Majorityrights News > Category: Conservatism

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.

Seems probably.  Shouldn’t even be possible to contemplate it.  But this is Boris Johnson.  He is an open borders activist.

It’s being presented as a geopolitical stratagem (as if concerns about China’s intent on India matters a solitary damn to the true people of this land) and also a time-limited settlement plan (as if they will ever willingly return home).  Our defender is the Indian Home Secretary, apparently?

Ministers plan to relax immigration rules to make it easier for thousands of Indians to live and work in UK as government seeks closer ties with India to counter China influence
  Indian citizens could more freely live and work in the UK under new mooted rules
  Immigration curbs are a key point that could dominate UK-India 2022 trade talks
  Cabinet is said to be split over possibility of loosening border controls for India

Ministers are plotting to ease immigration restrictions that could help thousands of Indian citizens both live and work in the UK more easily in 2022.

The move is said to be a key point that could dominate trade talks that are due to commence between the two countries in Delhi later this month.

International trade secretary Anne-Marie Trevelyan is primed to dangle the offer in front of Indian representatives as part of a Government plan to curb China’s growing influence in the region.

One senior government insider explained that ministers generally accepted that a ‘generous’ visa offer would be the necessary counterbalance in any trade talks. 

Ms Trevelyan is said to be backed by Foreign Secretary Liz Truss, but will likely face pressure from Home Secretary Priti Patel who does not support the move, reports the Times.

As part of the plans, Indian citizens could be offered similar visa deal to those given to Australians - allowing young workers the right to live and work in Britain for up to three years.

Other mooted options include slashing visa fees for Indian students, and allowing them a temporary stay in the country after graduation.

Since its inception in 2005 Conservative Home has become an “indispensable read” for Tory party members and MPs, particularly those of a centrist persuasion.  These days it is edited by Paul Goodman, who maintains a rigorous guard against any suggestion (and I mean any suggestion) of nationalist critique among the commentariat, while allowing hating lefties free range to attack all and sundry for any backsliding on ethnic suicidalism.  It is not entirely clear how Mr Goodman would feel, say, should ethnic suicidalism ever grip the gentlefolk of Israel.

But today someone let Richard Ritchie, not a Jew but Enoch Powell’s archivist, to post an abridged version of a 16,000 word paper he has authored.  Its subject is the parliamentary history of immigration.  Cue a deadly bunfight below the line, but a bunfight which has lacked the usual viciously partisan moderation.  One can’t help wondering what all those so so respectable centrists are thinking as they peruse the thread.  How to survive the conniptions, probably.  No doubt order will be restored tomorrow.

Who Is Judge Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s Expected Supreme Court Pick? | WSJ

Could Roe v. Wade be overturned?

Some editorial first impressions of Amy Coney Barrett.

In the disciplined manner that she speaks of ruling, she indicates that overturning Roe v Wade is unlikely. That’s good if she cannot, but I say it without self righteousness. I can understand those who think abortion is barbaric and would never do it themselves. But then, that is what choice in the event is about.

Speaking of choice, as WN, we might hope that White girls be offered counseling, including the option of pre-natal care and adoption by a sponsoring adoptive couple.

And beyond the personal lives of those involved, it is a problem for White men if the consequence of pregnancy and the value of their seed can be terminated so easily; i.e., it certainly contributes to the slutdom and the general lack of caution in partner selection of contemporary girls, increased selection against beta males: while the old adage, beta males make families, alpha males make bastards.

Nevertheless, I am pro-choice for the same reason that I favor the death penalty: You can’t value life so much as to make it unlivable.

Again, if you think abortion is unconscionable then don’t have one. If you want to promote communities which heavily promote monogamy and group fidelity, practices which decrease unwanted pregnancy, counselling programs which offer the option of childcare assistance and adoption in the more rare event by implication, that’s well and good. On the other hand, if I had a daughter and she were impregnated by rape? Are you going to try to tell me that she can’t have an abortion you evil dirt bag?

Incest pregnancies and those which are known prenatally to have birth defects would be other easier cases for the pro choice side.

Finally, from a WN standpoint, with brown and black populations exploding, the ideal of “pro-life” puts White lives on the chopping block and not even all that indirectly.

Therefore, in this regard it is good that Barrett doesn’t seem as if she will be able to overturn Roe v Wade. It is good that Trump as opposed to Biden-Harris has the choice of the Supreme Court Candidate for reasons more broadly across the board, environmental issues being a marked negative against Trump’s picks. But for WN interests, the issue of Supreme Court Nominees has always been the strongest argument on behalf of Trump. And as WN we are not looking toward the continuation of the American project for decades anyway; we are looking to buy us a few more years for preparation.

As it is also true that WN is not prepared for the complete meltdown just yet and the kind of Supreme Court Justices that Biden-Harris would put in there, well, what happens when you think things couldn’t get any worse for Whites?

The problem is, while the Democrats and their politics on behalf of their voter base always do increase the YIN vertigo, the injustice for Whites and sadistic race-mix blender action, the Republicans (at least since I’ve been alive) always step in there for the YANG normalization of the resultant mix; “this is what real men, real Americans, real conservatives are about.” Trump is very much like that…

Amy Coney Barrett is very much of that ilk - conserving liberalism, from her Christian universal values which have her adopting two Haitians (!) when she already has five kids of her own; to her faithfulness to color blind American Constitutionalism. The best that she and the Republicans have to offer is a slower boil that will allow WN more time to organize, which we need. At worst, you know what they say about the slow boil and the frog.

The DNA Nations concept is the best option at this point for those who care about Whites and their means of extrication from this cataclysm to our EGI, as the border, demographic, power and rule structure of America has destiny already pretty much baked in the cake of its standard politics.

Why Is ‘Group Selection’ Taboo? Indisputable Proof of the Reality of Group Selection

Another Good one from Prof. Edward Dutton: The Jolly Heretic, 15 Sept 2020.

Exclusive: Michelle Malkin Lays Out Who Is Funding Open Borders Activism

Open Borders Inc: Taxpayers and Church donors fund their own destruction and displacement.

Soros teams-up with NGO’s and Religious Charities to open borders. So called conservative Republicans culpable as well.

Google and other Tech giants in cahoots with SPLC and ADL to enforce censorship and “cancel culture.”

Anne Corcoran’s site - Refugee Resettlement Watch - shut down.

......

(4:00)

Michelle Malkin:

Whether its quoting from the tax documents of these tax exempt non profit charities that are essentially the political action arm of the Democrat party, or exhaustive lists of the legal organizations that make up the illegal alien lawyers lobby ...more than 400 groups that I mention…

I think that its important that American tax payers know that it’s largely their money that is funding their own destruction.

(4:45)

Alex Marlow:

And for me one thing that really hurt, as a Catholic, was knowing how much the collection money goes straight to the illegal alien enablers.

You (Michelle) go after the financial beneficiaries of immigration.

Michelle Malkin:

Yes, and your average consumer of conservative information is very familiar with the name George Soros.

But I think they’re less familiar with the interaction and the infrastructure between George Soros and The Vatican and The Catholic Church..and every one of its sub-organizations; the conference on Catholic Bishops, the Campaign for Human Development, Catholic Charities, Catholic Relief Services ....The Jesuit Refugee Service, and its role in standing up the illegal alien shelter network stretching all the way from Central America to churches inside the United States.

So people need to think very carefully if they’re going to sit in Catholic Church pugh’s if they’re going to contribute to the annual Thanks Giving Fund.

Because that is multiple, multiple millions of dollars that is going to go straight into amnesty shills that operate as a smuggling network.

(6:30)

Alex Marlow:

And you also are not afraid to go after people on the right…

You don’t hold back from people who are on the dole from the right on the Open Borders Lobby.

This includes the tech giants and their role.

I had no cue as to how open borders that Jeff Bezos was.

He backs all these open borders groups.

and he’s probably the least threatening of the tech giants at the moment. ..we know Google and Facebook’s history of it…the thing in Washington now is that people on the right are getting bought off by these people.

(7:37)

Michell Malkin:

Yes, I would agree.

There are many of these beltway establishment Republicans who are completely bought off.

I talk openly about the Koch brothers; the Libra Organization they sponsor is as bad as any Soros operation that shills for so called illegal alien dreamers.

(10:08)

Alex Marlow:

“Talk to us about this war on national sovereignty…and what it really means, which is a war for globalism”...

Michelle Malkin:

“Yes and this is not some wild, black helicopter conspiracy ....all of the Soros paid minions have already attacked me as some sort of conspiracy theorist….I call them Soros flying monkeys.”

“But Soros is very explicit about it in his books and in his speeches all over the world, that sovereignty is a quote unquote obstacle - OBSTACLE.

So, he sees our borders as obstacles. ...and our walls and every attempt to enforce our sovereignty and the rule of law.

...and you’ve got a lot of very learned listeners who understand what the United Nations agenda is”...

Alex Marlow:

Their agenda is grifting brown people.

Michelle Malkin:

There you go, that’s pretty much the bottom line.

And so people wonder how did Minneapolis turn into what it turned into (this was posted last September).

...and Lewiston, Maine and Nashville, Tennessee.

Well, if you have been paying attention to UNGA assemblies every year, you would understand that.

[In opposition to these global compacts] It is very encouraging to me to hear plans floated of zeroing-out the refugee resettlement numbers - a moratorium is long overdue.

Not only for the financial and cultural impact that it’s causing on a lot of these working class neighborhoods and towns that never got a say in whether they wanted these refugees, largely from Muslim countries and African countries in the first place, but also, on September 11th, to consider the national security implications of bringing people over here who have an unshakable hatred of all things Western.

Alex Marlow:

Yeah, this is about a war on the West, this is where this is going.

Michelle Malkin:

And where does this come from?

This is why I thought it was very important to include a chapter on The Southern Poverty Law Center.

Long before the deplatformings that we’ve seen over the last year or so, back in 2006 and 2007 there was a little video that popped up on Youtube ... in partnership between La Raza and the ADL..

..creating a guide book of code words of hate, and Michelle was on this list and in this video because she had used the word “invasion” (Azatlan, Reconquista and Invasion).

Alex Marlow:

I had no clue that Google was working with the SPLC.

Michelle Malkin:

...of course it’s not just Google. We mentioned Amazon and Tim Cook, who is in the hip pocket of the SPLC, Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg.

But even other platforms where I had never worried that they would be polluted by politics - WordPress.

I mentioned in the book that a heroine of mine, Anne Corcoran, who runs, or ran, an incredible reporting blog called Refugee Resettlement Watch, had that whole blog, the plug was just completely pulled, just two months ago (July 2019) by Word Press.

...my blog is on Word Press, and I wake up every morning worrying that my blog will no longer exist.

Related at Majorityrights:

Say MORATORIUM! You Can! 10 Reasons. Appeal to R. Goode & Doing Good for Doing Good: The Golden Rule

Amon Göth’s daughter, a tragic figure.

Sometimes they cling to the right wing elements that allow for backdoor vulnerabilities through straightforward identification as rightist, at other times they don’t admit their right wing foolishness explicitly by saying “neither right nor left”, “national socialist” but lately there has been a gathering among the “dissident” right around the idea of “Third Positionism” ...which does allow for the admittance of Jewish influence by means of Christianity and where not directly, then by maneuvering of reactionary scientistic rigidity, like Uncle Adolf….serving reactionary elitism as such, it has young boys clambering for the leader in “truth, nature, god and foundation”, has the puerile girls getting all right-wing and wet as incitement of will to power in genetic competition will instigate the next round of genocide and leave a new breed of sociopaths on top for them to breed with, no matter whether they are Jewish, black or Mulatto, no matter if most and maybe nearly all of our European people get destroyed in the “inevitable, objective” process….

Greg Johnson discusses Carl Schmitt and The Concept of The Political...

The right wing being what it is, holding such rules as “no punching to the right”, is ripe for catastrophic exploitation in its non-corrective rigidity.

Among the reactionary positions that its proponents have been maneuvered into - duped - into taking, is that “sociology is Jewish.”  ...not that it is a neutral instrument that has been abused and weaponized against Whites by Jewish academics; no, right wingers take the position that sociology is Jewish and thus its unit of analysis - the group - is to be dismissed as so much skulduggery rather than what the group unit of analysis is - the most relevant to our cause.

You see, we European peoples, all of us, are being attacked as a group - a race is a group, and anti-racism is primarily aimed at the disorganization and destruction of the group that is European peoples along with our subgroups.

But the right wing position and its rational blindness to social accountability serves the elitism, secrecy and snobbery of some would-be leaders….

As their rationally blinded snobbery and elitism discriminates vertically instead of horizontally and fundamentally on the basis of qualitative niches, they also become naive, easily duped into entryism and maneuvering by our enemies.

Greg Johnson is only now saying what I have been saying explicitly for over a decade, that Jewry is organizing groups against us in anti-White coalitions, that we are under attack as a group and thus have to defend ourselves as a group.

Not that I am going to be given credit or even a hat-tip by these right-wingers for purveying that among an array of significant ideas that go into making it happen.. but as they are trying to spuriously bolt better grounded thoughts to their elitist positioning, let me point out that they are still clinging to their right wing, elitist positioning -

As I have observed before, Greg Johnson’s snobbery, that is, his vertical as opposed to horizontal discrimination leaves him with a bias that has him discriminating against some who are loyal and sincere while perhaps without pedigree, while favoring at times some who are clever, accredited but dubious in their will for our people (in the most relevant example, Greg banned me from Counter-Currents when I expressed suspicion in regard to Mark Dyal, whom Greg sought to curry favor with).

But here again, Greg’s elitism is served by Carl Schmitt’s concept of the political, though its “friend and enemy” distinction wound-up being drawn on catastrophic lines as it dovetailed with Schmitt’s dubious concept of “the exception” [exception to social accountability and regard for national boundaries] in his endorsement of the Nazi regime and the person of Hitler…and, well, what could go wrong?

Granddaughter, daughter and Amon Göth

The DNA Nations - 2020 Update: A reading through of this update of a preliminary document of the DNA Nations concept to provide the basic specificatory structure to follow up for those who care for the curation of our diverse kinds of people. While our focus is on European peoples, curation for the preservation of our kinds - genus, species - and potential coordination on the basis of genetics, the concept does not preclude negotiating with mixed kinds, does not prescribe violence, exploitation in any way shape or form and does not preclude non-Europeans from curating their kinds for preservation and working out the means for their coordination with European kinds as well

The DNA Nations - 2020 Update

An implicit union of unions and coalitions thereof based on DNA criteria.

Euro-DNA Nations

James Bowery’s “Laboratory of the States” platform proposes sovereignty through free choice, as people may “vote with their feet” to establish human ecologies through controlled experimentation. The control would be established through freedom from association—that is, the freedom to not associate with others. However, under the current circumstances, efforts to instantiate these deliberately organized “human ecologies” are best conducted in an implicit manner. Indeed, under certain circumstances, they must be largely implicit (for example, regarding laws which prohibit realtors from mentioning race to buyers or sellers). Bowery suggests promoting abstract terms such as “our valuation of freedom of choice”. Later, the communities should be able to enforce explicit freedom of and from association.

This freedom from association is corollary to individual freedom of choice and association. Rather than trying to overthrow the liberal zeitgeist of our epoch, Bowery maintains that we ought to hold liberals to their principles. We will respect and grant their valuation of freedom to go/and or be associated with whom they like and we expect the same freedom of choice to go/ and or associate with whom we like.

As far as European Americans and other European diaspora go, Bowery has, since his initial proposal for the laboratory of the states platform, concluded that rather than state-sized units, county-sized political units are more optimal—the sheriff and county being the most viable and manageable scale of organization in defense against the nation-state apparatus in its death throes.

I would argue that the initial state is rather a step toward unionization – a virtual and rules based association, though not made formal as a political action group to begin, just an informal union of unions based on voluntary DNA groupings.
 
Furthermore, Bowery argues that strong valuation of freedom of choice is a distinctly Western characteristic and therefore precious. I concur. He elaborates farther that it is imperative to maintain the unique human ecologies that evolved with this Western characteristic of individual freedom of choice. I concur as well.

This freely and deliberately chosen state/county human ecology is very different from the deeply situated, naturally evolving human ecologies of Europe and Russia, where our people have evolved over tens of thousands of years in relation to particular habitats. It is surely critical for us to maintain these ecologies as well. We would not want to be without either the freely chosen state/county-sized ecologies of European diaspora derived by choice within a lifespan, nor without the truly deep, historical ecologies of our European and Russian nations. These are both goods that we would want to maintain, and yet they are very different concerns. This focuses WN on the task of coordination.

We wouldn’t really want to give up either, but how to coordinate these two goods? This is where a Euro-DNA-based nation begins to look like a potential means of coordination, allowing for various expressions of our native Europeans while never losing sight of their essence.

There is a third crucial matter to coordinate. If a nation of European descended peoples is to have an economy big enough to fund a space program and other large projects, it is likely to need a size larger than the average state (let alone county) to provide for a sufficient economy; and if, as Conner adds, nations of European peoples are to hold up to the growing power of China, they will need to be large.

Thesis: The Indigenous Euro-DNA Nation would provide a means for coordinating smaller States/Counties, both freely chosen human ecologies and those of deep, historical evolution, while providing the means for pursuing a mutual larger manifestation as well.

Given the anti-White hegemony that European peoples are up against from above, along with the turmoil and throngs of anti-Whites that they are up against on all fronts, an endogenous approach is the most practical for the coordination of European peoples sovereignty.

By endogenous here, we mean from the inside out. That is, in proposing autonomous, sovereign nations of European peoples, we should begin with those who would like to be a part of it first—begin by focusing on what we can do as opposed to what we cannot do. It is endogenous also in that the nation is corporeal, literally of the people—their native European DNA being the prime criterion for inclusion. That would be in contrast, though not in opposition, to other WN nation building efforts using an exogenous (from the outside-in) approach, such as the Northwest Front.

There are clear practical advantages of a native Euro-DNA Nation that begins as a formal declaration of a wish as confirmed by voluntary signatories. Firstly, signing-up would only mean that one is expressing a wish to be a part of sovereignty for European peoples. It does not require relinquishing one’s current citizenship.

Nor does it mean antagonizing non-Europeans. We may extend the DNA Nation concept and its freedom of association to them as well. But just as the conscientious are concerned for the preservation of a wide array of genus and species on earth and pervasive ecology, so too is it perfectly legitimate to look after our European kind.

For whom it may concern, the indigenous Euro-DNA Nation focuses from the start on our most precious concern, our DNA, while not encumbering us with present obstacles to land-situated nations. The Euro-DNA Nation would be non-situated in the beginning (and to some extent always).

However, DNA without land, without habitat indefinitely, would be problematic for a number of reasons. Therefore, it must be an objective of the Euro-DNA Nation to establish sacrosanct Euro-DNA Nation “lands” eventually; the plurality of lands is a deliberate usage. In fact, more safety and resources would be provided if these lands are non-contiguous and disbursed throughout the world. Naturally, WN would seek to re-establish our traditional territories as European, particularly those in Europe, but would also seek to secure sovereign territory in North America, South America, Russia, Australia and New Zealand. Nevertheless, in not being strictly contingent on obtaining land, the nation is rendered more flexible and more practical so that it can start with land claims of any size, even small claims.

Once coordinated as such, its ultimate viability may strive to cover the largest land-masses possible. Thinking about these issues first as a means of coordination with Bowery’s “Laboratory of the States” platform, and in line with that, the DNA Nation being freely chosen would allow people to select various native European sub-categories (if they match), some distinct, some perhaps blended in various ways and degrees. Considering the problem secondly in terms of how to coordinate WN of its largest possible size, it also provides a highly practical means to instantiate a goal for protracted expanse, as it is highly flexible in its ability to cover territory.

The DNA Nation is also practical in that it does not require unnecessary risk and engagement on the part of participants. Signing-up does not render one complicit with illegal activity of any kind. It only means an expressed wish for sovereignty from non-native European coercion, and to be with persons of indigenous European extraction.

Separatism is a first step, Separatism is the ultimate aim, and Separatism is always possible.

If you wish to express a desire that you might one day be a part of this union of unions that is the Euro-DNA Nation, you may sign up; and specify particular category/union as you wish. DNA proof will ultimately be required for consideration of membership.

The Native European-DNA Nation sign-up along with its subcategories will be provided.

Note 1: The freedom of and from association promoted by the Laboratory of The States/Counties is conceived by Bowery to be an implicit choice. In his estimation, explicit Whiteness does not work. Taking the example of the draconian legal constraints placed on American realtors regarding the mere mention of race to buyers or sellers provides a salient example of how hazardous explicitness can be. However, the explicitness of the DNA registry does not contradict the implicitness strategy due to its being voluntary and not representing a legal status, but rather an expression of a wish. Discretion is nonetheless advised.

Daniel Sienkiewicz

READ MORE...