Majorityrights Central > Category: British Politics

Let’s take a confident, positive and, I hope and believe, realistic view of the British electorate’s intent towards national independence, and fast-forward (at least in the imagination) fourteen days.  As this gentleman already has:

The politics

It is the morning of Friday 24th June.  The political world is stunned.  The Westminster bubble people are trying to come to terms with the sheer enormity of it.  Why couldn’t it all be like London?  London was fine, London was good.  The Celtic fringe.  The universities.  But really, that was it.  Across the rest of the country it was a total disaster.  OK, the polls had been discouraging for a while.  But nothing like this.  Even with the huge turnout, there was no, simply no reprieve for Remain.

The BBC and ITV election coverage rumbles on through the morning as a succession of talking heads, jubilant or shell-shocked, come into the studios to explain the new political universe.  Nigel Farage, sleepless and as fresh as a daisy, is in philosophical mood now, having got beyond the initial tidal wave of euphoria.  For once, he is spared the hackneyed attack-questions by his interviewers.  George Galloway, however - also sleepless but looking as though he has been clubbing with winos for the last month - manages to get into an argument with practicably everybody.  He doesn’t seem to care, though; and he wins them all.

In fairness, it isn’t that difficult.  Everyone now is chorusing that Britain Stronger in Europe ran a disastrously misconceived campaign.  Arrogant, supercilious, patronising, bullying, full of over-blown, unbelievable claims that were miles away from the gut instincts of ordinary voters, far too many far too cunning, counter-productive attempts to queer the pitch, simply unworthy of the electorate’s support ... those are just some of the kinder judgements floating around in the cold light of day.

In Downing Street a great gaggle of press waits across the road from No.10 for the Prime Minister to appear.  The lectern is in position.  A synopsis of the speech has been pre-released to the media by the No.10 press office.  First, David Cameron will, as he must, commit his government to honouring the momentous decision taken by the British electorate.  There can be no question of disingenuous or partial solutions, nothing that does not respect the very clearly stated will of the people.  “The United Kingdom will now leave the European Union,” he will say.  “A new and prosperous, secure future for the country must now be built, and all the government’s energies and commitment will be poured into that endeavour, both in terms of formulating with the EU and its member states a new and mutually beneficial, friendly and respectful relationship, and in terms of addressing the great number of implications of yesterday’s vote for our democracy and our economy, and our wider society.”

READ MORE...

So nationalism’s window of opportunity in Austria is closed for the time being.  Norbert Hofer has failed by the narrowest margin in his bid to become president of Austria.  It was the bravest of attempts.  But yet again the anti-white, anti-nation Establishment has succeeded in pulling enough votes together to beat off the challenger.  Nationalism awaits its breakthrough in the West.

The spotlight now shifts to Britain and the struggle – nationalist as well as patriotic - for sovereign nationhood, democratic right, the ability to make our own laws, and to control our own borders, all of which is at stake one month from now in the June 23rd referendum on membership of the European Union.

Here, too, the Establishment, in the form of Remain, is calling-in every favour and using every governing-party trick it possibly can, every conceivable negative argument, however overblown and improbable, to terrify the voters over the economic and security consequences of Leaving.  We’ve had Treasury talk of runs on the pound if we leave, as well as run-away inflation, and a year-long recession with a million job cuts.  We’ve had talk of being locked out of European markets for a decade, of more terrorism on our soil, even of a new world war.  We’ve had Obama making threats, the EU Commission president making threats, the IMF wagging its corrupt finger.  We’ve had the Confederation of British Industry, the British Chamber of Commerce, corporate CEOs by the hundred, charities, the arts, the unions, the National Health Service, the environmentalists ... you name it, every one of them has proved only too keen to lecture the British public on how to vote.  It’s amazing what self-interest can do.

Remain, of course, is only about protecting its own programme of internationalism, and the wealth and position that provides.  But the bulk of the electorate appears to be by no means engaged or interested enough to understand that.  Over the last three weeks or so the polling companies have found consistently for the efficacy of Project Fear.  There are significant differences between the results they obtain by telephone polling and on-line polling, the former showing anything up to an 18% lead for Remain (albeit taken from a London poll), and the latter generally a lead of about 5%.  Tonight the Telegraph is wittering on about a collapse in the vote for Leave.

Leave, certainly, has proven unable to get its message across - in no small measure because the Tory Establishment operation which won the official campaign designation is (a) reactive and chaotic in its campaigning methods, (b) institutionally hostile to Nigel Farage and UKIP, and (c) won’t give more than a cursory coverage of immigration, which is the principal issue in the public mind and the greatest weakness of the Remainers.  It would rather lose the referendum than see UKIP take credit for victory.  It is a classic case of putting party before country.

So what will happen on June 23rd?  Well, the last national election, on May 12th 2015, demonstrated that the polling companies do not necessarily know how to model the British electorate.  I’ve been reading the threads at Anthony Wells blog, UK Polling Report, and it is astonishing to me how little support for Leave is expressed therein, in contrast to the newspaper page-polls and threads which show support for Leave over Remain at about 60/40 on the left-leaning papers and up to 80-20 on the right-leaning ones.  Yet at Wells’ blog one encounters the soft-left/liberal urban intelligentsia mouthing its presumptions with perfect self-confidence.  They all seem to be constitutionally incapable of valuing what the people value.  Ask them what they value above sovereign nationhood, democracy and freedom, and they won’t answer, because they haven’t thought about it before and they don’t know.  But these are the people who are telling us what we think.  I am wondering whether they are remotely capable of understanding who and what the Leave voter is, and why he or she has such a passion for change (ie, because of people like them).

We’ll find out who is right, anyway, in one month.  My money is still on Leave, but then I am a stubborn soul, not to be shifted.  I just hope and believe that we are all of that mind.

From a Breitbart London thread:

normalgate • 42 minutes ago

It would be a pretty good film if the talking heads were not so keen to label nationalist dissent as “far right” and “xenophobic”. Nationalism is the only means to a secure existence for European peoples - something the labellers obviously don’t care about.

Daisy  • 33 minutes ago

I knew that comment would come up - that didn’t sit well with me either but I guess they wanted to appeal to people across the spectrum as much as possible and distance themselves from “nationalism” - in fact “ultra nationalism” was referred to at one point, whatever that is!

However, I think we just have to “take one for the team” and use whatever ammunition we have - it’s a good movie otherwise.

The launch of Martin Durkin’s Brexit the movie was, iconically, at The Odeon, Leicester Square:

READ MORE...

Taking the Brexit position can lead to some really interesting conversations. I had the displeasure of being told that I was ‘essentially committing arson’ by supporting the OUT Campaign, as though somehow it is the OUT Campaign which is setting fire to a structure that has served its purpose very well up until now.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The European Union basically has already been set on fire by the very same people who purport to be defending it, all the OUT Campaign is doing is requesting that everyone should leave the building in an orderly fashion before the flames consume the entire structure.

It really was a noble project, but you just can’t trust people to behave themselves when given continental responsibilities. Was it ever possible to have a united Europe? Are we all simply relearning the lessons of the past in a new way? I open this thread for the purpose of getting some opinions. In retrospect was the European Project actually a complete waste of time?

           
            Jez Turner - the nation is a lifeboat

Senscreen: “What are your thoughts regarding nationalists today [...] groups like National Action, even London Forum’s Jez Turner? They seem quite fixated on the Jews to an extent that, it seems to be harming our efforts, I think.”  Nick Griffin: “Yes, I think it does.”

Particularly as I was the instigator of the original phase of skepticism with regard to “Giacomo Vallone”, with critical remarks in regard to the positions he espoused in an interview with “Dana Antiochus” at Renegade Broadcasting, it is relevant to weigh-in on this matter. While that exchange quickly exposed him in a lowly and amateurish sock-puppetting effort at dividing Europeans against each other, the combination of that amateurishness and the obvious anti-racial nature of his position caused me to not take him, or his associated “European Knights Project”, too seriously. Still, his motives were of the worst kind. It has more serious implications as that project has germinated into controversial engagement with prominent ranks of White advocacy.

Is he the same person as Jack Sen? Well, both Sen and Vallone are associated with the European Knights Project. That’s enough for me to dismiss them both. That is why I will only belatedly confirm together with you as to whether or not it is indeed the case that they are one and the same; though a cursory comparison of Sen and Vallone discussions seem to indicate one identity, we know enough about both of them already to dismiss them.

My run-in with Giacomo Vallone wasn’t the first time that I had to take serious issue with a guest at another network - I took issue with Mark Dyal at Counter-Currents, and I still believe that I was right to do that as well: The thanks I got for that was being banned from Counter-Currents (oh well). Mark Dyal showed up as a guest of Dana Antiochus with the same kind of bullshit and I had another run-in with him there: Renegade should have appreciated that bit of critique also. However, I’ve also had reservations about Dana Antiochus - though I might be unfair to him. While I tried to be friends with Renegade, as you’ll see, they turned out to be too right-wing in the end.

I tell you this - that Metzger is right about right-wingers.

They are disingenuous and/or naive and their tentosphere is always ripe for infiltration.

Anyway, the scandal in the tentosphere now is not only to see Giacomo Vallone as a fraud who has made his way into conversation with White Nationalism, but that he’s actually the same person as Jack Sen - also having made his way into conversation with WN.

I was repulsed by Giacomo Vallone for a number of reasons from the onset, but he and his “European Knights Project” not only managed to get interviews with Renegade et al., but notably with Professor MacDonald. MacDonald is a bit too open to those with advanced academic pedigrees (Vallone claims to have graduated Princeton) and demeanor and a bit too closed to those without that. But that’s another matter and not a major point here; MacDonald is a wonderful scholar despite sometimes not being the best judge of character.

In general, it is right-wingishness and desperation for social prosthesis to compensate for their anti-social positions that creates this vulnerability; a tentosphere trap that Jews maintain - a key objective being to keep us as right-wingers and “THE Left” as the enemy.

Now then, I was a bit skeptical (and couldn’t be bothered since he is out of the ballpark) about the possibility that Vallone was the same person as Sen. Nevertheless, I already had sufficient evidence that Vallone and The European Knights Project are bad news: promoting civic nationalism, promoting black and mixed race people (e.g., “part black people are OK”) and for some reason, inciting strident hatred between Germans and Poles; and apparently anybody and Poles; not only that, but using sock-puppets to instigate that divisiveness.

There was no reason to doubt that his dealings with White Nationalism were disingenuous and it was disappointing that MacDonald, et al., would entertain him. Mike Delaney also spoke with Vallone not long ago - an interview posted by Anglin - but these latter two are middle brow right-wingers, so their rubbing elbows with Vallone did not pique my attention in the sense that one of “ours” was being infiltrated. I would be quite happy for the Daily Stormer to crash and burn. It deserves to.

Then Jack Sen came onto the radar screen of WN, appearing at Jez Turner’s London Forum and on Kevin MacDonald’s site. These are people that I like, even if their right-wingishness causes them problems. I even posted the talk Sen gave to London Forum here at Majorityrights - it was about UKIP being controlled opposition, infiltrated by Jewish interests and so on. That didn’t raise red flags for me - if he, KM and Jez suddenly liked each other, it seemed that he might indeed be a guy coming to his senses. What was curious, however, was his association with The European Knights Project, and Vallone, as I already knew that they were colossal bullshit.

Still, I’m not regularly following the goings-on of every right-winger as I already have their perfidy conceptually circumscribed. I might look at what they are up to, as they are engaged on the same turf, consider what is useful and reject what is not; but I’m not letting them dictate my terms, any more than I’d let Jews do it. So, if they want to rub elbows with Giacomo Vallone and the European Knights Project, it’s their ship that’s going down. I advise White advocates not to be right-wingers, but that’s all I can do. KM, Greg Johnson and the rest of those among what I’ve taken to calling the tentosphere have tended to double-down in their position that “The Left” is the enemy.

Matt Heimbach is also cooperating with Sen and The European Knights Project - it seems as if there might be a corollary there, probably unbeknownst to Heimbach, to his being banned from The U.K. Sen was so disappointed about the ban?

Coming back to the show that has taken center ring for now, it is clear that “Giacomo Vallone” is bad news, but is he also the same person as Jack Sen? That really would be something as we will see in a moment by some of the implications.

But even if they are not the same person, the very fact that Sen would be associated with Vallone and the The European Knights Project is damning enough.

Lets set out the thread beneath the 2013 interview of Giacomo Vallone by Dana Antiochus at Renegade.

If it’s Jack Sen doing this sock puppetry then that really would be something. We’ll come to what Jack Sen might be up to after I set out this thread where I started the fight which initiated the awareness that Giacomo Vallone might be something more negative than just an ignorant newby. I begin with the first comment and before long, you’ll see what will be shown to be Vallone using sock puppets to instigate German-Polish animus.

Renegade, Dana Antiochus interviews Giacomo Vallone, 14 Oct 2013

Comments

DanielS
2 years 5 months ago

Giacomo Vallone’s remarks are not only tactless to the cause of mutual cooperation of European nationalism, but wrong..

READ MORE...

Sometimes I notice stories that are so awful that I almost think it’s some kind of joke, before I realise that it’s actually serious.

Here’s one such example of this:

Daily Mail, ‘Militant teachers demand schools stop promoting ‘British values’ as it makes children from other cultures feel inferior’, 28 Mar 2016:

That moment when memes meet reality.

• Guidelines want to encourage children to appreciate British values
• But teachers reject the move, which they say is linked to colonialism
• Critics have accused teaching unions of waging ‘ideological war’

Teachers are demanding that schools stop promoting ‘fundamental British values’ over claims it could make children think other cultures are inferior.

The National Union of Teachers said telling children about the country’s democracy, law and traditions could encourage ‘cultural supremacy’ and urged a new focus on ‘international human rights’ instead.

Under government guidelines, which are aimed at tackling extremism in the wake of the Trojan Horse scandal, children must be taught about being a British citizen as well as tolerance other faiths and lifestyles.

However, union leaders said the term was demeaning to other cultures ‘particularly in the context of multicultural schools and the wider picture of migration’.

Delegates passed a motion in favour of campaigning to scrap it during the NUT annual conference in Brighton today.

Christopher Denson, an NUT representative from Coventry, said: ‘We need to fight to reject this notion of British values, to fight for notions of human values and human rights.

‘We have to stand together across communities to bring down barriers, bring down borders, to say no to Islamophobia, no to anti-Semitism, no to fascism and any form of racism.’

The motion said that migrants make a ‘huge economic, political and social contribution’ to the country and that public services and businesses would ‘face severe difficulties’ without them.

It criticised the government for only taking in a ‘minute fraction’ of refugees and vowed to campaign for ‘policies that welcome’ them to the country.

The union agreed to ‘gather and collate’ teaching materials on migrants and refugees for members to use in classrooms from now on.

Mr Denson said he disliked using the term ‘fundamental British values’ in his classroom when many of his pupils had ancestry in countries which had encountered British colonialism.

He said: ‘The inherent cultural supremacism in that term is both unnecessary and unacceptable.

‘And seen with the Prevent agenda, it belies the most thinly veiled racism and a conscious effort to divide communities.’

He added: ‘It’s our duty to push real anti-racist work in all schools. And that doesn’t mean talk of tolerating other’s views, but genuine, inclusive anti-racist work.’

He said he had requested a week of themed assemblies every year in his school, with topics including apartheid and the rise of Islamophobia ‘in the context of anti-Semitism in the 1930s’.

‘This year we focussed on the migrant crisis in Calais, the Mediterranean and beyond,’ he added.

‘We organised a politics day for Year 8s [aged 12 to 13] in the week before Easter.

‘They had a day to form a political party in their tutor groups to come up with a manifesto, film a broadcast, and make banners and take part in a debate.

‘Apart from the quality of the work, the other thing that really made my proud was that every single tutor group had as a policy, ‘refugees welcome, open the borders’.

‘We need to be pushing at every level for anti-racism to be in the core curriculum for every child.’

Many of the activists at the conference said they had been to migrant camps over the channel to take food and provisions.

Christine Blower, general secretary of the NUT said: ‘Schools and teachers play a key role in welcoming migrant and refugee children and young people to this country, and supporting their progress within schools.

‘The NUT condemns the Government’s inadequate response to the current migrant situation, which has exacerbated the suffering for so many, including school-age children and young people.

‘The NUT has produced a guide to Welcoming Refugee Children to your School and has a dedicated section on its website for teaching resources which have been provided by teachers for teachers, on the issue.

‘The NUT will continue to work with Show Racism the Red Card, Hope Not Hate and others, to campaign for Government policies that welcome migrants and refugees to this country. The NUT will also continue to press for anti-racism work to be enshrined within the curriculum of all schools.’

The requirement on schools to teach fundamental British values was introduced in 2014 in a bid to crack down on extremism in schools.

It followed the Trojan Horse scandal, in which state schools in Birmingham were infiltrated by hardliners who tried to impose an Islamic agenda.

Ofsted, the schools regulator, has been penalising schools which do not sufficiently show that they are promoting British values.

Chris McGovern, of the Campaign for Real Education, said: ‘Teachers should not be playing the role of fifth columnists in the ideological war currently being fought over our national identity and our national sovereignty.

‘Teaching children that British values are part of “cultural supremacism” will, at best, make them feel guilty about being British and, at worst, radicalise them in order to ‘make up’ for the sins of their fathers.

‘If one wishes to destroy a nation and build a “brave new world” you begin by indoctrinating and brainwashing the children.

‘This process of ‘re-education’ has started some years ago in our schools and we are, now, seeing its consequences in the suppression of free speech on our university campuses.

‘The notion of ‘value relativism’ - that all views are equally valid - has reached saturation point in our schools.

‘In many classrooms this has led to the views of terrorists being given equal weigh to those of the victim of terrorism. Against this background the latest motions from the NUT come as no surprise, at all.’

The Department for Education has been contacted for comment.

I’m sure that the Department for Education will be just as speechless as I am right now.

My record on political soothsaying is by no means perfect.  But tonight, for the first time since the Tory triumph in the General Election last May, I am starting to feel optimistic for a Leave triumph in the referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union, which we now know will take place on June 23rd.  The arguments for Remain have already been rehearsed and written off as Project Fear.  They will not grow stronger with repetition.  All the positive noises, all the energy and excitement, the populism, the passion, the patriotism belong to Leave.  I have been amazed to see the freedom and frankness with which even hitherto rigidly loyal journalists at the Telegraph and the Mail have, almost without exception, derided Cameron’s so-called “deal” with the other 27 member states and declared for Leave.  It is said that up to half of the Tory parliamentary party will campaign for Leave, an unknown number of them mindful only that victory for this great cause will very likely remove Cameron from office and put Boris Johnson in his place.  But that is but a small detail of the huge change - a genuine metapolitical shift - which will be triggered by a Leave victory.  Let us just consider that for a moment.

The European Union is a project for the elites.  It is one of the principal engines of globalism, and it is immensely ambitious as such.  It offers a vision of an eventual multiracial, non-democratic unitary state concerned to expand to the eastern and southern borders of Russia, into Turkey and the Levant, North Africa (via the Barcelona Process), and, in time, across the Sahara and into the rest of the African continent.  All this is a matter of record.  But none of it would be remotely open to consideration were it not for the four grand, overlapping developments in the politics of the West in the late 20th century: the triumph of Capital over the command economy; that of political internationalism over nationalism; that of elitism over democracy; that of business and banking over peoples and populism.  These four triumphs winnowed national politics in the West, leaving us with the machine politician, the career politician; and his economically neoliberal and socially neo-Marxist, identikit parties; and ushered in an era of corruption, cynicism and betrayal.

Not unnaturally, this model of power politics has come under attack in every one of the European democracies.  In the UK, although nationalism has failed to lay a glove on it, euroscepticism has not.  True, UKIP could not break through with Westminster seats last May.  But David Cameron was forced to write into his party’s election manifesto a promise that, if successful, a Conservative government would hold a simple in-out referendum on EU membership by the end of next year.  At the time of the election the polls were very tight, and doubtless Cameron expected, at best, to be back in Downing Street with support from the Liberal Democrats.  They, of course, would never sanction any kind of challenge to their beloved project in nation destroying.  In the event the LibDems collapsed, Labour failed miserably, and Cameron won a most unexpected majority.  But ... he was now lumbered with that manifesto promise.  Plainly, he and his advisers thought they would have little difficulty in repeating the success of Project Fear in the Scottish IndyRef.  After all, who would remember Cameron’s Bloomberg speech, in which he had talked of a deep reform of the institutions of the European Union and of the UK’s relationship with it.  Nobody. They’ll all just vote for the status quo ... for what they know, won’t they?  Simple.

But now it’s starting to look like change is coming on 23rd June.  The return to independence of the UK will deliver a mighty blow to the process of ever greater union, energising dissent throughout the Union; ramping up costs for the other contributor member states, of which I believe only five or six will be left; and showing once again that the people do not want what the elites want, but still love and value their nation states and long to preserve them as independent and whole, functioning entities. With Schengen almost dead now, the euro in permanent crisis, the European economies seemingly permanently enfeebled, and the second largest economy negotiating its departure from the Union for good, the credibility of an EU elite which insists that the project must be advanced with ever more speed and determination will be tested and will be found wanting.  The Union could already be fatally wounded.  It might take years to die or it might happen with the dispatch that attended the collapse of communism in the east in 1989.

For nationalists this is a highly significant moment.  The pendulum has surely begun its long, stately swing back towards our politics.  We are in no way ready for what will come.