|
|
|
Democracy denied, accountability suspended The other day, while contemplating the paper I am writing for submission to PA, I came to the realisation that while the argument for democracy must (a) work and (b) be restored to our people is central to the demand for a referendum on our future in our own homeland it is actually quite tricky to navigate the civic nature of the beast. The civicism itself is an active element in our disenfranchisement, meaning that we cannot make a straight, positive case for the referendum. It ineluctably becomes a negative claim. I asked Daniel what he thought about that and received some consideration which I think I have incorporated. But I am still uncertain as to whether the case is made - it is certainly weaker than I would like and weaker than the other arguments for the referendum that are in the overall draft so far. So I am posting a draft here if anybody is interested in commenting and strengthening the claim. All constructive contributions gratefully received!
Of course, it’s all in the definition of “people”. Only if we were living in an ethnic democracy or an ethnocracy¹⁹ – two of around twenty models of democracy which academics have identified – would the people and the demos definitely and always overlap to a degree useful to us. Given not only that current citizenship law is anything but restricted to us, and the gateway to franchise²º is wider by an order of magnitude than citizenship itself, our referendum demand would fall foul immediately of the absence of any recognition or point of reference for ethnic self-determination within the system²¹. It would be all-too-easy for politicians to dismiss our demand just by saying: “In our vibrant national democracy every individual of eighteen or over, regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation, possesses the same human dignity and rights, and enjoys the same access to the democratic process. You do not have the privilege of using the process to attack or disadvantage your fellow citizens.” However, since such “liberal” opinion is relying upon novel and extra-ordinary change in the demos, brought about without recourse to the democratic process itself, it is a statement of force majeure and fait accompli - the former because, obviously, state power has been employed to sweep away all dissent and utterly change our ethnic home, the latter because the politicians, having striven to make it (as they believe) impossible to undo their handiwork, now instruct us with steepling arrogance that we have no choice but to submit to the consequences. Such thinking has strayed so far from accountability it signals that a usurpation has taken place. Democracy is non-operative, at least in the matter of our people’s survival and continuity (which is the most vital of all matters of state, and from which arises the general recognition that defence is the first duty of government). The political class as a whole has made itself unaccountable. Usurpations are not about tolerance or liberty or equality, or any other prostituted liberal principle that politicians and power elites routinely ascribe to themselves. Usurpations are always about power. The drive of the political class for a multiracial Britain is a power play intended to leave us, the British people, and our constitution and democracy far behind. The Britain we knew and understood was a union under a single crown of three traditional nations, indeed three landed descent groups with intertwined histories, each sovereign under the constitution. That state of contentment has been replaced by a proposition nation populated by individual human units gathered around liberal civic values. The politicians have set their face against our native reality and relation, and assured themselves and us that we natives are but one social group and one culture among a multitude of civically equal groups, each of them exactly as British as we are regardless of the fact that we are children of the soil and they arrived, relatively speaking, at Heathrow passport control yesterday morning at 9.00 am. The demos has been universalised, erasing its prior ethnic content and rendering it as an equalitarian company of uncharactered individuals connected to other living creatures only by political and socio-economic choices. What actually matters about us has been put outside, and in that much we have been disenfranchised. That’s the complaint. Let us now dig down for some solid principle. Revolutionary change in the nature and meaning of the demos brought about not by democratic means but by the use of force cannot, by definition, be democratic. In a time of peace when the nation is secure, unconquered, and self-governing, any outcome procured through coercive governmental action against the known will and natural interests of the sovereign and native people is procured illegitimately. That was the case on 22nd June 1948, before the Windrush sailed into British territorial waters, and it is no less the case now. The passage of time does not grant legitimacy to the wrongs done to us, whether or not those wrongs are capable of reverse. A fait accompli does not grant legitimacy, and it does not prohibit or de-moralise reversal, or make it any less necessary. Abusive and unjust, untrammelled power does not justify its trespasses and treacheries by the claim of irreversability. Only the interests of the people are irreversible. Only the people possess the constitutional right to be governed according to the will of a parliament reflective of, and faithful to, their interests. As the people, that right was ours alone before 22nd June 1948, and it was taken from us without warning or explanation or public debate, and awarded to strangers. It must be our choice, and no one else’s, whether that situation obtains into the future. In simple, force majeure is not a democratic value, and not an ethical value of any kind. An appeal to it is a demand for our weakness and submission. Those who make such a demand are not democrats and not ethical people. Their arguments are flawed, arrogant, self-serving, and prejudiced against us. Correction is due and we are bound to seek it, not least because that’s how a healthy democracy is maintained. William Shakespeare never conceived of a betrayal more monstrous than that of our politicians, or a fate for his people and ours more completely final than the one they have engineered. The phrase “We were never asked” is not counted among the scores of familiar Shakesperian quotations. But perhaps one might argue in the native manner of Hamlet to Horatio that the ecumenicalism of British democracy, as it evolved from Magna Carta to the Windrush, was “a custom more honour’d in the breach than the observance”²², the breach being the implicit understanding of English peoplehood and right on the soil. Certainly, if politicians had dismissively lectured the Englishmen of Elizabeth’s reign that Africans and south Asians and the rest have just as much ownership of this civic space and as much civic right upon it as them, that opinion would not have survived the sudden appearance of perfumed heads on pikes atop the city walls. As it is, after the Windrush the rules of succession in our democratic Elsinore became those of the Claudian usurpation: citizenship on the nominal basis of jus soli but the effective basis of universalism squared, duly excused and commended by Brownite racial apologetics, aka civic values²³. But the palace is still haunted by the ghost of Prince Hamlet’s murdered father. We native British might have had all manner of poison poured in our ears but we still know this land to be our sacred ancestral home and not merely a civic space or a market economy or a race experiment²⁴; and we cannot permit it to become any or all of those in perpetuity. Democracy must function again. Our people must decide.
¹⁹ An ethnic democracy is a system in which ethnicities are recognised as distinct autonomous groups. An ethnocracy is a system in which one group governs entirely in its own interests and by its own hand. ²º Even after this country escapes from the transition period under its Withdrawal Agreement with the EU we will still have an officially-estimated three million EU citizens permanently residing here and able to vote in United Kingdom elections. There is, in addition, citizens of the fifty-three Commonwealth countries and also of fourteen dependent territories around the world plus the Irish who move here and who will continue to be able to vote in our elections although we will not vote in theirs if we move to Ireland ²¹ It is true that the system of democracy in Britain is not and has never been specifically ethnic in form. It has a splendid history, of course, having evolved across eight centuries (from Magna Carta in 1215 via the English conquest of Wales, two civil wars, the union of crowns, class struggles, and the division of Ireland) into a democracy of constituency representatives in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland elected to serve in the lower House of parliament … the Mother of Parliaments ... by secret ballot, which became law in 1872, and universal equal suffrage, which became law only in 1928. In the most general historical sense its sustaining force is the same as that which produced the peasant rebellions of the Middle Ages: a corrective to the Norman conquest, given that the structure of Anglo-Saxon governance was swept away and replaced by the rule, at one superior remove, of a foreign military over-class. Plainly, the corrective does have an ethnically-driven dynamic. But it was initiated not by the resistance of the Anglo-Saxons but that of the Norman barony to the excesses of King John’s taxation. The result was Magna Carta, which reigned in the king’s powers and required consent from his court of advisors to all new levies. It was out of the courts of the Norman kings that the participation of representatives of the people itself evolved, and did so first in the revolutionary Simon de Montfort’s second or “Great” parliament of 1265. The democratising process survived de Montfort’s death at the Battle of Evesham in that same year. But it was always under the suffrage of the king. Thereby, the native principle … the principle of blood on the soil … was always trammelled and restricted in its political possibilities by the rootless, expansionist character of the Norman imposition. It was a tendency influenced and further reinforced over the ensuing centuries by the always broadening political, economic and cultural accommodations involved in the first colonialist steps of the Elizabethans, then in the Union of Crowns in 1603, the establishment of the American colonies of the 17th century and the Raj of the 19th, and the age of British global hegemon which ensued – not because the people were seduced thereby but because the landed class and the emerging new merchant class were. They, of course, sought to monopolise political power in their own interests, and the interests of those like them; and if not against the contrary interests of the body of the people certainly to the exclusion of them. From Reform in 1832 to the Jewish Relief Act of 1858, formal suffrage had no explicit ethnic British component beyond the bland and ubiquitous, catch-all references to “the people”. There is a prior form of words defining the people in the Coronation Oath Act of 1688 (see Note 1), but the derivational context there is of the sovereign power in the land who all constitutional powers consent to serve. The sovereign is a fixed constitutional entity. The demos is altogether a more fluid entity. ²² Act 1 Scene 4 of Hamlet, in which Hamlet tells Horatio that a nation’s customs should bring honour upon it:
²³ As handed down from on high by then Chancellor Gordon Brown himself at the Commonwealth Club in 27th February 2007:
²⁴ Prior to the turn to civicism, the demos was the political body of our people and a principal repository, therefore, of our shared natural interests (ie, genetic interests reaching beyond temporal issues of class and economics), by which those elected to rule could, in their contemplation of the national interest, be informed and guided. Instead, today only the foreign interlopers vote according to their ethnic genetic interests, and only those votes and those interests inform the thoughts of the political class. But that is OK, you see, because that’s all in line with the approved civic values of equality and fairness and wotnot, whereas if we vote according to our interests that’s “prejudice”, “hate”, “exclusion” and all the other cretinously formulaic, self-serving garbage that is routinely directed at us. Comments:2
Posted by mancinblack on Sun, 26 Jul 2020 15:06 | #
Is a classic piece of English understatement GW. I doubt that recourse to the UN Genocide Convention would prove to be helpful either. You would need to demonstrate dolus specialis - special intent- on the part of government to commit genocide and given that economic migration and the granting of asylum and refugee status are supported by UN, I don’t see how that would be possible. 3
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 26 Jul 2020 15:32 | # While I am sure that’s true, invoking the UN’s Genocide Convention brings our just concern to the world stage and audience to witness the injustice and where it is that international convention and institutions need to be re-worked, worked around if not brought to account themselves. 4
Posted by mancinblack on Sun, 26 Jul 2020 15:48 | # Sure, the utility of the ‘White Genocide’ meme is just that. It attracts public attention to the implications of uncontrolled, mass immigration but you can’t call that genocide, so why cite the Convention? ‘native species to a habitat’ would be a better starting point. 5
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 26 Jul 2020 16:14 | #
Ok, I can agree, but I didn’t talk about White Genocide, and I invoked the UN convention as a specificatory structure [if the likes of the UN is worth anything] to bring the legitimacy of our cause into the international light, the ultimate court of opinion, to mitigate gas-lighting. Articulation with reference to its convention, even where met with the obstructions that you anticipate, can serve as a supportive argument for warrant to be established by other means, other means which should be pursued irrespective. We are Europeans, we do not wait for permission to defend ourselves. We establish the warrant. 6
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 26 Jul 2020 17:28 | # Your argument that we should not waste too much time in hopes that the UN will be the means of our salvation is well taken. I did overstate the “specificatory structure” by referring to treating it as the supreme warrant: “the United Nations declaration of rights and laws against genocide, which Mark and Laura would be familiar with, as the supreme warrant upon which you would write” I stand corrected. It is not the supreme warrant, it is building block, it can provide for a supportive argument. 7
Posted by mancinblack on Sun, 26 Jul 2020 18:28 | # We could enlist the UN Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which isn’t legally binding and is intended for indigenous minorities. However the demographic changes in England will ensure an English minority in the not too distant future, at least in our cities and towns. We could expect the ‘nation of immigrants’ line to be used in opposition but we have DNA test results to confirm otherwise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_on_the_Rights_of_Indigenous_Peoples 8
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 26 Jul 2020 19:33 | # Well, gentlemen, a few responses. First, Daniel, the issue of warrant is dealt with principally under consent under a separate argument, thus: Where is our consent ... what happened to the social contract? It does not require much constitutional knowledge to understand that without the legitimising consent of the governed some form of dictatorship obtains. In a modern representative democracy any government which consistently and deliberately abuses the principle of consent is operating far beyond its rightful authority and has entered a crisis of legitimacy. PA has already understood this, as exemplified by its telling piece of psephological activism, “We were never asked”. But beyond that lies the corollary to any governmental crisis of legitimacy, which is that it is the people, behind the shield of their constitution, who are obligated to resolve the crisis and restore legitimacy. Consent, as the character of the people’s authorisation of authority, is essentially instructing and assumes an abiding relationship of supremacy of ruled over ruler. Always, consent is contingent on the exercise of the power of the state for the benefit of the people. If freely given, even a people’s fealty towards its monarch, though he may exercise absolute power, constitutes consent. In a modern-era European political state some form of instruction to authority from the greater number of the people is required to point out where the latter’s interests lie. At one extreme that can be highly active, as for example in Swiss democracy with its serial use of referendums¹⁵. At the other it can be some form of investiture as, say, in the case of the governing constitutional monarchies of the late 17th and 18th century Britain. In such cases it is enough, to paraphrase the 19th century Anglo-Canadian constitutional historian Goldwin Smith, that the people award themselves a constitution within which the monarch’s exercise of state power is trammelled. Of course, the model of investiture in use today is that of a limited-term parliament of elected local representatives. Since 1973 our model has, in addition, been equipped with the recourse to ad hoc referendums on specific and seminal constitutional matters. We should note here that there are three bases for the executive to return its power of decision to the people via a referendum. The first is constitutional change (remember the constitution belongs to the people, not to the executive or parliament). The second is the arising of a question of sufficient magnitude to be judged by the executive and parliament to lie outside their constitutional competence. The third is the failure of the executive and/or parliament to act for the benefit of the people, and in consequence the break-down of the contract of trust (by name, the social contract) between ruler and ruled. Such a break-down can never be the fault of the ruled, whose moral character is a fixed point of reference. Only the ruler can suffer failures of character, and conceive personal ends outside that contract by which its authority is legitimised. Social contract theory derives from Rousseau and Locke, among others, although the basis of the idea was current in Plato’s time. It was championed in the 20th century by John Rawls, also among others. But its guiding principle roots to the 17th century Dutch philosopher Hugo Grotius, who argued that rights do not belong to authority to bestow upon the person but are the possession of the person. The people seem always to have known that rights – certainly the basic, existential rights - are fundamental enough not just to be held by the person but to be its inalienable and common attribute. Hence the long history of bloody and rarely successful revolts against unjust authority all across the Europe of the Middle Ages. In England these run from acts of resistance to the Normans, who responded with the murderous Harrying of the North in the winter of 1069-70, through Watt Tyler’s rebellion to that of Robert Kett in Norfolk. Rebellion is in our blood. Consent and rebellion are two sides of the same peasant’s coin, the former paid to authority in return for holding to the beneficial contract, the latter for breaking with it. In our age the contract relies upon the power of representative democracy and the suffrage to lend form, and form justice, to the labours of government, and thereby provide a peaceful and beneficial life to the people. It is, however, not at all a given that representative democracy and the suffrage will automatically and unfailingly function to that end. It can and does fail. Most commonly, the people will be gulled by candidates for government who know they cannot obtain electoral support if they present themselves honestly. It also happens in democracies that the people grow complacent and unmindful, lapsing over time into a presumption for benefit where in reality little or none exists. They may then be repaid by a government freeing itself from its side of the contract while continuing to insist on the people holding to theirs. What will inevitably follow will be government in the name of objectives and interests other than those of the people, and thence the descent into tyranny and injustice. Such a government will, of course, still claim that its policies have the consent of the majority. But government can say what it wants, it remains the sole right and privilege of the people to decide whether that is true. In that respect, there is artificial consent and then there is authentic consent. In fact, there are two forms of each: i) Implicit consent: the happy dispensation when the natural, commonsensical opinion of the people is known and shared by authority and present in all its thinking. It is the quietist, mutually trusting norm on which the social contract most comfortably and securely rests. ii) Manufactured consent: not consent at all but the ancient and universal practise of communicating to the people the opinion or belief of those who hold power (typically government or church) by means of the strict control of information channels. That opinion or belief is then upheld as the free expression of a fully-informed populace. When the source is governmental and the duration of the propaganda effectively permanent (so the communicated opinion is formative and not limited to some passing matter) it generally indicates the presence of some source of extreme stress and instability in the national life, which government is anxious to massage away. iii) Constructed consent: Again not real consent but actual false representation produced either by a rigid and systemic dictate reinforced by the required level of state violence, or simply by including only opinions congruent with the authority’s opinion and excluding majority incongruent opinion on the grounds of some novel moral illegitimacy. vi) Explicit consent/dissent: the real, freely-formed and freely-given opinion and will of the majority. Today, our polity exhibits forms of manufactured and constructed consent, but the latter is most prevalent, and that prevalence is increasing. The tyranny of the corrupt authority has been privatised and out-sourced to the big on-line platforms, which reflect back to the ruling elites only their opinions and feed the illusion that these are also shared by the people. Historically, explicit consent/dissent functions to correct periods of tyranny and injustice when the norm of implicit consent is rejected by the rulers and falls (or is pushed) into disuse, to be replaced by the deceptions of manufactured or constructed consent. The people’s explicit, corrective statement of its opinion occurred most recently in the General Election of 2019 after a long and shameful passage of ministerial and parliamentary betrayal¹⁶, and before that in the EU referendum of 2016 when four decades of unwanted European integration was rejected in the teeth of the most determined effort by the political, liberal, and corporate Establishments to manufacture the consent they wanted. In our system to supply consent is to warrant authority, just as the supply of dissent is to withdraw the warrant from authority. It is the very function of sovereign peoplehood. Our faithless MPs today would no doubt be content to see our people substituted in true Brechtian style¹⁷ by a less troublesome and self-aware replacement. So while we have political breath in our body a correction must be precipitated. If that cannot be done, or it fails anyway, we are morally obligated to act to overthrow government entirely. A “populist” revolution is not necessarily unconstitutional, for there is never the obligation to live under deadly tyranny and injustice. Interestingly, in 1998 Tony Blair’s government unwittingly acknowledged in statute that an ethnic lock on unwanted outcomes is perfectly possible. In the Good Friday Agreement of 1998, the right of the Unionist majority in Northern Ireland not to be railroaded out of political union with Great Britain and in to union with Ireland was protected while they constitute a voting majority in the North:
So consent for Irish unification has to be obtained from a majority taken across the two ethnic groups in the North, as well as and separately from the people of the South. It is, therefore, inherent in the Agreement that although a majority expresses at the polls as a plurality of individual voters, consent applies, or also applies, at the “community” (ie, ethnic) level as a mechanism for preserving or changing the national status quo. Further, it is implicit that the pursuit of group interests is legitimate and is not to be portrayed by government as mere “prejudice” or “bigotry”, even when that group is the majority. That is the legal precedent which the Agreement sets. It is important and applies not a whit less to our circumstance now. In fact, our case that government must refer its race, immigration, and population policy to the native British for consent to be given - or not given - is stronger than the case that London and Dublin must respect the will, maintained at the ballot box, of the majority Ulster Protestant community to remain in union with Great Britain. That is because the effect upon us of the policy in question is not only constitutional, political and national but also existential. All four of those effects, as they apply to us, will be examined in sub-section g below. But let us note here that the fourth is the key determinant. Sans our explicit consent it can never be legitimate for government to, first, deluge our towns and cities with foreign peoples, even to the point of closing off our existent potential while, as a function of that, disqualifying the particular native and constitutional meaning of our person by their rhetorically-stated cant about racial prejudice (and even now “systemic racism” and white “supremacism”, “privilege” and “fragility”). Whether under international law it can be legal is also a nice question.¹⁸ 9
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 26 Jul 2020 19:48 | # It may help to explain that I am viewing consent as a separate issue from democracy, the first being an active right a la Grotius, the second being an instrument. The problem I raised is that instrumentality is more difficult to propose when only negative arguments can be employed (the positive argument based in constitutional right belonging to the opposition). 10
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 26 Jul 2020 19:53 | # On the question of the genocide convention it does have its place in the paper, but it’s in the footnotes to that section on consent, right at the very end actually. This is the corresponding note: ¹⁸ Jewish activism has a doleful, shameless history in race legislation But then there is Raphael Lemkin, a rare human being and the father of the 1948 Genocide Convention, who managed to look past the tragedy of the camps in the east and see other ways of stamping out the life of a whole people. He wrote:
When legal experts sought to embody Lemkin’s expansive view in their drafts for the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide they eventually agreed the following:
The “nice question” is how the political Establishment here (and indeed, political Establishments all across the West) can logically hold to their defence that what is happening to us demographically (and to every people of European descent) is not only not calculated but is not happening at all, or if it is happening it is really only an unfortunate and unavoidable effect of migration, or if it isn’t exactly unavoidable it’s not something to which decent people give any thought, or if decent people have to give thought to it because they are in government and they are elected by the natives to deal with all that sort of stuff, well … erm … ah ... 11
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 26 Jul 2020 19:58 | # The UN Declaration of 2007 is also quoted in the footnotes. Like Manc, I think its utility is tainted by its very specialised application. But it is another signal that our rulers do actually agree with our worldview when it is convenient to them. In the long struggle PA will have if they take this project on they will have ample opportunity to explore these little hypocrisies. 12
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 26 Jul 2020 20:07 | # While you’re putting this effort behind PA, a guy who maintains those to be his favorite three books, and that to be the greatest story never told, is an unfortunate messenger. I’m not happy to see him have that failing, that Achilles heel, but it would be a good idea to somehow deal with it. Do you suppose that he could be persuaded to think better of it? 13
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 26 Jul 2020 20:08 | # I have a plan for that, Daniel ... Luke 15:11–32. 14
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 26 Jul 2020 20:51 | # ...I’m a bit grossed-out that a Christian parable would be invoked after all of its misdirection that you, yourself have observed, but… 17
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 26 Jul 2020 21:12 | # But I still don’t feel that the democracy argument is strong enough on a stand-alone basis. OK with the consent argument, which I am happy with (although its writing style is more constitutional lawyer than incendiary 18th century pamphleteer - I do think that political minds get more from incendiary pamphleteers). But the former is meant to be a distinct line of argument - one of ten - that can be taken to the people. I will keep it under review and give more thought to your own thoughts above. 18
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 26 Jul 2020 21:23 | # It’s not about defending democracy per se. The reason to invoke democracy are two fold. 1. It’s theirs, the liberal sacred cow that we can make them live up to; hit them over the head with. 2. A reasoned form of democracy (limited to those competent and understanding that certain things are not up for the vote - markedly, group bounds, particular qualities and numbers of the group members) can work well for us as it provides for accountability, feedback and correctivity along the lines of maintaining our ethnonational borders and thus the calibration of our people. I do stand by the arguments that I have made above (in bold) as strong warrant: That the right of species survival translates to respect for the natural fact that species attempt to extend their genetic kind into the future. And regarding Native British, that they have established warrant on the world stage having played a significant part and having made enormous sacrifice in the World Wars to uphold democratic nationalism as opposed to tyranny. 19
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 26 Jul 2020 21:38 | # ...starting a stream in about 10 - 15 minutes for anyone who is available to join in….. 20
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 26 Jul 2020 21:58 | # No, it’s not about defending democracy, as you say. Yes, it’s about placing the weapon of democracy in the hands of our people. But the other side has a block on that because of the civic terms in which the 40 + Representation of the People Acts since 1832 have been couched. They can fairly argue that British electoral statute does not accommodate the ethnic principle (although that is challengeable on the basis that ethnicity is implicit to it until, say, the 1948 Nationality Act). It’s not actually that different to anything the Beltway folk might say if WNs were presenting the same arguments. Anyway, I did make the implicit argument, especially at the end of the piece. But probably the better answer I found was to expose the astonishingly selective and abusive application of the democratic principle as a means of escaping from accountability for deeds the pols know very well would be punished at the ballot box. The problem with it is that it’s a negative argument that doesn’t quite go on to connect to the positive demand “The People Must Decide”. I should also stress that we are not seeking to reform democracy, just to make our people understand that the pols have to submit to their demand to determine their own future. 21
Posted by Shakespeare on Mon, 27 Jul 2020 08:19 | # ...in times more secure against invasion by modern transit and manichean breaching of the walls…
22
Posted by Fr. John+ on Tue, 28 Jul 2020 16:03 | # “All peoples have the right of self-determination. “ No, actually, they don’t. If they did, all countries would be equal, and we would not have had the France of Louis XIV, the British Empire, or the post-WWII USA. Ps. 22:28 makes clear who alone has the right of self-determination- YHWH God, and his son, Jesus Christ. The entire paper is bullsh*t because the premise (and the U.N.) is bogus. “The State is in essence an auxiliary instrument protecting the Church, the only Ark of salvation, and facilitating her spread. “ - Vladimir Moss 23
Posted by DanielS on Tue, 28 Jul 2020 18:44 | # Fr. John, while it is true that all peoples do not merely have the right to self-determination, people of good will will agree that nations, especially where situated from ancient times, typically should have a right to maintain their sovereignty and their species; this opinion is arrived at by a national population intelligent and conscientious enough to believe their kind merits survival provided they do not deny other nation species the right to survival. In the case of the four native species kinds of Great Britain, there for thousands of years prior to the affectation of Christianity, their warrant to survive and flourish is well established through the many gifts they have brought to the world’s peoples, in large correction for the blindness of Judeo-Christian, modernist, imperialist times which had visited harm on people, but remains nevertheless to history where the populace did not on the whole know better to see through the Judeo-supremacist trick of Christianity, which used their muscle to cause inadvertent wreckage for its anti national universalism. Despite that, the good nature of the native British would mollify relations over time (where not being utterly taken advantage of, typically as a result of the Christian hoodwink). But ultimately, the natives of Great Britain have absolutely established their warrant to exist as a sovereign nation for their distinct native, genetic kind, for the sacrifice and victory against supremacist imperialism indeed, in the two World Wars. On the world stage, they have established eminent warrant of Great Britain as a sovereign nation among the world’s nations, this one for its four native kinds. Anyone. Anyone who would dare to suggest otherwise - especially Jews/Israelis, given the circumstance - who would render such ghastly misjudgment, should be utterly ashamed and ostracized, granted no political determination in the internal political affairs of Britain. As you have long ago been appraised, Majorityrights rejects Christianity; it is an immoral appropriation and misdirection of European moral order in order to impose Abrahamic/ Noahide jurisdiction, an affectation from the middle east which has no bonafide authority over the people of any European nation; which has imposed itself by deception. Even if Jesus did exist, which he did not, he would have no moral authority over England’s people to grant them their authority ..but then, this fabled character would not have the natives of Britain occupied with such mundane concerns as this life, genetic distinction, legacy and national borders to responsibly steward their kind, sovereign from the Abrahamic beast and servitude to the Jewish lie that is Jesus as salvation from some sin that we are guilted with, that they say that we are born with. No, the power and warrant comes from the union of natives and their pact, that their union’s bounds are the national and genetic bounds. All species seek their survival and extension into the future and while that may not be a natural right, it is a natural fact of inclination, and healthy where it can function symbiotically* with the same desire of other species to survive and extend themselves into the future. * As opposed to the self destructive obsequiousness imposed by the golden rule, pivotal of the manichean trickery by which its Jewish purveyors take advantage of the goyim. 24
Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 06 Aug 2020 04:15 | # Fr John - Jesus was a Jewish mountebank : https://www.revilo-oliver.com/news/2012/06/afterthoughts-on-afterlife/
25
Posted by Rivers of Bengal: Daughter of Albion on Sat, 15 Aug 2020 01:31 | # Daughter of Albion nominates Enoch Powell as figure of British patriotism to rally about. 26
Posted by Al Ross on Wed, 19 Aug 2020 05:40 | # Many thanks for this. Every ethno - nationalist who possesses any intellectual rigour must be an obvious opponent of Colonialism. Still, the Brits did not too badly. When a British judge was sentencing Hindu perpetrators of Thuggee or Suttee he would admonish the subject race thus : ” Every time you commit these Heathen obscenities , I will don my Black Cap,” 27
Posted by Daughter of Albion: Let's Call it Genocide on Sun, 13 Sep 2020 09:01 | # Post a comment:
Next entry: Brutus is absolutely correct to separate concern for the species, Native English Nationalism, but…
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by DanielS on Sun, 26 Jul 2020 12:46 | #
I’m a bit irritated at having my name and input associated with what GW calls a weak argument, so let me add some strength to what I already have suggested.
Especially when I consider all the merit that has been ignored of my work, when I consider its uniqueness and importance, my head begins to spin at the travesty that anyone might try to sweep it aside and bury its significance.
I will not have my efforts associated with this word weakness, especially when my platform always has recourse to that source of deepening and strengthening which GW now invokes - social construction.
Now, I maintain that preservation of native species is strong warrant (not weak).
Nor is my argument redundant (where, for that matter, did GW EVER greet my ongoing discussion of accountability and warrant with anything but radical dismissal until now?)
I encourage anyone to scroll down and have a look at my posts before anyone attempts to dismiss them as unimportant or unoriginal.
When I have time later on, I will add to my argument for the warrant of protecting and preserving the native European genus and species.
For the moment, let me say that the 41,000 years of genus and the thousands if not tens of thousand of years of evolution of the native national (species) kinds is both profound and precarious when contrasted with the destruction that internationalist liberalism would visit upon them.
The injustice to these natural kinds and the social capital carried forth through millennia, from ancient wars of more primitive motive to refinement of the native kind, through the sacrifice and toil of the species under the popular misconception of natural philosophy which allowed defacto tyranny of elitists to act in social disregard for their common interests and their long and profound contribution to their social capital, human ecology, a social system which in true natural regard, would defend their species as any species naturally do, with the intention of advancing their species kind into the future, and to hold to account those who would give native species over to the whims of the international market and the means to temporarily escape the disastrous ecological consequence of their uncontrolled liberal experimentation.
There is much that needs to be said in defense of the native human ecology in Great Britain and its evolution - thousands and tens of thousands of years in the island nation; noting not only again the VAST sacrifices that ordinary natives have made in day to day struggle in the native context; not only in ancient wars against more primitive motives to establish fitness on the homeland; but in the valor of the World Wars, earning their ultimate warrant to survive as a distinct people, native nation species among native nation species on the world stage, having defended the democratic rights of the native British to maintain their interests against unabashed tyranny; in notable alliance with other ancient nations similarly concerned to maintain their native speciation’ as upheld by the accountability of true democratic correctivity of the people as opposed to the dubious promises of tyrants openly or clandestinely based on the natural fallacy of might makes right, which can only be offset by the reckoning and collaborative effort of people sure not to be sidetracked from the corrective responsibility that impingement upon the borders and boundaries of the group will prompt.
There is much that I can say, but that is enough for now, and if the likes of the UN is worth anything, it will be moved by this sort of warrant to take immediate measures to protect human species against the runaway liberal experimentation and its weaponization by those who would maintain it, whether in naivete or in disingenuous promise of “progress”, the very real evidence of destruction of which - individuals, genus, species - be damned as “necessary” causalities along the way.
....such is the kind of argumentation that will warrant defense of the four native British kinds against the ravages of anachronistic “modernist” philosophy and its weaponization run rough shod over them, for the crass gains of the few, to the vast destruction of the human ecology of the many, at the expense of the pervasive ecology of all: the need for such defense in international recognition for the precariousness of our evolution 41,000 in genus and thousands and tens of thousands of years in species is warranted and brought to account to international legal concern.
GW asked me:
and I answered: