Majorityrights Central > Category: Political analysis

This post is a response to a multi-part question posted by Ex-ProWhiteActivist on the after Eastliegh thread.  I am only setting out the four possible paths that UKIP can go, or be driven, down.  In the conclusion I will also reply to another multi-part question asked on the same thread by Leon Haller.

So ...

The path to marginalisation

... is the Conservative Party’s preferred outcome for UKIP.  Conservative MPs and party managers seem to believe that it is in the gift of the party to engineer it (which it isn’t if the UKIP phenomenon is fundamentally a rage against the political class).  Conservatives must, of course, believe in the marginalisation thesis or they have to relinquish all hope of a 2015 election victory.

In reality, though, there is little hope.  First, quite without the UKIP problem, the Conservative Party is in terminal decline electorally.  Eddie George has turned out to be right when he said in 2010, prior to the General Election, that the party which entered government would be picking up a poisoned chalice, given the unpopular decisions that would have to be taken to pay-down sovereign debt.  He may have signalled some small change in that last week, with the BoE’s forecast of growth.  But the damage is done.  The coalition government has served only to confirm the public in its contempt for the political class.  Even prior to the UKIP explosion, Opinion polls have shown support for the Conservatives only hovering around 30%.  The first ICM survey after the local authority elections had them at 28% as UKIP surged to a new high of 18%, since when a (possibly rogue) Survation poll has put them at 24% and UKIP at 22%.  The Conservatives will not recover popularity now and the Prime Minister will not suddenly become liked or respected (though he may be replaced by someone who is).

Second, this bleak picture masks a bleaker crisis in the Conservative election machine itself.  Local association membership has halved in a decade, and it is the younger and more energetic members who are deserting fastest.  Conservative activism is grey-haired and suffers joint pain in many areas of the country.  It is also outrageously abused by the leader’s inner circle as well, of course, as utterly confused by their liberal metropolitan appetites.  Yet, to be in any position to form a government in 2015, the party must fight an aggressive campaign on the ground and win votes off the other parties. Lose their own core constituency to UKIP and that’s it.  They can’t get back from that.

READ MORE...

How could a nationalist government, operating more or less within the moral standards of Western democracies, persuade the millions of the immigrant populations to return to their own lands?  Here are a few possible policy initiatives, in the UK context.

Political necessities

1. Leave EU, ending right of abode of EU citizens.

2. End immigration completely.

3. Enforce existing law on illegal immigrants.

4. Repeal all race legislation.  Restore full freedom of speech and association.

5. Give work permits to some immigrants in reserved occupations.

6. ID register all ethnic minority respondees to the 2011 Census.  Those found to be non-respondees to the Census to be declared illegal.

7. Favour indigenous applicants in all public sector employment and in university selection.

The stick

1. Ban polygymy.

2. Ban animal slaughter without stunning.

3. Ban genital mutilation.

4. Ban mosque development.

5. End public funding and charitable status of all non-Christian faith schools and minority groups.

6. Retrospectively declare all post-war asylum cases illegitimate.

7. End welfare payments to UK accounts of minority claimants.

The carrot

1. Offer re-settlement grants scaled according to length of time in the UK, with a validity of three years but with the sum declining by one third each year.

2. Offer short-term welfare paid in the country of destination.

3. Offer training and business development grants, again paid in the country of destination.

4. Tie overseas aid wholly to acceptance of returnees by the destination countries, where required.

Graham Lister sent me a link today to a YouTube page full of videos of Chris Hedges, the journalist, author and jeremiah of American liberalism, democracy, education ... you name it.  Everything but white America - he is definitely not racially conscious.  His comprehension of nationalism appears to rest on his understanding, inevitably, of National Socialism and of his personal experiences as a journalist amid the sorrows of the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s.

Nonetheless, Hedges is an interesting case ... a liberal, even a leftist, an AGW supporter, fundamentally a Christian moralist, but a man with an analysis that, once, would have been a hot ticket among the educated young.  In the 1960s such anti-Establishmentarianism was in high demand.  Now, according to Hedges, elite universities in America are corrupted by corporation money, and exist not only to churn out narrow, unquestioning future managerialists and plutocrats.  All across the rest of the system, he says, the humanities are under pressure.  Creative thought will not be required in post-industrial, post-white America.

He offers no reprieve.  He says the banking and corporate interests have won their war against us.  He fears that, from the social chaos and impoverishment which is taking hold only bad will come.

This video is of a lecture he gave to publicise his book, Death of the Liberal Class.  At 55mins it’s long, but there is interest throughout.

by Graham Lister

Firstly sorry once again I seem to have been somewhat ranting impolitely in the comments section. And I don’t mean to be snotty to other commentators but sometimes I’m typing before thinking ‘how might this come across’. However, I thought it might be interesting to give a brief outline of the genesis of my views on some pressing issues.

Basic assumptions

I definitely think that both ontological and normative issues are very important. Any ethical framework that results in voluntary self-destruction cannot be right.  My own baseline view is this – I don’t want to live in a society in which my ethnic group is in a minority or anything approaching that status. Even if those replacing my group were ‘better’ I would not care. At the most basic functional level of analysis the worry is that a formally dominate group will be at a permanent structural disadvantage with regard to political power in shaping their ‘former’ society, which would have new and very deep sources of sociological cleavages/conflict/resentment (and a likely undermining in any notions of the common-good). It could be little green men from Mars, the issue is being systematically disadvantaged by another group which is likely to display intra-group loyalty and inter-group rivalry/animosity. Of course it seems a reasonably good working hypothesis, in my view, that generally the more ethnically distal and undeniably ‘different’ competing groups are, then more intense the cleavages are and the worst any inter-group rivalry would be.

Ethnocentric communitarianism

I’d call my baseline position something like ‘ethnocentric communitarianism’.

Why that? Well in ethnically homogenous societies one major source of potentially destructive and very negative socio-political cleavage is removed. There is only an ‘in-group’ viz ethnicity as a major axis of socio-political variation/friction doesn’t arise. If high levels of linguistic, religious, cultural homogeneity also exist as well then the likely outcome is a more coherent, communitarian society with high social-capital such as Norway. However, the flip side is that if ‘diversity’ is pushed too far along ethnic lines – especially involving groups that are obviously perceived as different from each other and have little cultural/historical commonality - then a major socio-poltical cleavage is opened up with all the negative consequences in terms of intra-group loyalty versus inter-group rivalry.

See, for example, South Africa and its societal trajectory now that different groups have functionally inverted much of the the previous power arrangements and are proactively engaged in battles over economic resources/politics and so on. The result is a dramatic decline of social-capital with the release of those pent-up inter-group antagonisms (crime off the scale – with a particular quasi-systematic and extraordinarily viscous aggression directed towards Boer farmers) and even declining white solidarity (private security etc., for the with enough money but with increasing number of white have-nots thrown to the wolves) also to be matched by a steady ratcheting up of intra-black tribal antagonisms. And that does not even factor in the open question as to Black competency in managing a modern successful society.

READ MORE...

by Last Celt

Earlier this week, Horst Seehofer, the leader of the CDU’s Bavarian sister party, the CSU, said it was “obvious that immigrants from different cultures like Turkey and Arab countries, all in all, find it harder” to integrate.

“Multikulti’ is dead,” Mr Seehofer said.

Earlier this month the chancellor held talks with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in which the two leaders pledged to do more to improve the often poor integration record of Germany’s estimated 2.5 million-strong Turkish community.

BBC. October, 2010

Multiculturalism is pronounced dead! However, notice the call for integration; it’s too early to celebrate.

Similarly, last Saturday the British Prime Minister David Cameron declared the multicult a failure. But look at this comment of Cameron’s:

On the one hand, those on the hard right ignore this distinction between Islam and Islamist extremism, and just say that Islam and the West are irreconcilable – that there is a clash of civilizations. So, it follows: we should cut ourselves off from this religion, whether that is through forced repatriation, favoured by some fascists, or the banning of new mosques, as is suggested in some parts of Europe . These people fuel Islamophobia, and I completely reject their argument. If they want an example of how Western values and Islam can be entirely compatible, they should look at what’s happened in the past few weeks on the streets of Tunis and Cairo : hundreds of thousands of people demanding the universal right to free elections and democracy.

READ MORE...

by Christian Miller

The American political arena and mainstream media is rigged against White American solidarity.  Almost every single race or ethnicity has a political organization to serve its specific racial or ethnic interests.  The glaring exception is a mainstream-credited or nationally-recognized political group dedicated to White American interests.  There are groups dedicated to White advocacy, but they are invariably plagued by accusations of “extremism” or “hate” or “bigotry.”

The Preamble to the United States Constitution lists one of its purposes as to “secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”  Perhaps this explicit dedication to the interests of the White founding stock means that no White advocacy groups are needed.  Maybe the explicit mandate of the Constitution demands the protection of liberty for the posterity of the White race, so White advocacy groups are superfluous. Until the middle of the twentieth century, this view might hold water.  In light of the onslaught of anti-White propaganda, legislation, indoctrination, and social policy that has since followed, this explanation is a recipe for White political suicide.

Under oppressive legislation, a hostile media, and an anti-White educational system, the interests of White people have been subverted in favor of a cacophony of minority voices, all of which are alien to the original aims of the Founding Fathers.  White Americans can no longer rest assured that the Constitution means what it says, or that the United States exists to preserve the interests of its White founding stock and their progeny.  Instead, White Americans must organize specifically and purposefully on racial grounds, realizing that all other groups are slowly destroying each liberty and privilege that White Americans used to take for granted.

READ MORE...

by Cladrastis

What we REQUIRE is a sea change in leadership – from a self-serving “universalist” kleptocracy to an altruistic and philosophically-rooted particularist aristocracy; an aristocracy that will place the interests of the nation before the personal interests of the individuals who are a part it. Apropos we must address two related questions: how do we bring about such a change within the extant political framework, and what will prevent an ultra-nationalist European aristocracy from sliding inexorably back into the oblivion of plutocracy?

We will “fix” the plutocratic system by instituting policies that invert the relationship between political and economic power. For a man to attain political power he will be forced to make economic sacrifices commensurate with the rank to which he aspires. Similarly, the rich man will lose political rights based on the degree to which he has amassed personal wealth. Such an inverted relationship between economic and political power lends itself naturally to James Bowery’s idea of the net asset tax, but in this instance, the tax incurs political as well as economic costs.

Intellectuals, who rarely amass great fortunes, would then emerge as one of the most promising pools of political potential. Contrariwise, individuals from the moneyed class would be eligible for office if, and only if, they relinquish their personal fortunes; by doing so, the rich man demonstrates his altruism in a tangible manner and shows the public to whom his political beneficence will be directed (does the rich man donate his money to a Guatemalan orphanage, to his sons, or to the local school system?). Notice that this encourages philanthropy, the disentangling of national and business interests, and the socialization of wealth, but also results in a certain degree transparency.

We would be wise to heed Blake’s familiar and pessimistic warning, “The iron hand crush’d the tyrant’s head, And became a tyrant in his stead,” by taking note of the forces that a tyrant do make. The rich have proven themselves time and again wholly unfit to rule. The Marxist critique of the bourgeois class is (in part) valid; however Marxists are too dishonest to accurately assess the stupidity of the dictatorship of the proletariat (in any of its theoretical permutations). Perhaps it is time to adopt the Marxist critique, but add to it an aristocratic response. Perhaps ... this is how we will prevent the Enemy from taking advantage of his next golden opportunity.

A Majority Rights Radio presentation of a libertarian nationalist political economy and its traitors is now available. This is the winning political paradigm in the present circumstances. We can ignore, for the sake of argument, that it is also philosophically and practically superior to other political economy paradigms.