Category: British Politics
There is a common myth that English people are a mixture between Celts and Germans, and that they are mostly German. This myth is pervasive and opens the door to many misunderstandings. As a service to the Majorityrights’ readership, I will present just a small teaser quote from Stephen Oppenheimer’s 2006 article on this subject which exists at Prospect Magazine.
You can click the link in the quote and read the full article. These facts should be of great assistance to British readers—particularly the English—because it will allow them to demonstrate that they exist as a native people to the British Isles, and are distinct from continental Europeans such as the Germans who they are most often associated with.
Given that they are native people, and not a proposition nation, their claim to their land is beyond contention.
Kumiko Oumae works in the defence and security sector in the UK. Her opinions here are entirely her own.
On the Radio page now: British journalist Colin Liddell, one of the two editors of Alternative Right, and occasional contributor to Counter-Currents and Occidental Observer, mulls over a range of subjects with GW and Daniel, including Dylann Roof, “black” Rachel Dolazel, Jenner-bending, the interminable, insoluble Greek euro crisis, UKIP and the British political scene, the homosexualisation of marriage, and Jewish influence in globalism.
As mentioned in podcast, clip of Brzezinski discussing his goal for a NWO
Jack Sen at The London Forum:
So it’s all over for another five years. Perhaps. David Cameron is the first Conservative leader since Margaret Thatcher in 1983 to increase the number of Conservative MPs sitting at Westminster, and will govern with a thin majority of twelve. He will, he says, do it for all the country. He will have a clear ride for the first year of this second term, because the political left that is Labour and the Liberal Democrats is in total disarray, not just electorally and emotionally after a traumatic election night, but ideologically. Which is much more meaningful and dangerous.
One of the most eye-popping sights in the aftermath has been that of senior Labour people trooping into the TV studios to talk about how the party must not rush into electing a new leader and plough on with the struggle at Westminster. It must ask where it went wrong … where the trick of appealing to the majority of the electorate was spurned. Specifically, it must think through who it has been speaking for since 2007, when Gordon Brown took over the top job from Blair. It must think through how it can respond to nationalist sentiment (in the broad sense), as expressed by the five million who gave their votes not to it and not to the Tories but to the Scottish Nationalists north of the border and UKIP to the south.
This was to have been the final part of my investigation into The Rotherham Syndrome. But I have received a further email from my correspondent Steve S, whose original mail precipitated this series, in which he writes:
I think that’s a pretty valid observation on the mysterious, ubiquitous phenomenon of Establishment treachery. So in this fourth but no longer final part of my essay, I will investigate how the old Establishment class - the elites of the old courtiers, the new industries, and Empire – lost its political foothold. It will now be the fifth - and final - part in which I will focus, finally, on today’s controlling class of thousands of men and women who attach no human value, indeed, scarcely any meaning at all to children of our people simply because they are white victims of Asian Moslem sexual criminals.
It is worth noting in passing that although the context here is British, the latter’s monopoly of control, the common purpose, the hermetic networking, the focus on “modernising” everything via a near-religious progressive obsession, the unnatural preoccupation with racism, the total absence of empathy for kind, and the easy resort to race-treachery are common to political and liberal Establishments and the official mind throughout the West. Rotherham is only an extreme example of how absolute their thinking can be and just how far they are prepared to go to defend their racial proposition. I hope non-British readers will indulge me, therefore, in the following (brief) history of British elitism.
Today’s Establishment is an historically unique and most recent development. It finally flowered managerially and ideologically with the election of New Labour to office in 1997. But let us not forget that for the best part of three centuries the Establishment in Britain was a very different quantity. Certainly, from Waterloo to 1914, its elites were unassailed anywhere in terms of power, wealth, sheer confidence and security. They can be profitably presented in a tri-partite form, the oldest element of which was the landed aristocracy, whose power was expressed and maintained largely through the House of Lords but also through the Whig Party. Then there were the commercial and financial elites of London, including the Jewish banking dynasties. Their ties to the Tory and Whig/Liberal parties in the Commons and in government (principally the former) provided for the pursuit of their interests. To a degree, these two groups represented wholly different and conflicting interests: those of the land and tradition, continuity, paternalism and a somewhat self-serving connectedness to the safely uneducated, rustic labourer; and those of the town and modernity, of expansiveness, of the merchant class, of profit, therefore, and of the revolution of the machine. This was the real division in the politics of the age and, to no small extent, it mirrored the divisions of the American Civil War.
* A caveat to this post: it is not meant to endorse Boardman’s theories and conclusions, as a rejection of Max Hastings positions, nor to imply that GW agrees with Boardman. Where it does not function as informational noise it may have utility in touring some “historical stuff” and geopolitical grounds which might be culled for accurate bits.
Jez Turner is under no illusions as to the powers-that-be: capitalist-marxist-liberal, they are heads of the same beast and not going to grant us our autonomy without a fight.
However, they are experts, of course, in exploiting our weaknesses, providing diversions, disempowering and demoralizing our people. Consequently, motivating our people to fight as a group, in our group interests, is problematic.
Bearing in mind that what is meant by “fight” in this post is not necessarily literal combat but all aspects of fighting for our interests..
On the topic of organizing the motivation* of our fighters then, we might refer to war historian, Prof., Sir Hew Strachan’s thoughts on the matter.
He observes that some motivations of fighters are not recognized because they are out of fashion and not cool to tell the public.
Of course a state sanctioned excuse for exercising blood-lust and revenge among the particularly violent is just a mask and direction of already existing motivation - which requires to be directed appropriately therefore. To gain cooperation from a balance of the population requires a normalizing if not ennobling of incentive/motivation.
Humanitarian concern - higher national ideals - booty.
Humanitarian concern is considered a legitimate public reason nowadays. And it can be one reason why fighters are legitimately motivated.
Higher national ideals can be and have been traditionally a reason why people fight - they still are, but it is not so cool to state as a motivation nowadays (largely as a result of vast over-compensations in that regard in the World Wars).
Booty is even more stigmatic nowadays to cite as your motivation. Yet, Strachan observes, this has been the primary reason for most fighting though the ages. He notes that this motivation initially became problematic and remains problematic as wars have emerged more often a liability than a profit - hence, no profit to be shared.
But particularly when the matter is taking back resources that are our co-evolutionary birthright, there might be reward to motivate and allocate to our peoples for fighting. Humanitarian concern would work there as well, as there are clear matters of inhumaneness to our peoples, injustice - justice to be had. While we work on the meta-national** narratives that GW advises as necessary inspiration..
The question becomes the formulation, the proportion and the content:
Humanitarianism, Nationalist Ideals and Booty
** GW would probably not approve of the word “meta” in this context but I used it deliberately, to make a point that meta-communication is neither wholly nor necessarily disconnected from the essential.