Perhaps a couple of years ago a gentleman named Michael Reiners conceived the notion of drafting UK parliamentary legislation in advance of the election of a political party to reform the nation.  It was an interesting idea with the potential of attracting the good legal minds to the anti-Establishment cause.  Michael determined to launch a constitutionalist site to serve as a beacon and as a discussion point. An editor. Alex Coppen, was hired and in July 2025 The Restorationist was born.

I became aware of it when a very good man, who in his travels had come across my argument for the English people as the constitutional sovereign, emailed me and we started to talk.  He had some ideas about developing the argument and getting it published for a wider audience.  This I encouraged, naturally.  Some time went by and then he got back in touch to say that his submission had been picked up by the editor of The Restorationist.  I will post a link to it in the thread, and another to the follow-up article by Alex Coppen, because both are important and interesting statements.

Shortly after these pieces appeared Alex and Michael had a serious falling out, resulting in Michael leaving to establish Reiners.org, where his legislative work is published along with other interesting right-wing material.  For his part, Alex continued on with The Restorationist, publishing a stream of like high-quality, right-wing essays.  That is, until now when a markedly anti-fascist piece written by one Margaret Forbes suddenly appeared.  Its focus was so out of kilter with what had gone before at the magazine, so Guardian-like, that my very, very close ally John Standing, who readers will know of old and whose writing style, I must admit, is remarkably similar to my own, thought a comment on the thread might be in order.  Here it is:

Alas, the OP is a depressingly familiar attempt to associate the preference for kin and kind among peoples of European descent (such preference being a natural and instinctual expression common to all humanity, actually) with the cod-Judaic supremacism of NSDAP.  Three points of difference:

1. The joke is that in Ms Forbes’ “modern ecosystem” there has never been any evidence contrary to the findings of genetic assay, psychometry, and sociobiology.  The first, of course, is deeply difficult for academics ideologically wedded to the notion of human sameness.  Swaziland does not gene-map on Switzerland.  Rwanda does not gene-map on Russia.  Golly, there is something going on here.  I wonder what it could be!  Where could it lead!!

As regards the latter two, for a time there were the desperate men of the Sociobiology Study Group, including Stephen Gould and Richard Lewontin and a few other race-warriors, all of whom, one can confidently predict, were suffering from a confirmation bias of their own.  In the ensuing debates on campus Phil Rushton ran out of opponents willing to try their luck in public.  Academic race-denial was roundly defeated precisely on grounds of fact. National average IQ scores could not be made equal.  Human difference could not be magicked away (which, yes, implies superiority and inferiority on every group measure).  The result, however, was not the dawning of an age of honesty among the powerful.  Not a bit of it. Foundation grants were cut off.  The usual hate-slurs were hurled.  Realist academics kept their heads down or their academic reputations were shredded. If they didn’t have tenure they were done for. Sociobiology was driven off campus. Lies were held to be truth and forced by the broad left on the political class and, through them, everybody else. Eventually sociobiology re-emerged as evolutionary psychology, under the auspices of Tooby and Cosmides. Human difference, however, was no longer mentioned.

So it remains to this day.  It does not evince a rejection of some “Nazi mentality”.  It evinces a rejection of reality.  It’s not that the scientific fact was prostituted for “racism”.  It’s that unscientific racism is deployed against European people and peoples, whose sublime and astonishing, unmatched civilisational achievements … the invention of the modern world itself … go wholly unexplained, and whose very nature is a non-subject in the public square.  Of course, truth absolutely has to be spoken.  We cannot live by official lies.  Indeed, in this case we might conclude that we are not meant to live at all ...

2. Uniquely in this world, peoples of European descent are not, in fact, allowed to freely make a politics in the cause of their own survival and continuity.  In every living space of European Man it is the same outrageous story.  The land is being colonised without end by foreign populations imported by elected politicians who do not and will not serve their white voters, and who know perfectly well that said voters don’t want it, are bound not to want it, and will struggle as much as they are able to put a stop to it.  The result, of course, is that that ability is attacked via more official lies, more inversion of the truth, more oppressive laws, more psychological warfare, more ... more … more.

So where in all this is there a single dominant moral principle by which we might guide ourselves? Well, there is one.  Nature’s single imperative is to transmit traits for fitness unto the morrow, in the teeth of Time and Entropy; and the first repository for traits for fitness on the land is the native ethnic group. This is why ethnocentrism – a sociobiological trait - exists and is universal to all healthy-minded people, and why the life of the people native to any given land is the highest cause morally and the first cause existentially on that land. Any transgression against that life, whether it is by a hyper-militarised 1930’s imperialist power sending in its armies or by an ideologically hostile 2026 domestic elite coercing upon the natives a colonising and replacing mass of alien peoples … any transgression is always contrary to Nature in Man and, thus to any reasonable application of natural justice.  That is our guide, and it is a vivifying one.  To argue to the contrary is to argue for death.  Arguments from the Reductio ad Hitlerum are arguments for death.  It is irrelevant how native peoples frame their claim on existence.  It can be on the existential moral basis I have set out or it can be on grounds agued from scientific truth or from tradition or faith or myth.  It doesn’t matter.  Defending the native life is always an unimpeachable cause.  Attacking it is never such.

3. So what, as a politics of life, is ethnic nationalism?  Ethnic nationalism is the politics of the life-cause itself: its natural right (ie, the right to struggle for existence) and its natural interests. That right and those interests are not ascribed or awarded by any philosophy or power external to the people themselves. This is a politics which expresses the innate, the emergent, the instinctual … what is permanent in us, what belongs to us and cannot be added to or taken away.  It treats of human freedom differently to liberalism. This freedom is not something which has to be “won” from the outside world.  It is not socially affirmed.  It is inherent but often concealed, appropriating but often quiescent.  It announces itself as the familiar, a coming home.  It is a state of truth.

Dissecting that truth kills its immediacy, of course.  But for the avoidance of doubt, for European peoples it would naturally encompass our Nature-given individuality (not the same as liberal individual-ism), our shared sense of kin and kind, our shared love of home, such physical beauty as typifies our ethnicities, and such qualities of Mind, especially our abiding sense of moral objectivity, fairness, and justice, our peerless sense of adventure, our civilisational creativity ... all this enters into a nationalism of our ethnicity, because this is what any European ethnicity consists in and what it gives to the world. To have and to hold the physical space, the sacred space that is home, in which to live out all this, and to communicate it through time, is the grand cause of ethnic nationalism.  Taken together, it is everything that is true in and of us and which must itself be perpetuated, for when these things are no longer perpetuated we are nothing.

The Bard’s great question … to be or not to be … goes to the heart of it.  There can only really be one answer, and those like Ms Forbes who may dislike it should be aware that they are counselling another.  Regardless, we must live.

As yet almost no one leaves comments on the threads of The Restorationist.  There are letters, I understand, and I hope a few folk, duly appalled by John Standing’s unabashed defense of the nationalism of ethnicity, will feel moved to write and make their very own “argument for death”.  I feel pretty sure John is raring for a fight.