On Constitutions and the Foreign

Part 1 of "Death to Australia, so it may Live"

“Bottom dollar says Chesterton spoke of this.”

---

Not A Document.

The Constitution of a people has been, and forever shall be, their morality. Upon this groundwork of morality is built every free action, pleasure, engagement, enterprise, collective struggle, and every bias. It takes care of itself, and is responsible for that which is like itself, its distinction from (and rejection of a union with) the Other growing stronger in inverse proportion to awareness of the common genetic function of mankind.

This proposition necessitates that heritage is to be considered as an immutable characteristic. It is passed down by the wider social and familial environment within which a generation is raised. There is no way to preserve a moral constitution without a coherency and historical continuity of such environments. It transcends the economic situation of a nation. A moral nation will stand in solidarity (or widely hold such solidarity as ideal) with all its citizens, holding one another to account through democratic, economic and ultimately moral-identarian means.

What we are talking about is the language of a people’s mutual recognition, which cannot be decomposed into discreet proclivities or replicated by emulation. It serves a different purpose entirely when viewed from outside of itself than within - from inside, it is evaluated on the terms of its alikeness to Subject (i.e. viewing that which created a certain frame of reference upon its own terms), and from outside, as one analyses an Object through the identification of properties and fascinations. From the inside, a study from Identity, from the outside, a study of Identification.

As with Voltaire’s meditation on God - so is race. If it does not exist positively, it exists necessarily, and those who choose to do without it will be devoured by those who understand it to serve a utility. Perhaps it can be called a form of Hyperstition - to bastardise the Landian phrase with the addition of a certain layer of intergroup interest, something that exists until none of one’s opposing factions believe in it. Until that time, race mandates its own existence by dictating the rules of engagement. As far as quiet conquest and subversion is concerned, replacement works - it has always worked, it has always been an act of war, and therefore it is as real as scientific fact (which doubtless can also differentiate the characteristic immutabilities of ethnicity, no matter how inconvenient it is to the dominant Liberal fictions) because any group who has not heeded the history of migration has had their way of life irreparably perturbated.

“The Race-Based are the Based Race.”

It is because we can mix groups beyond recognition (with, on balance after the fact, more cultural traits of the aggressor group invariably remaining), because we can so easily lose our way, because we can easily pretend that cultural differences are meaningless and moot, that we must consciously preserve our moral Constitution in the face of foreign influences, cultural aggressions and qualitative relativism. But this has not happened, and the hour is too late by far. Every act on our soil which is foreign is an act of dominance, of war, if it is provided sufficient exposure, if it is fetishised sufficiently by those who have forsaken their moral Constitution, if it is unable to be declared as Other in the case that we are unwilling to be convicted by Self.

No, it is not that the Other is subhuman, genetically retarded, ontologically evil or cognitively inferior that disturbs me the most (though on the second and fourth points I shall further remain conspicuously silent). It is that they are broadly speaking quantitatively equivalent to us as Homo Sapiens while exhibiting vast, even insurmountable qualitative differences, the kind which is poison to a delicate, high-trust and naive civilisation of unreasonable optimism. To misquote the Shakespere - it is because the Jew (or any other group of foreigners that lives among us) has eyes, hands, organs and dimensions, it is because the Jew bleeds red, cries, goes through misery and joy, adapts in complex and imperfect ways to political and economic environments, outbreeds, reproduces, triggers instincts of protection, empathy, decency, responsibility, egality, fraternity, goodwill and companionship under the impractically decadent order we have built ourselves into - it is because the Other is unmistakably a human under some form of the human condition that we will struggle to do what is necessary.

I’m not complaining that its hard to kill Jew babies because they’re so darn cute. I’m simply remarking that it is the aesthetic humanist qualities we recognise in our fellow Homo Sapiens which is eminently Zuhandenheit (to use Heidegger’s neologism; this translates in the King’s to Being-To-Hand). Our universal kindness is not logical, but it is first, and in a world free from care and driven by the fulfilment of petty desire there is no need to question one’s first instinct to be transiently, tokenly moral.

Time and time again, we choose to be that, rather than the disastrous and (dare I say) mutually unbeneficial results of that abstract and meaningless kindness. The fruits of such petty virtue are easily extrapolated - they are all that is proven to result from nurturing what is foreign to the bosom of our exclusive inheritance. Make no mistake: when I say kindness, it amounts to allowing those who consider us an outgroup on multiple levels to hold power over us, to exploit our rootlessness, to erase and hasten the erasure of our people and our way of life. Such a kindness is possible only from those who have no love of their own people, as they sacrifice what is not theirs to give away to those whose interests are conquest - liberal universalism is tyranny, liberal universalism is treachery, liberal universalism is genocide. The rot has been a long time coming, and has now overtaken us.

“We are living through an apocalypse of virtue
and everything I eat tastes like moustache”

The New “Constitution”

We no longer have a Constitution. The proliferation of abject and self-identifying foreigners within our political spaces, and their deliberate arming with disproportionate and unmerited political capital, has acclimatised us (or a critical proportion of us) away from the self-determination of the common priors. We have become so used to the Other than we cannot conceive of a fidelity to, or an inheritance from, the Self.

The only remnant of the Constitution that could be said to remain is our personal, fractured, pluralistic morality, a morality which cannot understand what ought be Self, nor can appropriately interface with the inherent diversity still audible the garbled echoes of the former Constitution. We are told we cannot pass judgement upon the Other, and we have believed it, saddled as we are with a plurality of irregular morals. This is the failing of the Modern Conservative, the Tony Abbots, the Malcolm Turnbulls, the Pauline Hansons, the Clive Palmers. They cannot even begin to communicate the basis of problems with such a thoroughly demoralised population. Nor do they have any vision as to what to say. They will be elected on aleatoric terms, to placate a restlessly slumbering people that desires change but cannot conceive of the means to make it meaningful.

The irregular morals of the rootless makes them into superb consumers, who do not see their labour and capital as an extension of their own Being and means to impose Will upon the world, not understanding their fellow human agents from which such constructs flow that populate the world they engage in. They are disenfranchised from the social ecosystem - there is nothing they have not yet been persuaded of, nothing that they could not be sold, nothing that they could not swallow and be conditioned to ask hungrily for more.

These people are known as Liberals, and they are known as Conservatives. They are known as the Boomers, the most fortunate generation unwilling to produce the offspring that justifies all mankind’s aged declines, those complicit in the expansion of an anti-white Socialism, which defines itself in the negative to a National Socialism. It is Socialism against the Nation.

Australia's Tony Burke, holding the fistful of Ministerial positions he does (Minister for Home Affairs, Immigration and Citizenship, Cyber Security and the Arts) is perhaps the most virulently anti-White of this Fair (but swiftly browning) Nation's ruling class. As such, he can be studied profitably as to discerning what is meant to replace our decrepit, receding moral Constitution - he is our chief Anti-National Socialist.

“I have consulted the comically large scripture and concluded that we need replacement migration”

Under Burke, active measures to suppress and annihilate what remains of our nation are ongoing - the discarding of any pretense of the expectation of assimilation (he does not want them to “lose who they are”) amongst all else indicates an official disbelief in the worth and existence of Australian Culture to begin with. But it is not enough to simply crush a people through depersonalisation and physical replacement - we must be replaced with ideological osmosis from the inside out, to become, spiritually, migrants in our own lands.

The process of this insidious and irreparable osmosis is the “X Values” fraud (which all European-descended nations have, curiously, been simultaneously subjected to) which at first bore passing resemblance to the moral Constitution is was supposed to replace. But its generality has always been the key difference - Australian Values are something that could be adopted both instantaneously and completely, without the repudiation of past identities or even authentic allegiance. This stands in distinction with the true bonds of Australian identity - that which is cultivated, passed down, formed along every judgement and aesthetic decision in the cultural dialectic between the Nation and the Individual. Such values were and always have been something that were decided by a political class of insulated (along the aforementioned Enlightenment lines) and often unelected bureaucrats, to whom the people they serve are nothing more than thoroughly-spun characteristics, pressure points and impersonal tranches of semantically inane data.

What Australian Values has metastasised into, or what it was teleologically intended and predestined to become, or even what it is only now revealing itself to have always been, is not the doing away with the ingroup-outgroup distinction. Rather, it is a flabby generalisation of the principle of the underdog, of the tall poppy, of the romanticisation of oppression and pathologically compelled affirming acts towards the ideal of absolute egality. The new moral Constitution, in its most radical form, is one of Inversion, of Derridean deconstruction - dogmatically taking what is considered Good and supplanting its place in the hierarchy with the Bad as a kind of tiresome instinct of the academic revolutionary. The mechanistic subversion of our way of life is a process, and a process is a Constitution - it is a moral good to progress, to invert, to accelerate the tipping of the iceberg. Those who push that way are the Ingroup, and those who push back, the Outgroup. Such an Ingroup will fracture only once they have achieved a lasting victory over the bastion of the old way - each and every one of us is their unifying enemy, to be sent hastily to the icy abyss.

This new Constitution came from the pens of the non-persons who were the first to be caught up in the momentum of the wholesale capture of our political institutions from the cults of academia. These are the Gough Whitlams, the Clement Attlees, the Lyndon B. Johnsons, the self-styled solutioneers to the post-war contradictions. And then there are those who let them get away with it. The Margret Thatchers, the Ronald Reagans, the Malcom Frasiers, those who had no vision, no state, no people but that which they considered an annoyance or liability secondary to the pursuit of the internationalist market ideal. But really this was a long time coming, from at least the days of Hobbes and Locke, whose nobility of thought is now unmasked as its own nemesis. Should we return, then, to a kind of Scholasticism, to break entirely from the Liberal Tradition, even from its very roots? I’ll address that in the second part of this series Death to Australia, so it may Live.

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to take their idea of virtue from the bad”

Many will scratch their heads at just how leftward we've shifted since the end of the Second World War - I tell you, it doesn't puzzle me any. It bears reiteration. The load-bearing structures, traditions and religious practice of Western Civilisation have been - through trauma and the ideology which both brought it to be and made it unimaginable and apocalyptic to man under the expectation of the decadence of modernity - collapsed utterly by the combined momentum of four hundred years of Enlightenment Ideals, produced in relative and therefore increasing isolation from material reality and the systems that emerge from the complexity of Self-Other distinctions. Such isolation was by virtue of the labour-saving technology, moral certainty and lifestyle refinement such ideals themselves facilitated.

Therefore, the self-substantiating Analytic Gambit of the Enlightenment is squarely responsible for accumulating overwhelming ideological pressure unchecked by practical reality due to the comfort and prosperity it facilitated for its mistresses. Such is the arrogance of the Keynesians, the Neo-Liberals and the Neo-Conservatives alike - they have never had a crisis they could not buy their way out of. They have never had to resolve an issue, a contradiction, they have never had to let diseased tissue slough off to save the body nor create protective environments to allow critically injured economic components to recover from the wounds inflicted by globalism. Too big to fail - too big to afford that they succeed to spite failure! The vanguardism of the Enlightenment has had such momentum for the last eight decades, seeping proper into every aspect of postmodern life where before it was bottlenecked by the unavoidable imminence of realism.

We are very fortunate that this “egalitarian” momentum is beginning at last to wane - but even as we begin in our own right to accelerate away from the precipice we were flung towards, we can see distinctly that something in our history is irreparably broken, has been from the beginning broken, that what once was the unshakable reason of great men has produced the immeasurable folly of (Tony) Burke, and that the uncharismatic remarks of our rosy-faced bureaucrats are the correct and inevitable evolution from the aesthetically sublime and much lauded speeches of Lincoln, (Edmund) Burke and Churchill.

But what we are dealing with - I talk of the inheritance of those such men, who thought it moral rather than negligent to bargain with the Other from a position of weakness, the result of which in their comfort and security they could not begin to fathom would come to pass, that in their oafish station as properly great men they could not predict that their leadership by example and that example’s emulation would lead to the catastrophe of the great Western ouroboros, still choking away at its own neck - cannot be reduced to a flaw in their account of human goodness but rather a capitulation to the hypnotic ignorance of the breadth of human evil and cunning. Burke the greater did not become Burke-so-much-the-lesser by the circumstance of the former’s design. It is the inevitability of the comfortable to be accessories to treason, and their children to be the traitors.

This is to make clear that whatever Constitution existed in those past days of unimpeachable nationhood has produced as its descendent those who would bury it, but also that it has only recently been swept away in the deluge of caustic modernity. It held, perhaps too long for its own good, for then the collapse was all the more frightful for those who held onto it (Nietzsche rears his seer’s head). But to speak more of the politics of Inversion is not to comment upon the mutation or perversion of the Constitution we once had. It has certainly presented us with such a mutilation of the classical, surrounding us with images of apathy and decay. But it is not itself that corpse.

No, while surely a Constitution of Inversion is possible only in a world brought forth by poor stewardship of our morals, but it is foreign in origin itself, the creed of an invader force. Such a Constitution requires a population so feebly self-absorbed, so narcissistic, so vaingloriously “independent”, so superfluous, so tokenistic, so hypocritically performative, so nihilistic, so devoid of curiosity, in such a poverty of belonging, so wracked by anxiety, so isolated by neuroses, so rootless and learnedly dependent … that they would engage in a project of blind faith, on dubious authority, to advance a recursive cult of power whose strength and status is defined purely on the terms of that which they have wrecked. Under this allergy to classical forms, continuity to the past that is recognised is destroyed, despite the habitual sparing and endorsing of that which is sufficiently colonised or unconsciously acted upon.

“Hello there! My name is Jonathan Bowden
and quite frankly, my mouth is huge“

Whether or not this usurper Constitution’s grasp of group identity is based upon an innate and distinctly feminine all-consuming status competition (read: the politics of the envious) I cannot say. I am fully prepared to believe that many such folk understand full well the transience and internal contradictions of such a system as it serves its cultural function - but as they are groundless already, practitioners of the gaping bourgeoise abstraction, the dissonance serves only to infuriate them, to galvanise them towards ever more extreme acts of Inversion, subversion and signalings of dominance. After all - they take what is low and make it high. It is not too far a stretch to say that they identify with such things, the oppressed, the repressed and the ugly, at a far deeper and more uncomfortable level than simply their actions being a radical extension of empathy as a compelling force, or that old and tattered Constitution, for they have no love for the traditions and folk within which the Constitution is enfolded.

I would go so far as to say that, even with such phenomena being observed, the inverters constitute valid objects of pity. What has been perpetrated upon them is the disintegration of every contradiction pitched at the border of the real and the ideal between the decline of Scholasticism and the present day. The landslide of discordant compromise would sweep anyone away - the condition of man is now to be raised hyper-virtuous and, come a certain age, betrayed in ritual fashion by nature’s brute facts, which is far more damning a process than to simply not have instilled a moral code into a child at all.

A child is given the old Constitution, albeit in a discreet, inherently fragile and fetishised form (which discounts it from being a true object of culture to begin with), untempered by reality and corrupted with liberal ideologies - this desecrated transcription of Western spirit is a libelous misrepresentation of what we once were, unendorsed by any notion of organic historical continuity, obscuring through its own lens any retrospection done upon the part of the child to reconcile their history with their inner turmoil. The deduction of any element of spirit from the learning of the impressionable, situated as we are in a dead civilisation walking, after sufficient exposure precludes any charitable or accurate interpretation of past struggles and triumphs.

The radical and intentional collapse of a young one’s trust in their personhood is an indictment against The Inverters. They stand to gain from our shattering, making us poor vessels without aspirations or belonging, fit only to leak the ichor of our resentment onto everything which is associated with our total trauma, and to seek regular refilling with spite and universalised injustice on the grounds that we have nothing else (no standards, no end-goal, no agency, no community) but rabid Bolshevism to keep us company.

“… of what use was the entire contextual continuum
from whose terminal point we pass judgement?”

Such homunculi do not lose their innate desires, but are (unlike the Socialists of old, who lived in proximity to the real world and associated their sorrows with the toil of the agrarian and the industrial) molded into machines of reconciliation between such desires and their ever-present revulsion from the Old. The male propensity towards physical imposition must be justified and harnessed as active treason against his historical essence, that making war is good only insofar as it rights the wrongs of group interest and their contemporary prosperity. The female instinct to nurture is generalised and directed towards the pathological protection of the systemically downtrodden, or classes that could at some point have been described as such. These are not prescriptive attributes, but observations of classes and systems, illustrations of the pseudo-platonic forms revealed through behaviour, yet not deterministic of it.

In this sense, there is already a false Inversion of station between the sexes under an Inversion Constitution, where women are the “leaders,” or those given priority of incision, and men are the enforcers, deferring compulsively to the prerogative of a retributive hierarchy. That is, the Male under toil is inherently drawn to meritocratic hierarchies, like an alloy’s metallic lattice differentiated by density, whose properties are such that the Female is able to flow freely through the structure despite encountering regions of greater or lesser resistance/facility. A society lead by the attributes we traditionally ascribe to femininity, which despite aesthetic changes exist still strongly in a twisted and radical form under the new Constitution (only, divorced from responsibility, from practical reality, from the necessity of selection and allocation) is as rudderless and debased as the cosmopolitan Bolsheviks who cleave to it.

What this means is that the Constitution of Inversion, like the one it has usurped, is coded male in origin. That is because the function of a man, under his generational realignment from the factory floor to the web-Zine, has taken on the freedom of the aristocrat with none of the moral responsibilities or carefully cultivated insularities, none of the rituals of pedigree and discipline. These Children of Enlightenment (unto whom I am apostate) are no longer Service providers in a world of Goods, but such in a world of their own kind. As for all history, change is lead by men, even the subversion of men into a role of false femininity. To put it bluntly, the masculine feminist of today is simply doing as she has been told, even if it is by the self-flagellating, emasculated and insecure male allies she has righteous contempt for. She is playing the role set for her, the role of a decider, a seizer of destiny. The fruits of such a performance are fit - the actor consumes much and produces little.

“We would all be so much happier on SSRIs.”

The feminine proper does not believe in anything. She is a force of infinite adaptation fit for any task, which makes it dynamic and powerful beyond belief. She is just as soon a Communist as it is a Nazi, she is just as soon an Abortionist as she daily protests the slaughter of the innocent, she is just as soon a suffragette as she is attractive. She is fit to maintain societies in statis, and unfit to conserve societies in flux. She is fit to advocate for a return to tradition just as sure as there is an element of her being that will sleep with the enemy by her own volition, each for the exact reason that she must be provided for, cared for, she must be made to feel secure in any way and by any means, at any opportunity should her initial loyalties be undermined.

Whether in the orthodox, the trauma-informed or as a disembodied moral martyrdom, she will seek this grounding, this care, this security, and if this is done credibly by a certain exponent of Maleness she will ply her trades of nurturing and socially enforcing coherency, devoted to the cause in the conditions available and expected of her. The dialectic between the Male and the Female essences are preserved even in the “historoclastic” iteration of our way of life (for that is also what a Constitution is - a way of life, downstream from common moral judgement, even one that destroys its own terms and capacities of reference).

The morality of Inversion is therefore not deontological, not founded on reason nor transcendent from reliance on opposition. It is against history for the reason of that very history’s perceived vector of progress. This is why contemporary Leftism forms such broad unions (the Uni-parties of the West and their blunting market dialectics) yet collapses upon itself when presented with differences in fetish and arbitrary fascination, because the conception of these outer things is all such folk are able to derive substance from. This vapidity, this poverty of enduring content, makes any discrepancy apparent in the practices of hermeneutics or différance a mutually existential threat to the dissenting positions, and thus they go to war.

The other key universal clause common to all Constitutions of Inversion (which both conservatives and the Left adhere to, at different rates and by different means of struggle) is the fascination with the political exception. The Conservative loves above all to objectify exception, to identify universal virtues left over from the old Constitution embodied in unlikely places. This is a child’s optimism and is intensely feminine, prescribing hope for various unalike classes on the basis of their exceptional exponents. Why, any group can have gentlemen, any class, genii. It is the Conservative’s abandoning of principle towards the fetish of lived experience that leaves them defenseless to indecision and subversion.

To be friends with a foreigner is a responsibility, not only a blessing - a responsibility to love the Other despite their Otherness, and to protect one’s home from the differential particulars of that Otherness. But the Conservative shall not find this middle ground - foreigners will live with him, and then they will as the Biblical curse says rule over him, and he will let it happen because he is a transsexual who loves nothing and reads National Review. Beware you of foreign influence, and safeguard your mind and circumstance against ontological drift!

“One Nation. Possibly Two, if you count Australia.”

That is to say, all that we allow into our domains of propriety (nation, neighborhood, civilisation, domicile) changes the relations we have to all objects, human or otherwise, present in these spaces in ways we have no say in. To live in constant interaction with foreigners, bankers, narcissists or Christians will accustom the mind to making decisions . A Constitution cannot be preserved from this ontological drift without (at minimum) an absolute freedom of association at the individual level. As I have suggested before, foreign culture in familiar spaces is at some level an act of aggression, even if it only extends as far as acclimatising the ego to unnatural pluralities.

This is not a diversity of identities coalescing within a nation - it is the coexistence with the unintelligible asserting itself in the scarce space of our dominion. Being incessantly forced to reconcile with this Otherness (over which we cannot begin to exert ownership, as we have done with all the traditions that have collectively formed the West), everywhere that we turn, is an act of psychological warfare. Do not permit the foreign to tinge your definitional matrices. They do not belong in the inner worlds they infiltrate, and thus they cannot be permitted to colonise our portion of the outer world.

The Left’s politics of Exception, which is more forward to our minds, is towards the justification of hypocritical violence and the fetishisation of the Orient. They will burn the court and call it justice. They will watch your daughters be raped and think with wrung hands to the fate of the rapists. They will strike out to cure, if only for a moment’s occupation, their howling emptiness and unsubstantiated acceleratory inertia, to feel safe and justified in the world like they did before the inevitable and carefully manufactured ego-crucifixion of their inauthentic heritage. While I don’t scorn their brand of Exception as much as I do for the Conservatives, the undermining of their own position, framed as a moral good in its negative relation to an inherently evil past, is as before discussed, how they permit themselves every excess in undermining the means by which this excess is justified - both as an act of aggression against one judged a deserving party, and in absolving themselves of hypocrisy of making that judgement on historically contingent grounds.

“Won’t someone wring hands for the pedophile gimmigrant?”

At all costs we must reject exception as a universalising force. The only true exception within the foreign is that which sublates its history, behavior and future expressions of identity - not only as it is within the person but in taking on the wider responsibility of maintaining an environment that is not its own. This is not an easy task, when the sum total effect, emergent properties and the individual propositions of a non-Western culture, insofar as they function in the environment of the West, are anathema to our correspondent positions. For the migrant, every action must carry not only the affirmation of what surrounds them but also the dismissal of their old way (against T. Burke’s creed of “come as you are”), or they must be identified even in the best of faith as neutral carriers of the inherently hostile.

This is a hard burden that only the truly Exceptional individual will consent to submit unto bearing. But just as mitochondria was accepted and proliferated into the human body over eons of endosymbiosis, and just as myriad other bacterium are engaged in hostile colonial projects towards our vital cells (whether through active infections/subversions or suppressed into uneasy equilibria), so too will the Otherness in the Foreigner be in a generation annihilated, or they will be wholesale spat out onto their friendlier shores.

The Exception is reserved for truly Great Men, the most unlikely, those who against all odds and material conditioning are prepared to forsake all claim to the continuance of their way of life through practice and affective procreation. Ever the ownness is upon them to advocate only to the good of the nation (and implicitly towards their own essential transformation, whose failure is equivalent to statelessness should the desire to assimilate have been pure and true), and upon us to accept them on the basis of genuine Constitutional parity, not to distort our particular Self-recognition with the extrapolations from universal impositions.

To be continued…

And by all means,