Majorityrights News > Category: British Politics

Banter Nationalism 89, Gentleman Adam

Interesting round table conducted by Brutus the Eternal Anglo, 5 July 2020.

Observing that Marxism’s internationalist trajectory aims ultimately at the withering-away of the state, Majorityrights has put forth an ethnonationalist platform pro-actively, one which I call White Left Ethnonationalist in order to distinguish it from Jewish power and influence, from Abrahamism of any denomination, from Nazism, from scientism and nutty conspiracy theories. The concept White Left Ethnonationalism places only a bit more emphasis on social accountability in order to give the fact of our social indebtedness a modicum more attention, compensatory of what we are used to and what we have been allowed as a people in order to facilitate borders for our people (once bordered, our emergent qualities will take care of most problems); and this platform also corresponds to anti-supremacism and anti-imperialism. As such, it is consonant with international nationalism - nationalism for all peoples. It can also be consonant with Dangerfield’s newly coined term and concept, “Cultural Nationalism.”

Because it is defined by ourselves, it is drastically different from economic Marxism; we can have private property, free enterprise, outcomes according to merit; and naturally it is the opposite of Cultural Marxism; on the contrary, it is pro-White for both our genus and species of ethnonationalism; facilitating the interest of our people and our natural predilections, individual liberty, science and tech, etc.

Again, for all those who have unwittingly gone along with the Jewish program to rail against “the left” and “lefties” your efforts are not in vain as it is easily understood that you speak of the internationalist/anti-nationalist, anti-White left.

And we reclaim our terminology of the left for our definition as nationalists, to wrest its correspondence with social capital and unionization thereof, thus providing a structure of accountability, social correctivity and thereby group maintenance along with other positive and necessary social features that have been obstructed for our people; while averting the Jewish trap of reaction - and their “solutions” into sundry, destabilizing right wing perfidy, back doors from accountability and means for their infiltration, coercion and direction, whether identifying as right or turd positiononism.

Nativist Concern: One of the more talented of the somewhat recent arrivals to the J.Q.

Not highly original but pretty solid in his understanding of the J.Q. His third positionism does, unfortunately, provide backdoors for right wing elements to be used against nativist, ethnonational concerns.* It would be good to talk to him.

* For a classic example of his formulaic (and latently disastrous) worldview (106:34):

He exercises 2020 hindsight to suggest that World War II shouldn’t have been fought, but fails to consider that perhaps it was Hitler who should not have been attacking other nations. There are a host of right wing reactions vulnerable to misdirection with his presumption.

Given all that we now know and see, the mass brainwashing and cultural appropriation by Zionism of English patriotism through one of the most rousing, inspiring and ostensibly patriotic English hymns, “Jerusalem”, looms horrifying - as a hymn to a false religion misdirecting English interests to our enemy, captivating the nation from its Royalty, in holy matrimony, to the commoners singing in overflow outside Westminster Abbey.

Even if the significance of what I have brought to bear has thus far been misunderstood by GW, the significance of his radically native English loyalty is not lost on me (and his resistance to my efforts perhaps partly explained); appreciated all the more as an occasion like this, the mass singing of the hymn “Jerusalem” at the Royal Wedding reveals the kind of appropriation and the daunting, egregious misdirection that it is up against.

The Royal Wedding - Jerusalem (29 April 2011)

Harry and the undifferentiating of the gentiles

We’ve discussed this before, and while I basically agreed with GW, of the song I was still captured somewhat for its beauty and inspiration, its fascinating interplay of paganism, Christianity and patriotism… such that I did not fully appreciate in this case the significance of GW’s stance against Christianity’s historically enmeshed, nefarious influence - de-ethnonationalizing, universalizing, blending away the gentile into undifferentiated mass, powerless to organize against the “chosen ones”, etc.

Commenting on GW’s post: The shaping of European altruism in left political form, part 1

Posted by Leon Haller on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 16:39 | # 2

OK, back for literally a minute. Reading about the sickness of PC, here as elsewhere, why do you, GW, never weigh in on my White Zion argument (ie, that WNs of all persuasions - conservative, Christian, nationalist, pagan, NSM - will never be a majority of any sovereign polity, and thus our race is doomed unless there is some kind of emigration-ingathering so that we might attain a sovereign majority somewhere)?

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 16:57 | # 3

I’m English, Leon.  England is Zion to me, not that I like or need Jewish symbols.

Posted by DanielS on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 17:30 | # 4

GW: I’m English, Leon.  England is Zion to me, not that I like or need Jewish symbols.

That was funny

...“And did those feet in ancient time, Walk upon England’s mountains green?”....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CN11bI1_sZo

Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 17:49 | # 5

No they didn’t, Daniel.

Let me now respond to that pithy remark with great respect.

At the time, I responded:

Posted by daniel on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 18:15 | # 6

GW: No they didn’t, Daniel.

That was funny too..

No, I guess not, but a good tune, rather inspirational in its own way…and I like the Blake poem as it goes back and forth from Christianity to paganism from verse to verse - it can be seen, in a sense, as urging Christians/Christianity to conform to English nationalist interests.

...but neither do I recommend that strategy. Enough middle eastern influence to sort out as it is.

You already have quite a temple mount there in the London Square Mile

Somewhat better, I did add:

Posted by daniel on Mon, 25 Jun 2012 21:23 | # 8

While I am seeing the humor in those few quips by GW, I must also say that I am moved by this essay. It is rather not funny - heart wrenching.

As GW values the pithy, precise and natural, let us bend our hermeneutic knee where it is due: “No they didn’t”

The lyrics to Jerusalem:

And did those feet in ancient time,
Walk upon England’s mountains green?
And was the holy lamb of god
On England’s pleasant pastures seen?
And did the countenance divine,
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here
Among these dark satanic mills?
Bring me my bow of burning gold!
Bring me my arrows of desire!
Bring me my spear, oh clouds unfold!
Bring me my chariot of fire!
I will not cease from mental fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand
Til we have built Jerusalem
In England’s green and pleasant land.

  - William Blake

Inspiring a boomer generation with mixed and mxing messages -
Emerson, Lake and Palmer: Jerusalem.

Below the fold is the moving article of GW. And while I respect his patriotic resistance in the daunting face of such grand deception and defrauding of the English people, I must issue the caveat that his fight has been transferred mistakenly against the resource that I bring to bear. Though he does not elaborate on what he maintains to be “the left political form”, we must be assured by now that he does not mean an ethnonationalist left, but an international one.

I always take for grated the maintaining of the genus and species (thus nationalism and native national borders) where I use the term “left” to attune consciousness to our interests. For GW’s penchant for strawmanning (lets be nice for a moment and call it Socratic challenge), it has taken volumes of repetition to assert that I am not talking about Marxism/ and its internationalist, supranational leftism, which is liberal with regard to our national borders.

I should have been able to take it for granted, as I was clear that I never advocated doing away with the borders of our people, be they racial genus or national species. But given the strawmanning of my potion, I have made what I mean by White Left explicit - i.e., White Left EthnoNationalism; and I have been explicit as to why I take that position.

That’s mostly irrelevant in this moment, but for the fact that “the form of left” is mentioned in GW’s title -

READ MORE...

With Dangerfield narrating apparently.

BBC Sounds, Released On: 08 May 2020 and Available for over a year

Nicky Campbell talks to 5 Live listeners as they tell their extraordinary personal stories about the end of war in Europe

Daughter of Albion: War’s End

Pew Research Fact Tank@FactTank

The number of living World War II veterans in the U.S. has dwindled from about 939,000 in 2015 to about 300,000 today. https://pewrsr.ch/3ch1jVk

READ MORE...

Ignoring the elephant in the room

Priti Patel today signalled a fresh crackdown on illegal migrants crossing the English Channel as she also vowed to tackle ‘vexatious’ asylum claims.

The Home Secretary conceded that there are currently higher numbers of people trying to cross the stretch of water.

But she said she is working to agree a scheme with Paris which would allow Britain to return illegal migrants to France after they have come ashore in the UK or if they are picked up while at sea.

She also vowed to focus Home Office efforts on combatting ‘vexatious methods’ and ‘vexatious claims’ around illegal immigration and asylum.

More…

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8270077/Priti-Patel-signals-fresh-crackdown-illegal-migrants-crossing-English-Channel.html

Well, good luck with that. Patel, like every other politician is ignoring the elephant in the room - the UN Refugee Convention 1951 and the 1967 Protocol, to which both Britain and France are signatories. The Convention states…

The principle of non-refoulement [pushbacks] is so fundamental that no reservations or derogations may be made to it. It provides that no one shall expel or return a refugee against his or her will in any manner whatsoever, to a territory where he or she fears threats to life or freedom

But France is a safe country so they are not genuine refugees ?

A refugee does not cease to be a refugee simply because they leave one host country to travel to another. A person is a refugee because of the lack of protection by their country of origin.

The Convention also states the basic rights of refugees as going well beyond ‘physical safety’ and include freedom of movement within the state, rights to work, access to housing, education, travel documents and more. The absence of ‘means of subsistence’ is justification for moving on and seeking a ‘decent human life’.

Illegal ?

The Convention further stipulates that, subject to specific exceptions, refugees should not be penalised for their illegal entry or stay. This recognises that the seeking of asylum can require refugees to breach immigration rules.

When it comes to refugee status feelings matter. Does the individual feel safe ? This isn’t lost on the likes of Amnesty International and other NGO’s known to tutor would be refugees on the right things to say and how to behave during assessments. Amnesty recorded the words of Josue, a 53 year old from Honduras, on the Mexico - Us border..

I don’t feel safe here. Anything can happen, because I’m Honduran. The police here are very corrupt and they steal the money of lots of people.

The 1951 Convention gives human rights lawyers the upper hand in any court case concerning asylum and refugee status, as in April of last year, when a US federal court issued a preliminary injunction banning the further implementation of Trump’s ‘Remain in Mexico’ aka the ‘Migrant Protection Protocol’.

It’s hard to accept any politician or political party as being serious about ending the ‘refugee’ problem unless they first announce that they are withdrawing the country from the 1951 Convention. The current system only really benefits organized crime - people smugglers and lawyers - and is unfit for purpose. Free of the Convention, countries can decide for themselves whether or not to accept refugees and if they believe an individual or group of people are worthy of refugee status and are willing to provide sanctuary, they can cut out the middle men and go collect; which is something Britain did for the Ugandan Asians and Hong Kong Chinese.

- Report by mancinblack