Majorityrights News > Category: British Politics

Kemi Badenoch, a person of Nigerian descent raised in Nigeria and the United States, has been elected to succeed Rishi Sunak, a person of Indian descent, as leader of the Conservative Party, a globalist political party in Britain.  She was elected by the Conservative Association membership, which numbers 130,750 lucky, lucky people.  They preferred her to Robert Jenrick, a lawyer previously dubbed Robert Generic but for the purposes of the leadership election a go-get-em anti-immigration candidate.  The Nigerian person received 53,806 votes to 41,388 for Border Guard Man. Turnout was only 72.8 per cent.

The joyful news was received by the commentariat at the Daily Mail with, it must be said, a degree of scepticism.  At 6.00pm this evening the thread to the main article was topped by the following contribution:

Apparently, Telegraph readers are also sceptical.  The “Most Liked” tab on Nigel Farage’s reaction to the news produced this less than enthusiastic endorsement for our new heroine of the right:

As befits the Torygraph, a slew of slavish Badenoch articles appeared on-line.  The thread to the leader piece was, however, less than encouraging for loyalist journos:

The Daily Express helpfully ran a poll for online readers, asking “Do you think Kemi Badenoch is the right person to lead the Tory Party?”

“Yes - 39%
No - 54%
Don’t know - 7%

And so on.  Badenoch parliamentary career began at the 2017 General Election.  Just two years later she was being tipped as a possible contender for the 2019 Conservative Party leadership election.  She did not run that time round, supporting Michael Gove instead.  She secured a cabinet post by 2021, and the following year entered the leadership contest following the resignation of Boris Johnson.  She made it to the fourth round of voting.  Now she has gone all the way.  Inevitably, she is a WEF attendee.

From the PA website this afternoon:

An Open Letter to Michael Gove

Today in parliament you listed Patriotic Alternative as one of five groups in Britain that are being assessed as to whether they fall under the Government’s new definition of ‘extremism’. The fact that such actions are being taken without due diligence or parliamentary oversight or debate is anti-democratic in itself, but more worrying is that from this point onward anyone rejecting what the Government terms ‘liberal democracy’ could fall foul of this draconian legislation.

This presents a major threat to both freedom of speech and freedom of association and is a dangerous step toward a totalitarian state where those who do not adhere to state doctrine are silenced and have their human rights curtailed.

This would all be bad enough; however you went further and used your parliamentary Privilege to make several completely misleading claims about Patriotic Alternative, which we seek to rectify here.

Your first false claim is that Patriotic Alternative seeks ‘forced repatriation’ of ethnic minority groups. This is completely and demonstrably false; we have a policy of voluntary repatriation for settled immigrants and the only people we seek to forcibly deport are illegal migrants and foreign criminals – something that the Conservative Party have repeatedly pledged to do but failed to make good on. We also oppose mass immigration – a view that is held by a large section of the voting population and something that the Conservative Party have again repeatedly pledged to get under control whilst in reality increasing net migration to new highs.

Your second claim is that Patriotic Alternative seek a ‘White ethnostate’. To clarify this, we state in our policies that:

“The British people are made up of the English, Northern Irish, Scottish and Welsh. These are the indigenous peoples of the United Kingdom and only they have an ancestral claim to it. The United Kingdom is the only place where the British people, and they alone, can realise their natural, cultural, religious and historical right to self-determination. As such, we will pass a Nation State Law to enshrine this principle and ensure the British people never become a minority or second-class citizens in their ancestral homeland.”

In short, we stake a claim to the ancestral homeland of our people and declare that our homeland should be governed for the benefit of our people.

You are an ardent supporter of the state of Israel, a state that has a nation-state law worded in a very similar way to the proposal that we are in favour of. If you support such a law for the Israeli people, why are you so offended that the indigenous people of the British Isles would also campaign for a similar law in order to protect our cultural and ethnic interests?

This would not be the creation of a ‘white ethnostate’ as you put it, but in fact ethno-states for the constituent nations of the British Isles – on the mainland that would be the English, the Scottish and the Welsh.

We believe that the indigenous people of these islands should never become a minority and should remain what we term a ‘super-majority’, this however does not mean that those of migrant descent would not remain here or that such people would be forcibly removed (unless under the conditions that they were here illegally or had committed crimes on British soil).

Your third claim was that we endorse ‘neo-Nazi ideology, we reject this claim. In fact, we have repeatedly attempted to register Patriotic Alternative as a political party in order to participate in the democratic process and stand in elections. It is however the Home Office, which currently operates under your very government, which has pressured the Electoral Commission in order to prevent us from registering as a political party – effectively denying us our democratic rights to stand in elections and also denying the public the right to vote for us. This represents a bureaucratic impediment to the democratic process that you claim to be in favour of.

Your final claim is that we ‘target minority groups for intimidation’. This is a complete and total fabrication. We are a lawful community group that campaigns on a range of issues. We have never targeted any group with violence or carried out acts that are intimidatory. In reality the very opposite is true. What’s more, we have members and supporters from ethnic minority backgrounds and have repeatedly reached out to other ethnic groups for discussions on issues such as immigration and multiculturalism.

Patriotic Alternative is wholeheartedly opposed to violence or confrontation and through our lawful activities we seek to engage with people who hold similar views and give those people a healthy and peaceful outlet for their justified frustrations with the current British political establishment.

Patriotic Alternative wish to be involved within the democratic process and the claim that we are ‘extremists’ is as absurd as it is worrying. To include peaceful community campaigning groups under this legislation is not only a threat to our human rights, but represents the creeping totalitarian nature of a government that brands itself as ‘Conservative’.

This is nothing more than communism via the back door.

We respectfully request that you remove our name from this list and that you put an end to this anti-democratic power grab that threatens to infringe on the rights of all British citizens who wish to speak freely and organise democratically.

Yours Sincerely.

I am a racially and ethnically aware Englishman.  I am not, therefore, anti-monarchical, because monarchy is genuinely inherent to the culture of power among the English, and the Scots and Welsh, and the Scots-Irish too.  Those of us - the vast majority - who are conscious of the fact are not generally the shifty and lightweight beings who might disrespect it in order to parade their, of course, terribly different and daring, not to mention radical republican values.  Therefore one can grant the dead monarch and the new monarch a certain historical import and even respect.  France is foundationally revolutionary.  Britain is foundationally monarchical.  To some subtle but substantive degree, these things are in the way that every Frenchman and every Briton comports himself in the world.

But beyond that affirmational fact, the French do enjoy a certain advantage.  They have rid themselves of an ancient appendix and need make no exception to the rule of their own government.  So the question inevitably arises: why do we cleave to a constitutional monarchy which has long ago relinquished the possibility of command, and which, today, cannot even pass a public opinion on the exercise of power in this land?  Why, indeed, have a monarch who is not even of the people’s blood, and for whom even the notion of representation of the people is shooed away by that of representation of the emotionally stiff and cold, formal machinery of state?  It’s a very British conundrum.  Obviously, those of our kind who are given to novelty ... those who are estranged in the modern ... cannot be persuaded of the virtue of continuity.  Those who are given to the Judaic prescription of equal-ness cannot be persuaded of hierarchy by heredity.  But in the minds of the rest of the British, who are the vast majority, there is some good in carrying forward the old investment of identity and fealty that adhered to the kings and queens of the ancient British past.  Certainly, our age does not have the same, direct tribal or semi-tribal connection.  But then on to the person of the monarch we project our yearning for that connection, which is a yearning for who we English, we Scots, we Welsh, we Scots-Irish are in our own-most being.  It might be obscured by the dust-storm of the modern, but we have a sense of it.  We just need something to point out the way.

Good monarchs and bad in that respect come and go.  A faithful and good one, on balance, has now departed, and quite likely a bad one - an earnest man, a sincere man, but confused and apprehensive - has already, and without a moments’ pause, taken up the royal burden.  We natives of this land are not his subjects.  Constitutionally, we are his sovereign and have been so since 1649, a fact which modern parliamentarians too rarely concede.  But, regardless of his undoubted weaknesses, we will extend our sovereign’s consent to him, and offer our fealty in return for his modelling of the truth and continuity of our nation, our blood and kind.  The French may fairly consider that absurd and anachronistic.  But we might then consider their civicism jejune and artificial, and we might even suspect that in some quiet and reflective corner of their national psyche a little envy abides.

There will be national mourning, and then, at some point over the next months, there will be formal majesty and circumstance as the new King is crowned.  The king of climate alarmism, some will say ... even the king of Davos.  But perhaps he will realise that he is no longer free to champion that cause.  There is, of course, no chance at all that he will ever cease to champion the foreignisation of his people’s home.

The centralised and totalistic nature of the British National Health Service make it uniquely suitable for large-scale top-down driven experiments and pilot tests.  This video by former investigative journalist zedphoenix:

... argues that documentary evidence in his possession and publicly available resources on-line reveal the intention to revolutionise health delivery across the country, based on the digitalisation groundworks laid by NHS England, NHSX and NHS Digital (the latter of two of which will merge into a single Transformation Directorate from May of this year).  Manifestly, the Covid crisis and its associated vaxxing had been key to launching a digital passporting system.  But NHSX went live three years ago, and the programme is rolling forward regardless of the failure with the virus to go the whole way.  The intent is unchanged. 

Much of the digitalisation/data issue has been discussed by Brian Gerrish and Co at UK Column since 2019 at least. But Zed’s additional documentation has enabled him to arrive at a much more complete picture of what seems all too likely to lie ahead.  That picture includes:

1. The shift from hospital treatment to home treatment.
2. Diagnosis and prescription only by AI, eventually without medical professional oversight.
3. The closure of local doctor’s surgeries and of the great majority of hospitals, and the redundancy of up to 75% of NHS staff.
4. Constant monitoring of all of us by means of “wearables” on our person (and, presumably, by implant at some point).
5. Food-intake and life-style dictate (which one would imagine would be linked to a programmable digital currency so alternative foods cannot be purchased by you and me.  It’s bugs or nothing.

... and so on, along the merry way to “Sustainable Development”.

None of this is subject to parliamentary debate.  No new laws need to be made, though one would hope that aspects of it should come before the Health and Social Care Parliamentary Committee.  Having said that, the committee has just taken evidence on the future of general practice, with an depressingly “look the other way” agenda of exploring “regional variation in general practice, the general practice workload, and the partnership model of general practice”.

If Zed’s right it’s going to take every lorry on the road and then some to get this stopped!

It seems to me that a Great Charter of Our Freedom, somewhat akin in form if not, of course, content to the Leveller’s Manifesto, is required to take out to all the people for agreement and signature, and that the above five government crimes in commission now constitute a fair basis for its Health section.  I might have a think about that.  One to put in the hands of Laurence Fox’s party, and let them go at it.

UPDATE

I’ve just been taking a look at the WEF health “platform” page, and here is the lead copy:

Transforming systems to keep more people healthy.

The World Economic Forum is committed to using new models of public-private collaboration to develop more resilient, efficient, and equitable healthcare systems.

We aim to move past our capital-intensive, hospital-centric healthcare delivery model, which is unsustainable and ineffective – and to create new opportunities to advance the use of data-enabled systems and virtual care.

So “the virus” which caused the Westminster government to lie to the people for two years, Big Pharma to grow terra-rich and the rest of us dirt poor, and about 17,000 deaths in reality, is all over bar the last few painless, entirely safe and obviously really, really necessary jabs.  They say.  But, then, they would because Boris Johnson’s political career is in desperate trouble.

He’s ordering the Royal Navy to seal off the Channel and stop the migrant invasion, too.  It’s amazing what a principle-free hypocrite ... sorry, a national leader can get done when he really wants to.  We all know that the Channel won’t be sealed for a moment, of course.  Still, those bites sound good, and that’s the main consideration.  Likewise, Boris has ordered Dorries to make a few right-wing harrumphing sounds about the biased BBC and its licence tax.  Probably nothing will ever be done.  But, y’know, it’s the perception that’s the thing.

Well, while pondering what to make of all this red meat, I have to take my hat off to the writer of the pithy top comment on the relevant ZH thread, one IAMEVERYONE, who simply asked us to:

Imagine a virus so deadly and contagious that it disappears when a politician is at risk of losing public office.

For that small mercy let us be grateful.  Others may be less so.  If the great lockdown wind-down winds its merry way to endemicity, and anything like normality circa March 2020 comes to pass, that will leave several other Western governments ... the ones who are currently bent on a mad war against the unvaxxed ... looking decidedly yesterday.  Klaus Blofeld, in his lair deep within the Schiahorn above Davos, must be absolutely livid.

At 9.35pm this evening the Telegraph posted the following news report, which echoes the position of the Great Barrington Declaration.  Remember that?

Fourth Covid jab: We can’t vaccinate the planet every six months, says JCVI chief
Further inoculations should not be offered until there is more evidence, says Sir Andrew Pollard, with priority given to the most vulnerable

Fourth Covid jabs should not be offered until there is more evidence, the head of Britain’s vaccine body has said - as he warned that giving boosters to people every six months was “not sustainable”.

In an interview with The Telegraph, Professor Sir Andrew Pollard, chairman of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), said “we need to target the vulnerable” in future, rather than giving boosters to all over-12s.

Sir Andrew said there was no point in trying to stop all infections, and that “at some point, society has to open up” ...

Wiki states that the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation  (JCVI) is:

an independent expert advisory committee that advises United Kingdom health departments on immunisation, making recommendations concerning vaccination schedules and vaccine safety. It has a statutory role in England and Wales, and health departments in Scotland and Northern Ireland may choose to accept its advice.

So its voice is important in government, and right now its recommendations seem to be contrary to current government policy, the opinion of SAGE and NHS practitioners.  The edifice is cracking.

A Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter?  The highest recognition in the honours system?  Well, you can protest the knighthood Boris Johnson is granting the Blair creature with one “signature” here at Change.org.

It waits to be seen whether whether Laurence Fox and Richard Tice can agree on enough to make a single offer to the electorate at the next General Election.  But to judge from this excellent offering about the cost and destructive consequences of Net Zero, Fox’s Reclaim Party are making a more professional fist of things in the meantime.