Majorityrights Central > Category: Political analysis

One of the prime events of the calendar for Anglosphere nationalism is also its year-end event.  That is Millenniyule, the unique and engrossing series of twenty plus live-streams conducted by the cultural critic and content creator Millenialwoes (Woes for short).  This year was the eighth in the series.

I have not listened to everything, though I have visited every stream to get a sense of the interview subject.  Many are well-known on the dissident podcast scene.  They are an eclectic mix, which only adds to the immense task Woes sets himself each December (and handles so expertly).  Some of them our host engages for 45 minutes, some for a couple of hours.  The two marathon streams, though, are several hours apiece.  Of these, the longest by far, at one minute longer than seven hours, was the final stream of Millenniyule 2022, with Morgoth:

Next for sheer expansiveness, at four hours nineteen minutes, was the stream with Academic Agent:

AA’s analysis, it must be said, is that of Schmittian reductionism, placing power before idealism.  But there is a lot of interest in the conversation, as there is, as ever, in the Morgoth stream.  It seems to me that one can just as profitably start the year with such material as end it.

To the surprise of no one, Marine Le Pen has failed for the second time to make even a close-run thing of the second round of a French presidential election.  She won 41.4% of votes to her opponent’s 58.6%, on a turnout of 72% (against 74.6% in 2017).  The popular vote was 13,297,760 to 18,779,641.  The result does represent a long step forward from 2017, when Le Pen won only a third of the second-round ballot. 

On that calculation she cut the deficit very nearly in half (the easier half to persuade, of course).  The reality is a little worse than that.  Billed as an election for those one least dislikes, we now have definite proof that, allowing for a share of those who voted in 2017 but not this time, no more than four in ten French voters can be persuaded to support Le Pen.  Only 13% of non-nationalists (“nationalist” in this context meaning those who had voted a fortnight ago for Le Pen + Zemmour) felt able to switch to her.  And this after all the enormous efforts she has made to explain herself as something other than the Establishment media’s hate-object.  Even as the EU-neutral, Islam-accepting cat-lady of French politics she could not threaten a totally unloved sitting president.  It is another reminder for nationalists, were any reminder needed, how very difficult it is to break through in any systemically liberal polity.

One should also note that Le Pen did not always help herself during her campaign.  In the presidential debate last week she took the bad decision to focus on policy detail, which is Macron’s managerialist strength, not hers, and let him off the hook of his own unpopularity.  Obviously, she wanted to project competence.  But she projected his competence.  She also confused the voters by suddenly declaring that the lovable and by no means toxic cat-lady would ban the Muslim veil in public.  It didn’t need saying.  Mixed-messaging is never a good thing.  Then, too, she had bad luck in her timing with the war in Ukraine and her past approval of Vladimir Putin (basically tended for consenting to provide RN with banking facilities when no French bank would do so).  Finally, there was the very odd timing from Brussels of the launch of an investigation into fraud dating back before the last presidential election.  I don’t know how damaging that really was.  As an attempt to manipulate the election it could hardly have been more blatant.  Perhaps Brussels was more damaged by it than Le Pen.  Perhaps she actually gained votes just on the basis of the general disgust.  But all that said, these issues are petty and narrowly political.  It is difficult to believe that any of them could have made the difference for Macron.  His advantage was always secure.

Rather, the constant electoral problem for nationalism is that its grand cause is national and existential but the concerns of the majority of voters are stubbornly personal and economic; and here Le Pen really tried to break the mould.  She alighted on the rapidly rising cost of living at the beginning of her campaign, and pushed it throughout.  Many commentators praised her political shrewdness, acknowledging that any treasure trove of votes was going to be found on the left.  They obviously expected to see a pay-off for her at the polling station.  She obviously expected to see it.  But nothing very much was forthcoming.  One wonders whether something more than a me-too expression of solidarité with the policy-goals of the left and some communitarian empathie with those left behind by Macron is required.  In the absence of a complete economic vision will such offerings always be seen as opportunistic?  In the end, do voters look to nationalism for a bit of tax relief?

All this raises the vexing question of where French nationalism goes from here.  There will very likely need to be a self-critical assessment of the performance of Rassemblement National in the legislative elections scheduled for 12th and 19th June.  OK, Zemmour’s alternative Reconquête!, even with Marion Maréchal on board, may be unlikely to achieve much of an impact itself seat-wise.  But it could make the always problematic task of election difficult for RN candidates, and not just this June.  How can nationalism cut through if it is outflanked on the issue of Islam on the right by an essentially conservative party and out-flanked on economic issues on the left by an essentially Corbynist party?
.
Personally, I suspect that, after his creditable performance in the first round of the presidential election, the old-left ideological warrior Jean-Luc Mélenchon and his party La France Insoumise (“France Unbowed”) will harvest much of the anti-Macron sentiment in June.  There is a strong possibility that the French, having elected the little man because they thought they had to, will delight in denying him the capacity to form a government in the legislature.  La France Insoumise is not a formal party, and is a classic vessel for temporary political protest.  It is a broad church of the narrow left consisting of supporters’ groups and small committees campaigning for “ecosocialism”.  One assumes that this oddity is for unhinged CO2 obsessives whose interest in the environment very oddly and abruptly curtails itself when the subject of population growth due to immigration pops up.  The égalité of Africans and Arabs is obviously much too pressing to allow ideological consistency to get in the way.

Accordingly, Mélenchon greeted Le Pen’s defeat (rather than Macron’s victory) with the words, “It’s very good news for the unity of our people,” which, naturally, demonstrates the customary pig-headed refusal to acknowledge who the French are and who they are not.  Over 7 million people - a fifth of the total vote - actually put a cross against Mélenchon’s name in the first round of the presidentials.  La France Incurable might have been more accurate.

As for Le Pen, she seems set on fighting on.  But what can she do that she has not already done to untie the gossamer bindings of her supposed toxicity?  Five years ago she was able to respond to other presidential candidate’s tough election-talk on immigration by saying, “Why vote for a fake when you can vote for the real thing.”  Now she has come to the point where her opponents can invert that and say the same of her centrism.  Of course, it’s true that ordinarily the centre is the ground an election winner must occupy.  It is where the most votes are.  It is where the most floating votes are. In addition, in France the traditional parties of power - the Gaullists and the Socialists - are dying.  The latter is effectively dead already.  The centre is eminently contestable.  But the gods of political change do not seem to be with Le Pen.  She sacrificed her authenticity to be their beneficiary.  It is difficult to see any real identity now, or much creative energy, in RN.  Perhaps Le Pen and her party have simply been around too long.  Perhaps RN will now fall victim to the same malaise as the Gaullists and the Socialists, and Marion will inherit the tricolour of Delacroix’ revolutionary Marianne.

The polity is shaped towards our race-replacement by its own deep history of ideas but also, of course, by the history of events which are inextricably linked to those ideas.  The sum of them all constitutes an enormous bulwark against change, pressing us, as people interested in change, to the inevitable conclusion that any serious assault on the citadel of Western elitism and political power must mean a revolution on no mean scale.  A simple change to national politics alone will, in the longer term, be constrained and, finally, erased by the continuing effect of these foundational forces.  Many, and quite possibly all of them, would have to be swept away, too.

I’ve made some rather slipshod efforts in the past to draw up a chart supplying some relational context to these forces.  This time, as part of the working up of a new article for PA’s site, I’ve tried to get everything in, including the elements aiming at control of the future of all humanity.  Doubtless, it’s always possible to keep expanding the range of entities, and I might have missed something important.  Anyway, if there is improvement to be made, do please say where.

Native Man, Pragmatic Man, Nietzschean Man ... but Revolution Man?

On 22nd June 1948 a vessel owned by the Board of Trade but leased to the New Zealand Shipping Company quietly docked at Tilbury.  It disgorged 494 fare-paying black Jamaican passengers: migrants who, at the invitation of the ship-operators, had taken it upon themselves to turn up in our country to improve their lot in life.  This small and novel event precipitated what would quickly become a permanent revolt of the political class against the sovereign people of this land, which itself set off a chain of race/ethnicity-based political, legal, social, and economic actions and reactions.  Inconceivable seven decades ago, these have reached down into every corner of British national life, and have proved absolutely cataclysmic for our people.  They have been conjoined with other immoralities, other political betrayals, each heralding other disasters, such that, in these days, the gravest darkness and uncertainty hangs over even our immediate future.

Any man or woman who finds even some of this troubling and begins to question it already has one foot placed on the long road of understanding that leads to some form of nationalism.  It may take months or even years before the seeker detaches from the old, safe hostilities of left and right, and formulates the notion that the entirety of politics, culture and economics is made horribly, equally destructive by some inhering force or combination of forces.  It will likely take longer still before said seeker also asks what we, as a people, must do to remain not just free or democratic or Christian, or whatever, but who we are.  But then he or she has turned a significant corner.  The people and the people’s everlasting home have been reclaimed from the estrangements of the old ways of thinking, and will not be lost to sightlessness and uncaring again.  With that understanding comes a critique of many other things in this world, such that the whole constitutes an awakening from a deep but general slumber, and a liberation into a new sensing of truth and an intense sensing of identity … of our ethnic person ... of belonging and, most of all, of an existential care.

For the vast majority who accomplish this return it is done alone and osmotically, like a salmon leaving the ocean to return to the place of its arising.  It is a journey of the instinct to an honourable estate, but not a whole nationalist estate.  It is not got from real-world contact with nationalists or any prior ideology of British nationalism.  It is invariably the product of time spent on-line, and had this not been the internet age little of this awakening would ever have been possible.  As it is, the resulting amour propre is nationalism to its possessors, though that singular element of care defines it more exactly as nativism. We might, therefore, justly apply to these good folks the soubriquet “Native Man”.

READ MORE...

Revolution?  What revolution?

Notwithstanding its factual omissions and its very tiresome liberal bias, Wikipedia does have its occasional uses.  For present purposes, one of those is to keep a running record of the political parties registered in the UK with the Electoral Commission, and even a record of those parties which have been de-registered and are now defunct.  Immediately below, then, is an abstract from that record, showing the registration status of all the nationalist and like “right-wing” parties.  Below that is a table logging the fresh-dug graves of nationalists’ electoral dreams.  Together they comprise decades of history of political nationalism in all its ideological forms, and provide a telling snapshot of how ordinary men and women, but extraordinary dissenters, have attempted to make politics in the name and for the cause of our people.

One notable name missing from the log is Patriotic Alternative.  Mark Collett’s repeated attempts to prevail upon the Electoral Commission to register Patriotic Alternative have thus far met only with obfuscation and delay.  One might assume at this point that the Electoral Commission will require to be served with a court order to cease discriminating against PA, as appears to have been the case with the now-registered but deeply forgettable Britain First.  Perhaps the EC is calculating that working people, which nationalists typically are, tend not to be able to afford lawyers’ fees.  Perhaps it is right in that.  Perhaps, anyway, it is driven by government’s interest in hardening its grip on the electoral process as the enterprise which is the Age of the Covid and the enterprise which is the Climate crisis progress, and the political, social and economic environment itself becomes more extreme.

In any case, here are both logs:

READ MORE...

I would like to be able to say that, finally, one of us has been granted access to the golden temple of the respectable, and we’re going mainstream, baby.  But not yet.  Not quite.  James Delingpole, “libertarian-conservative” and freedom junkie though he is, hasn’t been entirely respectable himself for a few years now.  He is too much the enfant terrible of climate scepticism - a role he has honourably discharged for a dozen years - and, latterly as executive editor of Breitbart London, far too far right, doncha know.  His discovery of Davos and The Great Re-Set has, of course, tipped him over into Tin-Foil World, from which there is no coming back.  James is lost to liberal reason and the literati dinner party circuit forever.  He is about 40% “there”, from a nationalist perspective.  But one should say that none of us are sufficiently informed to be more than, say, 60% or 65% of the way, and actually none of us really knows what 100% would be, because the boundaries keep expanding.  Who knew anything very much about the Re-Set even two years ago.

Anyway, James gave a very kind and entertaining hearing to Morgoth, not diving too deep because that’s not the way these interviews work, but deep enough to satisfy.  A lot of typically Morgothian bases were covered ... Tolkien, Spengler (he was good on Spengler), lots of cultural analysis and analysis of the “power” in power elitism, the left, the Re-Set, the football.  Morgoth acquitted himself well and demonstrated that a Northumbrian bloke from a building site can parley with as much intellectual authority as anyone.  As James said, he stood up his arguments.

There was one slightly scary moment when Morgoth mentioned the tribe, and one could see James pondering his Breitbart earner.  There was one other moment when James just possibly revealed a liberal paternalist’s abiding contempt for nationalism; but it passed quickly.  But that aside, it was a convivial chat about hugely important matters, and I enjoyed it.  I just wish that the doors to the wider world would start to open now; but I suspect that in the present febrile climate they are probably closing on James too.

You can listen to the interview, all 1 hour and 2 mins of it, here:

https://odysee.com/@JamesDelingpoleChannel:0/morgoth:d

What is Nigel Farage up to?  It is now a month since he launched Reform UK as the new incarnation of The Brexit Party.  No one in British politics has a shrewder political mind than Farage, but at the time it seemed a strange choice for him to bet his continuing relevance - as he seemingly has - on The Great Barrington Declaration.  Barrington recommends “an approach to herd immunity called focused protection” whereby only the old and vulnerable are maintained in lockdown, while the rest live life normally. 

The Declaration itself is a culmination of months of criticism and questioning of the Western governmental response to the virus by senior figures in academic and practising medecine.  But precious little has been heard of it amid the lock-step media coverage of the official narrative.  As a populist cause, it hardly ranks alongside Brexit.  Moreover, it’s not as if better targeted regimes than a general lock-down haven’t been tried.  The Swedish experience with such a regime did not work out particularly advantageously.  Its principal advocate, Sweden’s chief epidemiologist Anders Teigel, has been sidelined today and his infection control model replaced by a much more conventional lockdown model.

In any case, the common and extremely rosy expectation is that lockdown will become a thing of the past ... a blip in the unstoppable progress of human freedom ... as mass vaccination swings into effect.  A political stand on lockdown, therefore, is only a prelude to a political stand on vaccination itself.  The first segues effortlessly into the second.

Of the three vaccines developed so far, the Pfizer-BioNTech product is already in roll out.  Over the next six months most vulnerable British citizens and key workers will be vaccinated.  Regardless of the inevitability that Covid 19 is going to be with us in the long-term, there would seem to be very little political cause here which is likely to be around for the next General Election.

So, what is Farage up to?  Is there a way of interpreting his re-launch decision other than as a political mis-step?  Well, in contrast to the rosy assumptions of returning, untroubled normality there are three future scenarios which could gift the ever-opportunistic Farage the leading role in a new attack on the politics of the Establishment.  In taking up a position critical of the lockdown he automatically positions himself against the first and least troubling of those three scenarios, and by that action he also positions himself against the second scenario; and by taking up that he automatically positions himself at the fore of resistance to the third, should events move that far.  If that is to be the trajectory of our collective future, then for all its limitations Barrington is no bad political starting point today.

So let’s look at that in more detail.  In order of their historical challenge and severity the three future scenarios are:

Scenario 1: Rising public doubt about the vax

According to the New Scientist, a group of researchers have extracted data from the ten most reliable of some 175 reports on Covid 19 infection fatality rates.  Taken together they show a mortality-to-infection rate by age of:

for people under 40,  0.1%
between 50 and 60, 0.36%
between 70 and 74, 2.17%
between 80 and 84, 5%,
over 90, 16%

At the average, Covid has an infection fatality rate of 0.25% or even less, and around double that of common flu.  This puts Covid on a level with the Hong Kong Flu 1968 or the Asian flu 1957 in terms of danger - nothing like the 1918 Spanish flu which had a 2-4% fatality rate, and not a once in a century type threat at all. There is a certain historical routineness to it, therefore.  A similar type of pandemic to Covid may well come again in the lifetimes of most of us, and maybe sooner than we think. 

People are not stupid.  They see the police treatment of those who point out such inconvenient truths (Piers Corbyn, for instance, and his fellow lockdown protesters) and know that treatment to be excessive.  They compare it to the treatment - “taking the knee”, basically - of BLM protests, where maskless gatherings without social distance mysterously go unopposed.  Then they see that the authorities don’t actually know that much about the vaccine:

There are no data as yet on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy, either from human or animal studies. Given the lack of evidence, JCVI favours a precautionary approach, and does not currently advise COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy. Women should be advised not to come forward for vaccination if they may be pregnant or are planning a pregnancy within three months of the first dose.

... As trials in children and pregnant women are completed, we will also gain a better understanding of the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines in these persons.

People understand when they are being manipulated by politicians (as they understood in droves with the Stronger-In “Project Fear” campaign in the 2016 EU Referendum).  They will inevitable question what is justified action and what is hidden agenda, and if they think they see a hidden agenda they will react accordingly.  Among the online media-savvy section of the public, vaccine skepticism is already up and running.  An Opinium poll for the Guardian has found that 30% of respondees will not accept the jab.  By way of a sample of the sort of things people are starting to think and say, the following comments appeared in a Daily Mail thread last week, after the lightning fast formal drug approval of the Pfizer-BioNTech’s product by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency.  They are by no means the exception:

“Pfizer vaccine is APPROVED by regulators. What a surprise. There wasn’t a snowball’s chance in Hades that it wouldn’t be because that’s what they were instructed to do. All the normal protocols for assessing safety were abandoned”

“... now expect them to believe having a vaccine will help them ...amendment. I just believe people need to weigh up the real risks to their family, friends and themselves, and proceed with extreme caution. People are not being given honest, fair reasonable arguments. Infernally wicked choices and diktats are being foisted upon them. People should be very, very wary indeed. Do NOT trust them.”

“WHY, WHY, WHY has a company like Pfizer, with a very well documented history of legal cases, prosecution and payouts (due to the devastating side effects of some of its products) been granted immunity from prosecution if this vaccine is so safe? WHY? “

“Ask yourself this, Bill Gates has been banging on about depopulation for years. What makes you think that all of a sudden he wants to save us all?”

“So many coincidences this year. They really think we’re idiots. Now anticipate the FREEDOM PASSPORTS to divide and force us into having it! And when you decide, consider the following: We have law changes to prevent litigation over side effects, trials lasting a few months instead of years, “flexibilities” allowed in the mhra safety regulations, scientists and regulators with conflicts of interest, compulsory vaccination in all but name, a new AI system to log the tsunami of unprecedented side effects. Potentially introducing laws to stop criticism and questioning of vaccinations, like this post! If these aren’t huge red flags I don’t know what is!”

“... experimental mRNA vaccine never before used. Phase 3 trialled ONLY since July 27th = 129 days! CANNOT POSSIBLY KNOW THIS IS SAFE. What about long term adverse reactions? Autoimmune responses / cancer etc?”

“As a Covid survivor I certainly welcome a vaccine against this virus, but whats worries me the most is the speed in which this vaccine has been deemed safe. It’s been months in the making and I think because they usually take years we’re all very concerned what long term health issues may happen. It won’t be long before we see those on the news having the vaccine, proving it’s safe but will the cameras be back on them if it goes wrong.”

Neither is Farage alone in positioning politically to ride this developing wave of public opinion.  Days after he re-launched TBP as Reform UK a new party in Germany sprang up along rather similar lines:

READ MORE...

Within days I will set up a website to advance the best in White advocacy/nationalism as it is known to be - a place for the resource brought to bear, for its cultivation by those who recognize the crucial value of this resource.

I will endeavor to maintain a presence at Majorityrights in order to correct any misrepresentations of my positions and to challenge any perfidy which might make its way back, hoping for my riddance.

Some may think that I might be disheartened with the marketing campaign and those beholden to it having held sway over me thus far, but it is not the case.

Some will mock me as having spent my time in futility, but I think not; especially as compared to the likes of those who spend $10,000 only to die on the side of Mt. Everest.

I have achieved what I set out to do, which is to summit (what I am satisfied to be) the most vital and necessary in theory for the advocacy of European peoples. Similar as those not understood for having undertaken a quest of Mount Everest, it was my objective. Something that I had to do. But unlike their project, mine was not so personal or futile; rather it was in service to my broad understanding and to our people (and, ok, if I am to be most honest, perhaps as much against antagonists and those who do not care - their practices which are objectionable for the destructive impact they are having upon us), and against those who time and again mislead the theoretical trail; by contrast, I have left clear maps on trail for the sovereignty of European peoples: I know that I have brought the best in truth and in depth; while some may be determined to deny this truth out of custom, habit, tradition, their prejudices or vanity - or in red caped misdirection, as I have particularly shown - all one has to do is take a look honestly at my efforts which I will carry over to the new site to be disabused of pseudo justification for antagonism to the platform which I bring to bear.

Whether the new site achieves popularity or not right away is not an issue; any more than popular approval might not be first in mind for the guy who dies on the side of Mt. Everest, singularly focused in his aim, irrespective of how futile and impractical popular opinion may deem his quest to be; however, by contrast, the objective of the new site is not vain nor impractical, nor destined to be unpopular or out of the mainstream as those who do take a look will see; as the perspicuous overview from this summit has shown what is most relevant; a manifestation of the most necessary resource for our people.