From Estonia all the way down to Georgia, there is an Anglo-wannabe intelligentsia that presumes to press our buttons like this.

I hope a few thousand of you will reply to Mr Gerashchenko, and anyone else you come across who speaks in like vein from the lands between Russia and Germany, along these lines:

"No. We are not going to start World War Three for you."

https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1511989650147233793

Before I went to Plymouth, one of you asked what happens to money given to Alternative View nowadays.

I had a chance to ask Brian Gerrish about this during my stay, and he told me that things are still crystallising because Ian Crane's daughter has now returned from Australia and is going to be involved in running AV from now on, but the details are not yet confirmed. (Brian, too, will be involved, as agreed with Ian before his decease.)

Patriotic Alternative South West flew a message to the Etihad Stadium during the Man City vs Liverpool match yesterday which read “British to be a minority by 2066”

The "White British" are already a minority in many towns and cities in the UK, including our capital city, London.

Oxford Professor of Demographics, David Coleman, concludes that we are due to reach minority status in the UK by 2066, or sooner.

Will you help prevent your children and grandchildren becoming an indigenous minority people in the future?

At Patriotic Alternative we believe that every people of the world deserve a homeland... including the British!

Credit to our colleagues in PA North West for the video footage. Get involved today. #PlayYourPart.

www.patrioticalternative.org.uk

There has been a sharp division among subscribers over my sharing of the news of Patriotic Alternative's latest flying of the demographic warning for which they are known. I could have foreseen the division but I don't regret sharing it.

Of course, I'd rather not have fallings-out between us, but I share what is on my heart as per the channel description ("Geopolitics, Christianity, education, constitution") and I censor only bad language and incitement, as per my pinned posts and regular reminders.

I cannot pretend not to be concerned about the British becoming a minority in their own land, just as little as I can pretend not to be concerned about any other nation becoming a minority in its own land. I am convinced from long consideration, reading and debate that this question is germane to all four nouns in my channel aims (see e.g. Acts 17:26—mankind is made of one blood and the Creator, intending for maximum cultural diversity and maximum occupation of the earth, has set the borders of our respective nations to live in and seek Him within).

The reason why I have no problem with the Fourteen Words (though I am of the persuasion that "British" or other relevant nation name is better than "white", for various reasons) is precisely because I've found in travels and history studies that the modern West is extremely unusual in not caring about the continuity imperative expressed by the Fourteen Words.

There are plenty of good people who find this repugnant, I know. As I'm predominantly a linguist, let me put it this way respectfully: they tend to be of the mind that describes the world with the modal verb "should/shouldn't", rather than with the indicative verb "is/isn't". (For example, "this shouldn't matter" vs. "this matters".) Some of these people have my very high esteem, but I disagree with them on that fundamental question.

The former number two at GCHQ, who'd mentored me significantly over my eight-year career there, broke off all contact with me when I posted an Identity Ireland motorway banner on social media a few years ago. He hadn't objected to UK Column's coverage of, for instance, Satanist ritual abuse, but he thought I was being unchristian by expressing the hope that the Irish had a future as the nation living in Ireland, and he expressed the conviction that anyone with a platform had an overriding duty not to divide people. (Mind you, he also thought that making churches LGBTQIAP-friendly was a major priority for believers.)

I know some people might ostracise me for being honest about my convictions here, but I mean no offence and it will never be me who breaks off contact with any fellow anti-globalist. Becoming a minority in your ancestral land is not a fate I would wish on my worst enemy. When has it ended well, or even ended without horrendous outcomes?

The question of how many millions of outsiders a nation grants residence or citizenship to is quite separate from that of mixed marriages, which Christians have a New Testament duty to affirm are perfectly valid. However, there is always the real-world caveat to be sounded (as Paul's epistles sound on all issues even as he expounds liberty in the gospel) that—just as with any other marital choice, including celibacy—there will be real-world consequences to your decisions. (For a mixed marriage, these include the potential for identity crisis, inability to find organ donors, and hazardous shunning by society during crises. There are likewise potentially negative consequences to singleness and to in-group marriage that are not obviated by being in Christ.)

[continues below]

Analytical colleagues have warned me not to overestimate the numerical weight of ethnonationalists within the anti-globalist or pro-constitutionalist movement simply because of their prevalence and skill as memers and online posters. They might well be right.

However, as with the New Agers—who for decades were talking about infringements of unalienable God-given rights and untouchable politicians abusing children, while the church was dozing or offended by the supposed sleight to its respectability when this was mentioned—I prefer (to quote Spurgeon on Moody again) the ethnonationalists' way of thinking through the implications of demographics to the church's and the middle class' way of not thinking them through.

In extensive dealings with ethnonationalists and allied strands of nationalists, particularly in Britain and the Netherlands, I have found them to be among the best-informed, most virtuous people of our generation, and a surprisingly high proportion of them are, or were at least brought up, God-fearing. I have consistently found that they understand, know and even love very different nations more than the background population does; but it is a love subordinate to love of one's own kin, and surpassed only by their love of the Saviour, if they are Christians.

(One of the things I've consistently noted in ethnonationalism is the very real uncertainty over the development of some allegedly ethnonationalist movements in Russia and the Ukraine, and I find it no contradiction that I'm opposed to the Olena Semenyaka rhetoric of federating Slavdom to regenerate the white race while simultaneously appreciating the work, analytical honesty and personal ethics of numerous ethnonationalists in countries further from that region.)

If I didn't love my own kin, and if I wasn't envisaging the stark difference between them thriving as a free majority in their homeland and the other outcomes, I wouldn't be in this fight. And part of loving my own kin and wanting that happy future for them is very much envisaging that individuals from overseas can continue to live among us: at least as residents, and where they personally merit it, as voting citizens.

I have banned the subscriber who just twice used sexual insults against Kat. She has left the channel.

Kat is one of my heroes; she was on the next desk to me at GCHQ and did her part, at great personal cost and risk, to prove the unlawfulness of the Iraq War.

It would help if all the ethnonationalistically minded on this channel would behave like men and like gentlemen.

When I went on Mark Collett’s channel last year and outlined how the Cambridge dissidents of the Nineties were beginning to discuss the interrelation of demographics, liberty and the Gospel, I set out in a nutshell how we were agonised between the sentiment of our nation frankly deserving its own demise if it killed its own children and didn’t bother to bear enough children (this is self-evidently true and has been enunciated today by subscribers to this channel), the outrage of newcomers abusing our children, and the urgency of tackling the endemic child abuse within the autochthonous British people.

This was summarised in a comment posted under Mark’s upload as “Alex admits he cucked out.”

It’s just as well that comment wasn’t made in my presence. To call a man a cuckold is to say he lets his wife sleep around.

Words matter.

There is some discussion at the moment over the Biblical meanings of “love” and “hate”.

The only consistent exegesis of these verbs in both Testaments is that to love is sincerely to want the best for, and to hate is to disregard or to subordinate the importance of in favour of someone with an anterior and superior claim.

In response to queries about the above:

The whole point about verbs in language, and very much in the Biblical languages, is that they can describe either an action or a state/condition, or an admixture of both. Hence, grammarians speak of “eventive” (alias “dynamic”) verbs, which usually have transitivity (“valency” to the posher linguists), and of “stative” verbs, which have none.

“Love” and “hate” are, strictly speaking, action verbs (regardless of particular language) rather than stative verbs, but they nevertheless describe attitudes within the agent (lover/hater) in the first instance. They can, of course, also denote things done out of love or hatred, but only by extension from the primary meaning.

Hebrew and Aramaic in particular have few verb roots and use them widely, and this Hebraic usage permeates New Testament Greek too. So don’t imagine that (for example) to “love one master and hate the other“ is necessarily anything visceral; a valid idiomatic translation (not suitable for the text of an actual Bible translation, but reasonable as a footnote or comment) would be “show preference/loyalty to one master at the expense of the other”.

There are also times when Hebrew “hating” very much is visceral, such as Psalm 139:21,22.

"A society that has rationalized the chemical castration of seven-year olds has functionally demolished all moral barriers. 'Consent' has become their only guiding principle."

Auron MacIntyre on the "logic" of pedophilia.

(Scare quotes around consent mine.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qISCw-X9PUA

Captain Graham Hood:

“My heroes are everyday Aussies who turn up. When they’re required to stand in a protest, they’re there; when they’re required to shovel mud out of somebody’s home in the flood, they’re there. I’ve been surrounded by too many of them to lose hope.

And I really believe we’ve already won, because there's a society building in this country around compassion that is going to set new benchmarks, I think.

That gives me great hope. I’m so proud of my fellow Australians, so many of them. And you know what, a lot of them have been jabbed! They are seeing that this is not about that; they’re seeing that we’re trying to rattle their cage because they’re asleep, there’s a train coming and the cage has been left on the tracks.

We’ve been slowly dumbed down by mainstream media. They’ve done a great job [of that], they really have.”

(19:00)

https://tntradiolive.podbean.com/e/graham-hood-john-parsons-on-the-mike-ryan-show-12-apr-2022/

The ex-subscriber who twice used genitalia insults at someone on this channel has passed me a message accepting his ban, which is grown-up of him.

He adds the detail that the woman he insulted is someone I admire for her past courage, which seems to imply the assumption that I would have let it pass if he’d used that language on some other subscriber whom I didn’t know or care for.

But no, I wouldn’t have let it pass.

A subscriber writes:

“I’d love for you guys to do a deep dive into MPs’ conflicts of interest. Payments from lobbyists, seats on boards, dates, previous employment, funding, relations etc etc. We need an archive to throw as much as we can at our disgusting 'representatives' from ALL parties!”


She is right, but—in the Brian Gerrish phrase—“Can I just gently say that we don’t have the time, and perhaps it should be you who do it and we can publicise it.”

How about a couple of hundred of you good subscribers liaise to compile such a database of MPs’ conflicts of interest, starting with ascertaining that existing work by some group or other isn’t being duplicated?

I vaguely recall a sci-fi short story in which the bourgeoisie sat around chanting the mantra “Tum-tum-tah! Tum-tum-tah!” as an antidote to thoughts and morals.

They also had a newspaper, the Tum Tum Times.

If I remember the last bit of the plot right, the mantra had been banned for its deleterious effects but a disgruntled minority faction surreptitiously reintroduced it under therapeutic cover, as a reliever of cognitive dissonance.