To Know Thyself: The Most Revolutionary Act of Our Time

A London Forum Speech


This is the second speech I’ve ever given, so if I shake like an idiot then please forgive me. I have some notes here but I’m mostly going to improvise it.

So, obviously there’s so much I could say regarding topics like philosophy and politics, and I assume we’re all of kind of Rightist or Nationalist bents here — but even in that there is a lot of differentiation even between individuals we’ve had speaking for us today. I would be said to be a Reactionary; someone who isn’t really a Nationalist — not on the surface, anyway. I am obviously a thedist, I am loyal to family and I have no overarching disagreements, really, with anything that’s been said today. But, my whole “deal” is against the Modern World and what constitutes the foundation of Western thinking for the past three to four-hundred years.

Egalitarianism is a few centuries old and it is the root of our problems. Our problem right now is spiritual. We have rejected the very idea of “above” — much less the idea of a physical God or deity (although these things are important), but the very idea of the differentiation between one man and another. The idea that there is the right thing to do and the wrong thing to do. In the Modern World of egalitarianism everything’s levelled-down to the lowest common denominator, and everyone’s treated equally even if everyone’s wrong.

Like Jez said, my talk today is about embracing life, embracing God — unfortunately, the most important…1 with this gathering, the most important point is embracing ourselves. I’ll work through these, and I have not really the same amount to say about each, and I’ll work from life, to God, to ourselves.

So: an authentic, owned existence is affirmed via will, not merely “having been born” as an accident. Part of the revolt against the Modern World is to understand that we each have free will, and have to live our lives with deliberation and power. A full life is chosen, it is not given to us. By accepting both the good and the bad, and the responsibility — nay, duty — to act in an ordered fashion, we’re that much closer to a proper state of affairs.

This idea that we’re all valuable just because we’ve been born — no, that’s absolute nonsense. People can live lives of gluttony and sin and all sorts of chaos. Even if you aren’t religious, the idea that people live totally selfishly, non-beholden to anything prior to them — their family, their community, what’s around them…

I live in the southwest. Things are quite rural, nice in the countryside; not a hellscape like London. The only commonality between people in this cursed city is money. The only reason you have all these immigrants here — and not all of them, of course, are terrible people — but the only commonality which exists in a place like this (even with contemporary, modern, liberalised, white European, British people) is the idea of money, capital, physical pleasures. Really just submitting themselves to their lower animal parts, instead of rising above them for cultural or higher ends. This is part of the problem. Nothing will change in our society until people rise above their base instincts and embrace a fully-lived life, lived to the limits of art, and culture, and spirituality, and the higher pursuits of self-discipline and duty to family and to thede.

My second point here is “embracing God.” This is… oh good grief. So many arguments could be had over this! I spend a lot of time on the internet doing a lot of this sort of thing (YouTube and writing, all the rest of it), and people like to argue — especially angry young men. So, religion is hot topic and I won’t go into it too much, but I’d like people… I want people to focus on the idea that morality is subjective,2 there are rights and wrongs which we can all follow and choose to do. What is true can be seen by all intelligent, reasonable men, though relative to different races and traditions.

This is why you have religious perennialism, the idea that there are recurring themes in various religions, for example: Hengist and Horsa, who were the Saxon brothers who came to England and founded the kingdom of Kent, their banner was the white horse — the Kalki Avatara in the Hindu mythology also rides a white horse. It’s an Aryan or Indo-European Aryan symbol.

But, the main idea of the transcendent which I want people to kind of consider — and really consider, because this stuff is existential — is the idea that there is a better way of living than what people might understand now. People need to control themselves, and live with deliberation and power, as I’ve said. And part of that is accepting the fact that there is an “above,” there is a higher state of affairs metaphysically. And in the Modern World everything is taken down to the lowest common denominator; to money, and to weakness, and so forth — this is no sense of greatness. Architecture is a good example of this (and all the kind of old fogeys involved in ordinary traditionalism like to moan about that a lot, not more pressing issues like demographics, perhaps).

But, that’s all I’ll really say about that without igniting a firestorm between atheists and Christians, and people who are perhaps neither.

The final and most important thing I think people really should grasp and consider and study, is “embracing oneself.” So, I’ve noted here: an authentic and full understanding of one’s racial form means having knowledge of one’s ancestors and one’s personal foundation. None of us exist as accidents, but, rather, because of an ordered and comprehensible series of cultural-historical facts. True race is three-dimensional — I could reference Julius Evola’s racial theory, which is biological, mental and spiritual; all of these things — not merely genetic (I’ll get into that in a second). Caste must also be considered, as within a race are members of all four castes (so; workers, skilled workers, warriors and priests). Understanding both of these things leads to a full understanding of one’s worldly form, one’s physical manifestation and one’s existence.

So, first we need to deal with the issue of race: “whiteness” is a… I don’t like using that term too much. It’s too broad. It’s not a language, it isn’t a religion; it’s an amorphous metapolitical term, which has its uses of course, and can be used in many circumstances, but when I think of myself, I think of myself as an Englishman. Englishness, for example, is an identity which was really formed by Ælfred the Great in the seven-hundreds, when he repelled the Danes and unified the Saxon kingdoms under the Christian God; that’s when Englishness as an actual form really began. By the tenth century Æthelstan had, really, destroyed Danelaw — and there you have it. It has a beginning, and it has a form, it has a historical context and a meaning which we can observe, and study, and read about, and live as well through our own traditions and through the ways in which we interact with our fellow men.

Caste is another one, and it’s kind of controversial because in our egalitarian world, even amid Rightist and Nationalist circles, there can be a sort of social egalitarianism with Nationalists and the idea that everyone within the same race is on the same level. Now, that isn’t the case. Different people have different abilities and are fit for different things. That is how it should be, and inevitably is, and revolting against that in a spite3 of modernist bitterness and pettiness will only lead to more misery and confusion at the present, which has led our people down this road of self-destruction, and submitting to the whims of foreign groups, et cetera, et cetera.

So, I have some quotes here which kind of go into this a little bit.

A quote from Marcus Aurelius, who was one of the Roman emperors — one of the “Five Good Emperors.” He was also a Stoic. He said, “Revere the highest power in the universe. And likewise, revere the highest power in yourself: and this power is of one kind with the other.” We could mention ideas of spirituality and the soul there, but the facts are self-evident.

Following on from that, I would like to quote Julius Evola, the Italian esotericist. He says, “Plato said something that we have already cited on other occasions, that it is a good idea for the person who does not have a sovereign within to have one outside.” So, we’ll not all have the same capabilities of self-understanding and self-knowing as everyone else. That isn’t a problem. In an ordered society — like a patriarchy where you have the father who would lead the family, and the church and the kingdom work in tandem together — there is a tangible hierarchy which enforced meaning in people’s lives. The children are subordinate to the mother, and the mother is subordinate to the father, and the father is subordinate to the king. We can find our modern parallels, but we won’t go into that because that’d just cause arguments.

The final quote I’d just like to read here is from Jonathan Bowden, who I believe spoke in this very room. “Only when…” — and this is the most important point I’d like people to really, really remember — “Only when we are fit for power will we find the means to re-exercise it in our own communities.”4 We have to rebel against the Modern World; there is no doubt about it. No matter how much you dislike Muslims or you dislike Jews or whatever, there’s a reason these things are here. There’s a reason why Oliver Cromwell brought the Jews back into England, after the Edict of Expulsion, to fund his armies. These things happen. Kings have given-in, and become weak and decrepit morally. It is not an accident. European people are a very powerful and strong race — we know this, the history is there; I don’t need to repeat the obvious.

So why, then, has — regarding the Jews — why, then, does such a tiny minority of the population seem to control, and influence, and inform so much? The Jews themselves, beginning as a kind of kingdom of Magian priest-scholars, have degenerated into a race of usurers and pornographers. Why is that? Because they have forgotten themselves. They act in accordance to kind of bourgeois materialistic values, which our own capitalists and politicians adhere to themselves. They’re hardly distinguishable, to a degree.

So, of course we can look at the Jewish question and all the rest of it, but it is something interior in our own people which has collapsed. It is not a mistake that this has happened to us. It is not an accident. We are not a weak, victim-like people. Something has happened within us, and it’s up to us to use knowledge and will to affirm our own existence, and understand who we are in an effort to get back to the glory which we once exercised.

That was a very short speech, but I think that’s all I can really say on the matter. So thank you for listening.

1. I meant to say “…the most important thing which Jez forgot to read in the introduction…”
2. I meant to say “objective.” The “s” at the end of “is” led my mouth to deviate from my brain, it seems.
3. I meant to say “…in a bout of…”; the word “spitefulness” was on my mind simultaneously, related to when I said “bitterness” and “pettiness.” Mediumistic speaking produces odd results when the voice in the mind and the voice from one’s lips aren’t exactly syncopated.
4. That should have been “society,” not “community.”


8 thoughts on “To Know Thyself: The Most Revolutionary Act of Our Time

  1. Perhaps the whole reason this “whiteness” is the preferred Identity on the Alt-White is precisely because it is so vague that every different individual or group can project almost anything they like onto it. It functions much the same way that in incoherent and undefined “Anarchism” is the rallying point of the protest left. It is a disease of an oppositional subculture.

    1. It is merely a result of the deracinated, aspiritual American influence within the Alt. Right — the Alt. Right is, afterall, an American phenomenon, and most of the millennials who constitute it are Moderns by their very nature. Being “white” — a mishmash of surface-level European cultural-historical artefacts (i.e., Roman architecture, English law, German food and Greek ethics) — is all they have. It is just a sign of the times, if not anything else.

          1. Adam’s right. While Nietzsche’s philosophy is the harshest and perhaps most extreme modern philosophy, it is a modern philosophy. You are right, Akira, that even Nietzsche was a modern, and Nietzscheans are moderns, but Evola goes beyond Nietzsche. I agree with Bowden, those that live by Evola’s philosophy “do not live in the modern world”.

  2. The fetishism of Whiteness is a product of materialistic thinking, according to which everything human must be reducible to either the physical properties of physical objects (the position of Marxism) or unconscious biochemical phenomena (the position of the White Nationalists et alia).

  3. “Hengist and Horsa, who were the Saxon brothers who came to England and founded the kingdom of Kent, their banner was the white horse — the Kalki Avatara in the Hindu mythology also rides a white horse. It’s an Aryan or Indo-European Aryan symbol.”

    The earliest known symbol of the White Horse is as the sacred sign of the Turkic-Mongol god Hadúr or Hadak Ura (a copper skinned deity), and is likely to have been introduced into Europe after the arrival of Pannonian Avars. It appears chiefly among the Saxons, who had contact with the Avars, originally in the form of the Black Horse, as opposed to the Grey Horse ( Sleipnir) of Norse and related mythologies. The Saxons who joined with the more western Angles appear to have later abandoned the Black Horse for the Gold Dragon. The symbolism of the White Horse does not appear as a concrete cultural symbol (as opposed to a generic description of color often most associated with Arabic horses) in any other Western or Northern Cultures. It does however appear in two other cultures, the Korean, most probably under the eastern most expansion of the Mongolic peoples, and in the Semitic cultures, as an original symbol which quite possibly predates all mentioned above. Thus the claim that it is an Indo-European symbol, or an Aryan symbol is not upheld by the symbol’s actual origins but actually disproved by it, as it was only used by a single “Aryan” Stamm after that culture’s contact with Turko-Mongolic culture, and at first only in an opposite form (the Black Horse). If anything it seems to possibly have universal associations with the quality of a horse, and not as a cultural symbol save in those cultures that have had contact with Mongolic or Semitic cultures.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s