[Majorityrights News] Trump will ‘arm Ukraine to the teeth’ if Putin won’t negotiate ceasefire Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 12 November 2024 16:20.
[Majorityrights News] Alex Navalny, born 4th June, 1976; died at Yamalo-Nenets penitentiary 16th February, 2024 Posted by Guessedworker on Friday, 16 February 2024 23:43.
[Majorityrights Central] A couple of exchanges on the nature and meaning of Christianity’s origin Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 25 July 2023 22:19.
[Majorityrights News] Is the Ukrainian counter-offensive for Bakhmut the counter-offensive for Ukraine? Posted by Guessedworker on Thursday, 18 May 2023 18:55.
Except for the bit about Europe this is a good article. Federation would not destroy our sovereignty it would guarantee it, just as the rights of California or New York are protected by the federal constitution of the USA. - Bill Baillie
What is Real Nationalism? - James Caterill
From the BNP Website - https://bnp.org.uk/
The word ‘nation’ derives from the Latin for ‘to be born’, by which the Romans meant having roots in a common bloodline, rather than merely being born in the same place. The members of a nation invariably also share the same language, history, values and culture - including traditions and popular entertainment. Often they have the same religion or attitude to religion. These shared ancestral roots, experiences (good and bad) and aspirations combine to make the broad mass of people identify with the nation and with fellow members of it.
While the members of a nation often live under one government, the nation and the state are not the same thing. Nations can be subjected to foreign rule for centuries but still retain their identity and thirst for their freedom. The nation is what really matters, a living thing whose present owes both a debt to its past heroes and sacred duties to its as yet unborn future generations. The state is merely the form of government which the nation chooses, for the time being, as for it and for its future survival. In a healthy society without problems of external domination or an out-of-control elite, the form of government will reflect the traditions and the innate character of the people making the nation. The state and its personnel should serve the nation , not the other way round.
Shared culture is one of the most important building blocks of a strong nation, but it is not the only one. Modern scientific research is now identifying the specific genes for certain kinds of behaviour - conformism and individuality, for example. It shows that the proportion of such genes vary among different human populations. This doesn’t mean that any one group is ‘better’ than another, it does mean that human populations are different. The rebuttal of old Marxist egalitarianism proves that culture springs from the inborn nature of the people. Put simply, when large numbers of Brits went to India, they didn’t become Indian, either in terms of ethnic identity or culture. And if large numbers of Africans come to Britain, breathing English air or even being born in England can never make them or their descendants English.
Even if a nation is composed of the descendants of immigrants (the USA, for example), why should that mean that it should accept further mass immigration on a scale that brings poverty and social collapse to many of its communities? In any case, it is not true in Britain. Again, the latest DNA science has buried the old liberal lies for good. We know that the vast majority of indigenous Brits can trace their ancestry directly back to the first post-Ice Age hunter gatherer settlers of our lands - 17,000 years ago. Further waves of genetically and culturally closely related tribes arrived in Neolithic times as farmers, and these were ‘topped up’ by further migration from mainland Europe, the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings for example. Tests on 9,000-year-old remains of Cheddar Man found that the local village school-teacher was his direct descendant. By comparison, the Maoris only reached New Zealand 700 years ago, yet no liberal would dare to sneer that they are “mere immigrants”.
Nationalists reject these double standards and insist that the British people are the indigenous, ‘first people’ of our islands and are entitled to recognition and respect as such.
The liberal-left talk a lot about diversity, but the mass immigration policies and One World ‘ideas’ they promote are in fact destroying human diversity. At present there are around 5,000 different national/linguistic/tribal groups in the world. This wonderful diversity is being wiped out so fast that scientists estimate that by the end of this century only 800 will survive. This catastrophic wipe-out of human bio-diversity can only be stopped if the free peoples of the world reject the Marxist propaganda and capitalist greed that together both favour mass migration and the destruction of separate nations through integration. All peoples have the right to control their geographical and cultural borders so as to preserve their identity. And the individuals and regimes running their states must either help this process or lose all legitimacy.
A nation can assimilate a limited number of immigrants. The more different they are and the larger their numbers, the harder this becomes. At a certain point - which can only be recognised if the host population are free to express their concerns openly - immigration stops being about the rights of immigrants and becomes about the colonisation and dispossession of the indigenous community. Even if integration is possible, it is only acceptable if the original inhabitants welcome it without brainwashing or coercion, and it should never be on such a scale as to fundamentally change the identity and core characteristics of the nation in question. Genocide - the destruction of a people - does not have to involve mass murder. Its evil can also be accomplished through propaganda and social conditioning to encourage different populations to mix. Tyrannical regimes have done this for centuries, knowing that rootless and divided populations are easier to control and exploit than proud and homogenous nations.
What’s so special about Britain and the British? First, we have the same rights to our land, and to self-government within it, as every other indigenous people on Earth. Second, the genius of the closely related British family of nations who are indigenous to our islands has made an absolutely unique contribution to the development of human freedom, happiness and material comfort of the whole world. The rule of law, free speech and parliamentary democracy, the Industrial revolution, the computer age, some of the world’s finest literature, so many great sports - these and many other things are our special gift to Mankind. Why should a people who have achieved so much, and who still have so much to achieve, meekly accept their dispossession and destruction by an elite that has no democratic mandate for such drastic change? The free peoples of Britain have never consented either to mass immigration or to the snuffing out of our right to self-determination in a federal Europe. That is why resistance to those evils is not only a matter of right, but of duty to our nation. Our duty - and your duty - not only on behalf of those alive today, but for the British heroes of the past and for those yet to be born.
Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 22 April 2020 12:08.
Meaning that we’re in this for the long haul, with serious economic impact.
Coronavirus: Major European tourist events cancelled - BBC News
22 April 2020
By the end of this week Italy will announce a plan to gradually exit its lockdown, Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte said.
In a Facebook post, Mr Conte said the country could not give up its policy of “maximum caution”, and said Italy would reopen in line with “serious scientific policy”.
“A reasonable expectation is that we will apply it from May 4,” he said.
Italy has reported 24,648 deaths, the highest recorded toll in Europe.
Data released on Tuesday showed the number of people currently confirmed as infected fell for the second consecutive day. But deaths rose by 534 in the previous 24 hours, compared with a rise of 454 announced on Monday.
Spain’s famous annual San Fermin bull-running festival in July has been cancelled because of the coronavirus crisis.
“As expected as it was, it still leaves us deeply sad,” said acting mayor Ana Elizalde in a statement from the local Pamplona town hall.
The festival, which draws thousands of participants and was made famous in Ernest Hemingway’s novel “The Sun Also Rises”, has seldom been cancelled in its history.
It is the second major European tourist event to be cancelled today after it was announced that Oktoberfest, the famous annual German beer-drinking festival which sees six million people travel to Munich, will not take place.
So we all have to stay in our houses to stop the spread, everyday there’s videos of the police abusing their powers in the name of this ‘lockdown’ but they don’t mind 15,000 people a day flying into the country? - From Good Morning Britain audience. Reported by Daily Express
UK coronavirus lockdown: what are the rules, and when will it be lifted?
Government has closed schools, pubs, restaurants, cafes, gyms and other businesses under new lockdown measures.
Boris Johnson has placed the UK on a police-enforced lockdown with drastic new measures in the fight against the coronavirus outbreak.
The Prime Minister ordered people only to leave their homes under a list of “very limited purposes”, banned public gatherings of anyone not from the same household and ordered the closure of non-essential shops.
Every citizen must comply with these new measures and the relevant authorities, including the police, have been given the powers to enforce them through fines and dispersing gatherings.
These measures were introduced on March 23, and theThese measures were introduced on March 23, and the Government had stated these measures would be reviewed after three weeks, and relaxed if the evidence showed this was possible….
Britons furious as UK not testing 15,000-a-day arriving in UK airports: ‘Ridiculous!
MATT HANCOCK joined Piers Morgan and Susanna Reid on Good Morning Britain today in a heated discussion regarding the government’s current plans to continue to tackle coronavirus. However, fans were left furious as they heard the Health Secretary reveal that people are arriving in the UK from coronavirus hotspots and are not being tested for the deadly virus.
Good Morning Britain viewers were left furious today as Health Secretary Matt Hancock revealed there was a distinct lack of testing at airports for people coming into the UK from coronavirus hotspots. Morgan and Hancock engaged in a very heated debate over the subject and viewers also hit out at the health secretary online.
After Reid quizzed Hancock on the government’s exit strategy for the end of the lockdown, Morgan was keen to ask whether those still arriving in the UK were being tested for Covid-19
Referencing the importance of testing, Morgan asked: “If it’s so crucial, why are we still having all our airports open, flying in from coronavirus hotspots like New York, like Italy, like China.
“It doesn’t make sense to me that we are allowing tens of thousands of people to come into our airports and walk into our communities without even a basic test.
“And given that we know that many people can be asymptomatic. Can you explain that?
“We do of course have different treatment from different places according to how serious the outbreak is-” Hancock began to respond.
But Morgan interrupted: “How many people are you testing at airports?
Hancock explained: “The number of people coming through has dropped very very dramatically and very low -
“How many have come in this week?” Morgan interrupted.
“About 15,000,” Hancock replied, with Morgan hitting back: “So that’s about 15,000 a day without any test?”
Hancock’s admission left those watching at home furious and many took to Twitter to express their anger.
“#GMB @piersmorgan great question on why are all these people coming in from hotspots untested, why!!!? We will never get out of this going round in circles,” one viewer raged.
Another added: “So we all have to stay in our houses to stop the spread, everyday there’s videos of the police abusing their powers in the name of this ‘lockdown’ but they don’t mind 15,000 people a day flying into the country?” #GMB.
Progressive liberals are advancing their strategy, however winners make the fewest mistakes and I feel that the viral #YouClapForMeNow video is a big mistake by our opponents - mancinblack
The Financial Times, the strange colored newspaper you see at airports, is not known for its skepticism of modern global economics. Therefore, it was a bit of a shock to see the mouthpiece of global finance come out in favor of a radical rethinking of the economic order. They argued that all options must be on the table in order to address the tattered relationship between the people and their governments. In their words, the social contract must be restored after the virus panic ends.
The alleged sentiments behind the editorial are not wrong. The primary duty of any government is the welfare of the people. It’s why we have government. Sure, we assign it functions like protecting private property and enforcing contracts, but that’s not the reason we invented government. Similarly, the state defends the privileges of the rich at the expense of everyone else. This has been true since the dawn of man, but again, this is not why human societies have governments.
The point of government is the general welfare of the people. That means defending against attacks from abroad and attacks from within. The former is straight forward, but the latter is where things get complicated. Defending against internal threats is about a set of laws and customs for the purpose of maintaining order. The character and nature of the people will determine these internal structures. Good order in the lands of the Mohammedan is different than good order in the Orient.
This is not a concern in a world of nations and nation states. In a world of global capital and the free flow of goods and people across borders, it is nearly impossible. The state cannot enforce the customs of its people when its people change with each generation, maybe with each decade. When economics requires the people to yield their ancient customs and liberties, the point of government is no longer the welfare of the people, but as middle-man, facilitating conformity to economic necessity.
This is where the globalist on the Financial Times editorial board fail in their analysis of the current crisis. The social contract, if there is one, is not built around a set of economic policies. It is not a set of rules imposed by the keepers of the economy in order to make transactions as efficient as possible. The social contract is the invisible bonds between the people. It is this dedication to the shared welfare that necessitates the creation of the state in order to maintain those bonds.
Those invisible bonds are not the creation of the state, but the result of the mating decisions of our ancestors. The social contract between Finns is just the conceptualization of their shared history and ancestry. It is unique to them. What makes a Finn and Finn is not where he stands on the map or how he does business. What makes him a Finn is he is the fruit of the Finnish family tree. To be Finn means the ability to one day make more Finns. That’s biology, not economics.
The social contract can only exist among a people with a shared ancestry. If the goal is to restore the social contract, the first step is not a new round of economic fads, but a restoration of the ancient bonds among people. The West must first become a collection of nations again. Only in a world of nations can the governments of those nations preserve and defend the social contract. Safeguarding the welfare of the people can only happen when there is a people, rather than just people.
This is the fundamental flaw of the current order. Cosmopolitan globalism rests on the false notion of homo economicus. This is the assumption that humans are rational, self-interested, and pursue their subjectively-defined ends optimally. More important, it assumes that people are defined internally, rather than by the untold number of invisible bonds and interactions with their society. Globalism assumes man lives in a particular society, because it benefits in some way to do so.
Not only is this false, but homo economicus is in direct contradiction with the concept of a social contract. Socrates could not flee Athens and avoid death, because to do so would mean he was no longer Socrates. Who he was as a person was defined by his membership in the polis called Athens. The social contract cannot exist in a world of atomized individuals. The social contract can only exist in a world where people are defined by their membership in a society of their people.
