wide and replaced it with “Citizen of the EU with rights and responsibilities thereof”, which is completely incompatible with being Sovereign Monarch of a nation.
    After much trouble (involving a Labour MP [Austin Mitchell I believe] forcing answers to be made, it was determined that the Queen was merely an ordinary EU Citizen doing the duties of a monarch otherwise she would be Stateless. Some say that is why she wore the EU style blue & yellow star hat at State Opening of Parliament instead of a Crown.
    So what is Charles’ actual legal status now?
    2. In this Information Age it is essential that the monarch is an irreproachable patriot, but Charles’ (and Andrew’s) involvement with the likes of Jimmy Savile and Jeffrey Epstein; both Charles and Camilla being adulterers in the eyes of the Protestant religion; and Charles’ top involvement with the World Economic Forum that wants the world population to be equivalent to serfs controlled by a small transnational elite including himself instead of fighting for the UK, all makes him unsuitable.
    Many people prefer Anne, but I also wonder if Edward would be very analogous to his grandfather George VI who took over from (Nazi-sympathetic) Edward VIII, in that he knows the job 100% but did not expect or want the job, seems very straightforward with few skeletons in his past and is the single husband of a single good-woman wife.

  7. I’ve just watched some of the clips and listened to the music for the 2023 coronation.

    I’m certainly not a classical music aficionado, but even I can sense that the music is mediocre, it has that plastic movie score feel to it. Patrick Duffy’s effort is just plain embarrassing. I’m in two minds about Andrew Lloyd Webber’s. It comes across as mediocre in the YouTube recording, but sounds all right in the ceremony itself. It may be one of those tunes that sounds better live, which of course is what it was intended for. It’s no more than “OK”, though.

    I also thought that singing ‘Vivat Regina Camilla’ was a bit embarrassing, and Camilla herself was clearly embarrassed. I may well be misunderstanding things constitutionally, but it seems to me she is not the Queen suo jure, she is just consort and the title ‘Queen’ is purely decorous. I also noticed that following the Coronation, the armed forces greeted ‘the King and Queen’, as if they were equals in status when they are not. Is this just one more nod to political correctness?

    I also didn’t like the involvement of non-whites in the ceremony itself. I take no issue with coloured dignitaries from the Commonwealth being present in the audience, but a black woman and a south Asian woman were holding the ceremonial orb or sceptre and a black man from the Church seemed to be closely involved, though it wasn’t clear what he was supposed to be doing. They don’t belong there, any more than I should be one of those to ‘raise the pole’ at the Coronation of the King of Eswatini.

    • Your comment on the colour of those officiating depends on a restrictive view of membership of the nation that may no longer be relevant. When Enoch Powell suggested repatriation in 1968, he was mainly discussing first generation settlers and their youngish children. His suggestion was easily practicable, whether or not it was just. However, that was nearly sixty years ago. Something I find puzzling about many nationalists is that they continue to repeat Enoch Powell as if time had not passed. The question to be asked now is who goes and who stays, and on what principle. By all means suggest that all the foreign-born beggars and criminals and other trouble-makers should be invited to return to their ancestral homelands. But what is to be done with those who have three or even four generations of presence in England? What about the products of intermarriage who may, on two or three sides of their ancestry, show descent from the Anglo-Saxons? What about those who do not agree with critical race theory and are happy to be assimilated? What about those who may now find it convenient to get ahead as professional ethnics, but who might, given a change of regime, shut up and just wave the flag like everyone else? I am not aware of any serious discussion of these questions within the nationalist movement. You can move the milk jug away from the teacup. But what do you do about the milk already in the tea?

      I feel an essay coming on me as I put these questions. Your guidance would be welcome.

      • In my view, a non-white person can never be British or English (or one of the other indigenous ethnies) and therefore should have the legal status of guest in this country, retaining full property rights and other civil liberties but no right to vote. I accept there has to be an adaptation to reality and I would personally make the concession that over a period of generations – sometimes even just one generation – a person of mixed-racial ancestry can be treated as indigenous, but I can’t accept that a non-white person is anything other than an alien. That’s not because I have a dislike for non-white people. It’s not a matter of liking or disliking.

        The wider issues you are raising are, first, the difference between nationalists and patriots, and second – and more fundamentally – how mass immigration affects bio-cultural reality through raciogenesis.

        Dealing with the first issue, the patriot says that the genetic basis of a people does not matter, or matters little, as long as the people adhere to a common culture. The nationalist argues that this amounts to putting the cart before the horse because a common culture requires a common people. It’s not that the nationalist rejects patriotism. To the contrary, the nationalist is also a patriot, but he holds that before there can be patriots, there must first be nations. Anybody who puts them the wrong way round may call himself a patriot, but he is a patriot for something made-up, a bit like somebody might get excited about a football club. As such, he is opposed to the nationalist, who regards him as no patriot at all.

        Turning to the second issue, my position is that if you allow large-scale immigration of racial aliens, you are creating a new race. In other words, mass immigration is a basis for raciogenesis. This in turn means a new culture. If we believe the dissident psychologists, black Africans and non-white Caucasoids (with the exception of Ashkenazi Jews) are less intelligent overall than white northern Europeans and less adept at sustaining civilisations than white northern Europeans. If this is true, the result of mass immigration will be a new race that is less capable, and probably more divisive and socially fragmented, than the hegemonic race it replaced. Yet even if it is not true, I am still opposed to the replacement of my recognisable culture with something foreign and alien and the replacement of white European people with people who are not.

        Here, again, we come to a fundamental difference between you (and Honeyford and Powell and Farage and the other patriots), and me (and Darré and Schmidt, and Heidegger and Adolf Hitler and Colin Jordan and the other nationalists). I have no particular care in the larger scheme of things for whether somebody is a criminal or beggar, or a rocket scientist or philanthropist. Though it certainly helps and is preferred, it’s not the quality that matters, it is first and foremost loyalty to my own people that drives me, purely on the basis of aesthetes and preference. White women are not as good looking as non-white women, white societies are nicer than non-white societies, classical music is better than rap music, and so on and so on. These things that are ‘white’ did not fall on a certain people accident or mistake, they came about because white people existed, and I am white myself, and since this is my culture, I am bound to it.

        I don’t have to give you some sort of sophisticated, convoluted justification for this, any more than you should have to justify why you don’t abandon your own children by the side of the road when at once they misbehave and then seek out replacement children. After all, there are plenty of other children in the world, so why don’t you and other parents do this? There are elements of intellectual insight in the argument as to why you don’t, but it is also an emotional argument. If somebody came along and demanded you provide a peer reviewed study to justify not abandoning your badly-behaved children by the side of the road, you’d think that person mad.

        Your belief is that ultimately race does not matter, which to me seems odd, since surely as soon as you replace the white race with one or more others, racial distinctions will still exist and continue, which means racism will continue. These things must continue, as we are an evolutionary species subject to Natural Selection. I accept that you are not saying that race is unimportant currently, rather – if I understand you – you are suggesting that humanity will ultimately evolve out of it. This, with respect, seems misconceived, as it seems to overlook the reasons why we have race or any other tribal designation. It’s a little like saying we’ll eventually grow out of adultery because adultery is undesirable, ignoring that the ‘problem’ of adultery is not adultery itself. In other words, the fallacy is wish-thinking by scene-shifting. Furthermore, to argue against race conceptually or academically seems rather detached from reality, akin to arguing against that big thing hanging in the sky that keep blinding my eyes when I look upwards. I might not like that big shining thing sometimes, but my survival depends on it, and in a real sense – even a literal sense – it’s part of me, or was, and will become so. Whatever, you are putting ideology over reality, which means you belong ontologically to the Left, whereas I see racialism and tribalism – horrible and unpleasant as they can sometimes be – as central to my humanity, and so I am ontologically on the Right.

        To bring the discussion back to the topic in hand, my vision of a coronation would be something like The Apotheosis of Homer, whereas I would think the Carolean Coronation we just witnessed virtually is a very fitting reflection for your point of view – a nice, well-behaved black man scurrying round making busy, an Asian woman and a black woman holding the orb and sceptre, and so on, all in harmony. To me, it’s a disgusting image, not because I have anything against black or Asian people – I really don’t – but because it represents the fall of my culture, and I think it’s only natural that one should want to preserve (as well as develop and improve) one’s culture, not hand it over to somebody else. You don’t hand your house over to somebody else, do you? It could be that black men are my brothers in anthropological terms, but do I invite my brother into my house, let him stay as long as he likes, and even sleep with my wife?

        Extrapolated to the social level, this is the makings of a civil war – and probably explains pretty much every significant human conflict. It’s two opposing views that are irreconcilable.

        • P. S.

          It would really improve things if there was an edit function here, even if time limited, to go back and correct my typos. Several in that last comment. A ‘not’ where it should not be and several grammatical errors.
          You only see them sometimes when you read it back again.

          • Main error:

            “White women are not as good looking as non-white women…”

            Should say:

            “Non-white women are not as good looking as white women…”

        • Much to think of here in terms of our differences. However, I think my central point is that the facts on the ground have changed since 1968. You seem to have no answer to this. You can insist that people like me are addressing symptoms not causes, but we do claim to have answers. I, for example, want some kind of populist coup, which would attack corporate and administrative power and the toxic middle class that these support. I would impose a regard for freedom of speech on every institution above individuals and small businesses. Again, you can deny that these would do any good, but at least I have solutions that have some cogency. You and the other nationalists are engaging in a sort of long intellectual grumble. By all means, tell people what you think is wrong. You are all very good at that. But people also want to know what and by what steps you want to do something about it.

          You also need to explain how what you want to do would be possible. I once asked myself what might be done to restore the demographic facts of 1948. The best answer I could provide was a law restricting citizenship to those who could prove x ancestors lawfully resident in the present UK at the time of the 18×1 census. This had a nice elegance about it, until I realised the total chaos and uncertainty it would produce. Asking c.60 million people – not all of them very bright – to prove ancestry would overwhelm any system set up to handle it. Then there would be the question of what to do with those lacking a father’s name on their birth certificates.

          Your claim that you would deprive aliens of their citizenship and their voting rights sounds feasible, until someone asks you to give a workable definition of alien and a workable means of identifying aliens. Censorship and hostile propaganda don’t help your cause. At the same time, your collective unwillingness or inability to come up with answers to obvious questions makes you hardly worth the trouble of censoring.

          This is, by the way, a question in good faith, not an attempt at virtue-signalling.

          • I believe I did answer your question, and directly. Perhaps I did not make myself clear enough,or there was insufficient detail for your liking.

            To repeat, my opinion is that any resident non-white should be considered a ‘guest’ or ‘permanent resident’, deprived of citizenship and denied the right to vote, but all their other civil liberties would remain undisturbed. The main purpose of this would be to politically block any further measures that promote non-white immigration. Provided a social peace could obtain on this basis, mass enforced deportations would be unnecessary. I would certainly be opposed to the deportation of anybody who has been brought up here, even if they are convicted of offences. The aim should be to allow the non-white population to decline naturally over decades with no unnecessary disturbance of civil liberties. Incentives could be provided for non-whites who have come here to work but have few or no links to Britain to voluntarily repatriate themselves to their homelands, which would further bring the numbers down.

            You mention mixed-race people. A mixed-race person is still a non-white person, so adminstratively classifiable as above. However, I acknowledge that certain reasonable and common-sense exceptions should be permitted. For instance, somebody with one non-white grandparent could be treated as ‘white’. Descendants of mixed non-whites could apply for the vote if they become eligible for it as racially-assimilated. Non-whites who have lived here all their lives could be given ‘permanent resident’ status, with passports and the right to come and go as they please.

            You mention how people would prove their ancestry, but in the vast majority of cases they won’t have to. The state holds the necessary records – passport information, civil records, census returns – and I think the onus would be on the state. In most cases, a rebuttable assumption that someone is ‘white’ can obtain where the state is unable to establish otherwise and the individual does not attest to a voluntary renunciation of citizenship. I would not support DNA testing. I would just accept that some (very many, perhaps) non-whites will slip through the net. The situation is difficult to begin with.

            As to how nationalists can arrive at a position that would allow them to implement measures such as the above, I believe this would be next-to-impossible by entirely peaceful means.

            • Perhaps you did answer, but I didn’t pay sufficient attention. In which case apologies. You have a much bigger mountain to climb than we have in terms of bringing change. All my side needs to do is win an election, and then work a largely negative revolution of destroying an Establishment that exists. We then assume the emergence of a more natural order that will be self-sustaining. You seem to want a much larger and more powerful state that will follow a single programme for a very long time. How this can be done, even after a successful revolution not devoid of compulsion, is hard to imagine.

              I also still doubt the capacity of your captured state to define and identify aliens. Your definition of who would be acceptable seems rather broad. I am sure that many others take a more restrictive view. So long as you are all a long way from power, this is not an issue. But I do suspect that, if you ever did take power, you would be just as subject to tyrannical purity spirals as the established left.

              But here is another point. We know, from the sale of hair and skin products and the tendency of plastic surgery, that many people want to be whiter than they are. Given the likely progress of genetic engineering, I can imagine a time not far away when non-whites will be able to give birth to white children, and when they will want to. To appearance you can add a set of moral and intellectual qualities that are perceived to go with whiteness. Would you not regard this and other developments, as a solution to your problem?

              • If the wiggish position you hold to is true and humanity will – must – grow out of racism because it is backward and antediluvian, then how could the genetic technology you mention ever arise? Won’t the technology be deliberately confined to curing or preventing diseases and other genetic characteristics that enlightened people think of as undesirable? And even if politico-legal sanction is given to such technology as you mention, with black parents having custody of white children they have had genetically-engineered, we are still faced with a sort of paradox in that surely if racial considerations are backward, few or no parents availing themselves of such technology would give race a second thought. But if all that is wrong, then it must be that your position is wrong, at least in part. Perhaps racism is antediluvian and backward, but it may also be an inescapable imperative. Indeed, I think that is the case because we know that people pay attention to things like looks, facial symmetry and so on, as these things are indications of genetic fitness, and racial characteristics arise from similar considerations.

                As to whether black people using genetic manipulation to engineer white children solves any problem, I have no idea. To answer would require some knowledge of technology that does not yet exist. In principle, I would say that what you are suggesting implies the existence of artificial wombs and the end of, or minimisation of, genetic ties between parents and offspring. If so, for those people deeper racial considerations would be rendered moot, the selection of ‘white’ children would purely be an aesthetic thing, which thus implies that the children would not be racially white at all, just white-skinned (which is not the same thing) and also implies that their children would perhaps even cease to be evolutionary beings – though that latter point would of course be contingent on their social environment.

                Turning to the other topic you raise, I did not say there would be an absence of compulsion and everything could be done entirely on a voluntary basis. That would be silly and of course it would not work, and in any case, by the time a nationalist dispensation arises, society would have changed and moved in a more nationalistic direction, with many non-white people leaving the country of their own accord. My assumption is that there will have to be political violence, perhaps a long underground struggle along lines similar to Sinn Fein/IRA – and I think the reason that has not already started is largely down to the ineptitude of the dissident Right. It’s not necessarily that I want to see violence – let me make that clear – it’s more that I regard it as a near-inevitability. It may also be that the state has bad actors who want to encourage violence from the dissident Right as a way of finally crushing and defeating us – a trap, in other words, and I rather suspect the British state had a hand somewhere in the formation of the Provisional IRA for similar reasons – but that does not change the point. It is still required, whether it is a trap or not.

                I do not, at least in principle, want to see the emergence of another large and powerful nationalist police state. I do think some sort of ‘leadership principle’ will have to be at the heart of government and broader society, and that does imply dictatorship by a Hitlerian figure, or a council of such men, but it needn’t imply a large, overbearing state. If I did want hyper-statism, I would not bother to comment here on a libertarian site. That is not to say I am doctrinally libertarian or some sort of liberal, but I have sympathy with notions of self-government and maximum liberty and view the two things, white liberation and individual liberty, as closely entwined, not opposite things.

                Perhaps I am an ‘Actonite libertarian’, instinctively favouring freedom but not insisting on it above all things since, in my view, that would be rather foolish. I take the view that, to reach his potential, Man needs imposed restrictions as much as natural liberties, and we should be as cautious of those who wish to impose liberty from above as we would be of giving others power over us. In a sense, the imposition of liberty is also the exercise of power. ‘You may do this’, can translate into ‘You must do this or not say this’, in reality. To put it another way: if power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, then surely liberty corrupts and absolute liberty corrupts absolutely. true liberty is in the negative sense of: ‘There is nothing to say you cannot do this’, and pure liberty is that and, ‘There can never be any basis to say you cannot do this.’

                I part company with Neil Lock and other ultra-libertarians like Hoppe in that I hold political statehood to be almost a biologised construct that arises in any social complex, even perhaps in the animal world, I don’t believe that statehood or government can be abolished or removed completely if a complex society is to sustain itself. I think some sort of minimal political community is desirous in any case, but a situation of liberty could sit side-by-side with some sort of political syncresis between socialistic/co-operative forms of economic organisation and private enterprise, the exact form of each function or service depending on what is needed in each instance.

                To implement the sort of programme I outline above would not require the assumption of considerable additional powers and competences by the state. The scope and framework for everything I propose is already in place and I can envisage a scenario in which, as the intellectual and academic hegemony of the radical Left is dismantled, a greater appetite arises for political, social and personal liberty. Of course, there is a philosophical tension at the heart of it, but all workable forms of government are paradoxical and inconsistent in a textbook sense.

                • I do fear that what you suggest can only be achieved by a police state just as large and intrusive as the one we have. It would also need to hold power for a very long time, and perhaps avoid even the rigged elections we are now permitted. And I repeat my point about purity spirals. You start by rooting out obvious aliens – assuming you really can identify them in the first place. You then proceed in stages to some kind of Nordicist Terror. It is the tendency of all revolutions to go bad and to consume their earliest projectors. I really do suggest an attempt at less radical action. Restoring freedom of speech and association would be a start, followed by an overthrow of the authoritarian left.

                    • All else aside, I can think of one family that deserves immediate and compulsory repatriation to its ancestral homeland. The members came here some years ago. In this time, none of them has done a day’s honest work. Instead, they have lived on various kinds of handout from the British State. They have entirely failed to assimilate, but look down on us and relentlessly promote every scheme to make us poor and enslaved. The only question is whether they will be let back into Hanover.

                    • @alanbickley

                      If I may say so, I think dealing with the Hanover Mob is a job for the Lord Protector. Somebody should speak to him at his hideout in Deal. He may then convene the English Revolutionary Command Council to plan a “legitimate military operation”.

Leave a Reply