Majorityrights News > Category: The Proposition Nation

THE GAME IS OVER. THE PATRIOTS LOST: Though I cannot recommend Matt Parrott for his foolish and unwarranted misdirection away from and against the platform here, he is clever enough to turn a good phrase, as in this article, where the issue isn’t too deep for him. However, for one thing, he needs to understand that the Christards are playing a suckers game in line with propositional nationalism, and being beaten badly for it as well.

Since the time in the late 80’s when I prioritized racial interests over the entertainment of sports and music, when I do observe race mixed sporting events or statistics, I root for the individual performance of White players and against individual black players.

Over at Amren, Paul Kersey entitles an article, “Root for the Patriots in the Superbowl”

Although there is something to be said for the Patriots success while using White players in positions usually associated with black skills, as rather an expression of White selection and identity, betraying negrophila some along with its taken for granteds, the teams are still mercenary, not particularly representing a place or race. Thus, I can’t agree with his conclusion that Whites should feel ok about rooting for mixed race teams as it perpetuates the idiot cuckoldry of White fandom and support of the race mixing agenda through one of its most seductive means - visually exciting sports, adulation of athletic skills beyond merit, way beyond real world value and just reward, while ensconced in the deceptive, soothing pretext of passive objectivity.

Kersey writes:

The white quarterback, Tom Brady, along with white wide receivers Julian Edelman and Chris Hogan, white tight end Rob Gronkowski, and white running backs Rex Burkhead and James Develin, are an anomaly in the “vibrant” NFL. They have a vast overrepresentation of skilled white players who not only excel, but dominate.

[...]

With all this whooping about diversity, an anomaly does not go unremarked: the whiteness of the New England Patriots during their historic run under Tom Brady. For this year’s Super Bowl in Atlanta, all eyes are on Mr. Brady, the 41-year-old quarterback, who will be playing in his unprecedented ninth championship game in 18 seasons (this will be his third consecutive shot at the Lombardi Trophy, and Mr. Brady holds a 5-3 record in the Super Bowl).

With that, he suggests:

Root for the Patriots in the Superbowl

It’s OK to be white.

On Sunday, more than 110 million Americans will huddle around their television sets and watch the 53rd Super Bowl, a matchup between the Los Angeles Rams and New England Patriots.

After two seasons marred by black NFL players taking a Colin Kaepernick-style knee or raising a ‘Black Power’ fist during the National Anthem, television ratings slightly improved during the 2018 season.

[...]

So even if you are not a fan of the NFL, or don’t like the antics of black players who knelt during the National Anthem, there’s nothing wrong with rooting for the New England Patriots and Tom Brady to win Super Bowl 53. In a league where 72.6 percent of the players are POC, there’s nothing wrong with cheering for a team that looks a little more like you.

It’s the white thing to do.

He supplies one good reason NOT to root for the Patriots or any NFL team, here:

Ibid. That year, largely because of pressure from the owners of NFL’s 32 franchises, the league saw only a handful of black athletes—who account for 69.7 percent of the players—take a knee during the anthem. A recent poll of NFL fans shows only 24 percent of white fans strongly support the anthem protests, while 59 percent of blacks do (47 percent of white fans and 7 percent of black fans strongly oppose them). Though the kneeling stopped, the owners did create an $89 million fund for the players to hand out to “improve social justice and racial equality in our country.

Related at Majorityrights:

Seduction of NFL Films, Appeal of L.A. Rams 60’s, 70’s, dodging legacy of sports-fan cuckoldry

Our football coaches weren’t Marxists imposing black integration

Tom Brokaw, former anchor, NBC Nightly News.

CNN, 29 Jan 2019:

It’s not that Tom Brokaw is racist. It’s that he’s wrong

Indeed, the last thing that ethnonationalsts should advocate is assimilation, whether under the rubric of English, Americananism or Christianity.

Why would Kevin Michael Grace and Luke Ford defend Tom Brokaw in his comments and criticize those who’ve reprimanded him?

Why would Pat Buchanan rail against the “sewer of multiculturalism” and by default thus, in favor of integration?

The answer is that because they are advocating foolery - they cannot get out of their modernist way of thinking and adjust to the obvious requirement of (White) post modernity; that is, if one is to advocate a competent way of looking after our human ecology.

Ibid.

Tom Brokaw, the famed NBC News journalist, is very likely not a racist, as many have accused after comments he made on national television about Hispanic-Americans. I suspect the same is true of Duke University professor Megan Neely. Still, each of them recently proved they are blinded by tradition bias and a belief that being white is the default right, true and wise way to live in America.

During a discussion about immigration on “Meet the Press,” Brokaw said this:

“I also happen to believe that the Hispanics should work harder at assimilation. That’s one of the things I’ve been saying for a long time. You know, they ought not to be just codified in their communities but make sure that all their kids are learning to speak English, and that they feel comfortable in the communities. And that’s going to take outreach on both sides, frankly.”

Neely, who was serving as the school’s director of graduate studies in the biostatistics department before resigning on Saturday, used Brokaw’s logic to tell Chinese students to not speak their native tongue. “I have no idea how hard it has been and still is for you to come to the US and have to learn in a non-native language,” she wrote to the students after a couple of her colleagues were disturbed hearing Chinese being spoken in a common area. “As such, I have the upmost (sic) respect for what you are doing. That being said, I encourage you to commit to using English 100% of the time when you are in Hock or any other professional setting.”

There are legitimate reasons to believe Brokaw and Neely intended their words as guidance more than racist putdown. In the United States, the ability to speak and write clear English is an asset and a near-requirement for anyone aiming for the upper rungs in most high-profile industries, including journalism, academia, business and politics. Can you name a single leader in any of those industries in this country who doesn’t have a solid handle of the English language? Immigrants have long known this, which is why they have always been doing what Brokaw suggested they weren’t—adapting to and embracing some of the cultural norms of their adopted country, including the predominant language.

‘Complete, total surrender’: Why Trump waved the white flag

Politico, 25 Jan 2019:

The sudden erosion of support from Senate Republicans ultimately forced Trump’s hand. “President Donald Trump touted GOP unity for 33 days of a partial government shutdown. But by the 34th day, it was clearly gone — and so was the shutdown by the end of the 35th.

Senate Republicans had finally had it and were struggling to continue to defend the president’s position and heap blame on the Democrats. Perhaps no one illustrated that dynamic more than Sen. Rob Portman.

The Ohio Republican, along with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), had spent more than two weeks pushing to reopen the government and then negotiate on border security, only to face repeated rejection by the president and Vice President Mike Pence. So when two votes came before the Senate this week, one on Trump’s plan, the other on a stopgap with no new guaranteed wall money, Portman nearly made a rare break with his party.

“I considered it, yes,” he said on Friday after the president finally caved on his position that the government would only reopen with a down payment on his wall.

Portman and most Republicans ultimately stuck with Trump after Pence’s pleas for unity. A sustained rebellion against Trump on Thursday, Portman argued, would mean the government “would not be open right now,“ because Trump would simply veto a Democrat-backed bill. “It would have been a real problem.” …”

Occidental Observer’s Hunter Wallace laments:

So, the partial government shutdown is finally coming to an end.

Trump has been humiliated by Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. Senate Republicans caved and that forced Trump to cave. He isn’t getting any funding for his wall. The whole episode was nothing but a waste of time to look like he was fighting for the wall funding after two years of avoiding the issue.

I increasingly think it is a waste of time to sit here, day after day, following the news cycle to document the ongoing failure of Trump and American conservatism. It just discourages me from writing. I’ve been doing it for two years now and have grown tired of it. I will probably end up pivoting to history for a while.

United States Border Patrol at Algodones Sand Dunes, California, USA. The fence on the US-Mexican border is a special construction of narrow, 15 feet tall elements, that are movable vertically. This way they can be lifted on top of the ever shifting sand dunes (image Public Domain, Wikipedia).

Lest there be any misunderstanding, the position here is that the matter of a United States Southern border wall, fence, whatever, as any requirement of border control, is very important.

Border control there is particularly illustrative of a central matter, which is that border control is crucial to the management of populations in human and pervasive ecology; issues which include territorial carrying capacity - hence, at this border, the particular demographic is a secondary matter; salient there is the matter of Mexico’s massive population - Mexico City being among the most overpopulated cities in the world.

Nevertheless, the demographic and rule structure of The United States is already on a disastrous trajectory for Whites, will remain so, even with a wall on the south border.

While border control is essential at any rate, the worst case scenario of its instantiation would be that it will be used to lull complacency of propositional conservatism - “we Americans all being in the same relatively taken-care-of boat” - and further close us in and galvanize us into mulattoization; furthering the trajectory of those who left us susceptible for the Cartesian rule structure of the constitution and to the Jewry which weaponized it against our necessary discrimination both at the border and within the borders.

...galvanizing us with the demographic upshot of this manipulation unfortunately against a population that does have some warrant as native American behind them and which, for their nature, is highly ethnocentric. It is a demographic thus, which has been effective against integration with blacks, against integration with Whites, indifferent to Jewish violin playing; as such, in the most optimistic scenario, could be allied with other Asians and Whites against black power, Jewish supremacism and Islamic imposition over human ecological coordination (agreed, getting Mestizos to cooperate in ecological management is no small trick; perhaps Asians proper could help reason, coordinate and enforce such management).

Failing that is a default “alliance” by contrast in sudden, “conservative” implementation against Meztiso populations that looks suspiciously in line with Jewish interests against an Asian, Mestizo, White alliance as it would resist continued instigation of the Mulattoization of the broad mass of American Whites, while allying Jewry with increasingly rare White sell-out elites; whose precarious situation would be more and more prone to interbreeding with Jewry or the Mulatto mass.

Voice of Europe, “Flag of shame: Video of French protesters tearing down EU flag goes viral”, 30 Dec 2018:

During the seventh consecutive weekend of yellow vest protests in Paris, a group of protesters can be seen taking down the EU flag.

             

The sources of the video, which surfaced yesterday, say it took place during Act VII (the seventh protest weekend).

When the flag is taken down people cheer and a French account that posted the video calls it “the flag of shame”.

Yellow vest protests took place all over France and one of the targets of the protesters was the mainstream media as it “spread fake news” about the size of the movement.

video

Voice of Europe@V_of_Europe
French yellow vest protesters tear down EU flag in move against globalism.

In a case that a normal and just society would probably find for manslaughter, James A. Fields is convicted of first degree murder among nine other charges.

Commentators for Fields defense spoke of the case: That he was apparently attacked by anti-fa all day; having had urine thrown on him amidst a melee where heavy objects were thrown; some others identifying with the right wingers had their eyes maced as police stood down and directed them through a gauntlet of anti-fa; ensuing that, Fields was allegedly attacked in a parking garage as he attempted to flee; culminating in an anti-fa (a teacher who bragged about) pointing a gun at him in a readiness position; after which Fields finally got into his car and drove it onto the one way street; checking his GPS at one point (indicating that he wanted to know the way out, in accordance with other plans he had for coming days, not how to plan a murder); finally, anti-fa smashed Fields car at least twice with heavy sticks, with loud noises that could have sounded like gun shot, causing a temporary “me or them” panic. He then accelerated (although perhaps not to as high a speed as it may appear) toward the jay-walking crowd, perhaps hoping they might scurry as they otherwise blocked his only legal car passage through the street.

The defense goes something like that.

At some points there and undoubtedly along the way, Fields used very bad judgment.

A key bad move was in joining a right-wing rally - “Unite The Right” - which, deliberate or not, was perfect to bring those reacting to liberalism’s destructiveness into a trap.

If “the Alt-Right” had anything particularly right in its overall conception, it was that it was Not so united as to be easily pinned-down and targeted. Then they went and betrayed that one thing they had most correct, with a damn fool thing like uniting under one banner. Typical right-wing perfidy.

Fields did not help his case as he bought-into the right wing prescriptions, professing admiration for Hitler since his school days, while also displaying a volatile emotional state that may have included threats and battery against his mother.

The jury was told about this and shown internet postings by Fields to depict a state of preparedness for such an event such that they might render a verdict of first degree, pre-mediated murder.

Details: Fields’ sentencing hearing will follow on Monday where he could face life in prison. Prosecutors said Fields was enraged when he drove through the crowd, and revealed an Instagram post saying “You have a right to protest, but I’m late for work” that he shared three months before the crash.

The more likely scenario would seem to be “manslaughter” with extenuating circumstances: perhaps diminished personal emotional/intellectual capacity, with impaired judgment as a result. A pervasive social environment of the nation where the genetic interests of Whites are under continual attack - verbally and logistically; while defense of one’s EGI is stigmatized where not outright prohibited; while in the prospect of self defense as a White, especially physically defending against assault from non-Whites, one has to be aware that doing so runs the risk of being charged with a hate crime and minimum of ten years in jail (you can even see postings on public buses: “hate crimes carry mandatory ten year jail sentences”).

Do I believe that Fields is guilty of first degree murder? No. Vehicular manslaughter probably yes. From what I can tell of that situation, even if you have to drive the wrong way down a one way street, you do that in order to escape, but you don’t drive into a crowd.

Those injured didn’t deserve it. Heather Heyer certainly didn’t deserve to die; those right wingers who mock her in death are disgraceful.

This incident is part and parcel of a right wing mindset that seeks to short cut social accountability.

It forms an example of why we should cultivate prescription of left ethnonationalism in defense of European peoples, such that the compassion of social accountability is built in conceptually from the start. Marginals such as Fields and Heyer might be directed back to their authentic, healthy organic patterns; while other marginals, those who think they’re objectively above it all in their right wing reactions, such that they might simply mock Fields and Heyer, might be encouraged to act like normal human beings with a sense of accountability, responsibility, compassion and social justice.

Condolences for Heather Heyer. And for those observing Fields example, don’t double down in unanimity with the right as the marginal Richard Spencer prescribes. On the contrary, get out of the right!

....

Related at Majorityrights: Unite the Right Charlottesville: successful neocon/liberal operation forces wedge against paleo-Cohn

Ending Birth-Right Citizenship is inherently important, but at this point, is it a sedative injection for America’s already baked-in Mulatto supremacist trajectory?

Is it just tossing a bone to right wing sell outs - a bone picked clean of loyal White interests? - for the Zionist quid pro quo?

Wall Street Journal, 30 Oct 2018:

“Trump Wants to Curb Birthright Citizenship, Escalating Immigration Debate”

Legal scholars dismiss the idea, saying a president lacks standing to do it on his own

WASHINGTON—President Trump said he wants to sign an executive order that ends the automatic right to citizenship for anyone born in the U.S., ratcheting up his election-season remarks on immigration with a proposal many legal scholars said is unconstitutional.

In an interview published Tuesday morning, just ahead of next week’s midterms, Mr. Trump said he planned an executive order to end what is known as birthright citizenship, bypassing Congress and waving off the belief of many legal scholars that such a move would require a change to the Constitution.

“It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don’t,” he told Axios. “It’s in the process. It’ll happen, with an executive order.”

Born in the U.S.Since 2007, the number of births to unauthorized immigrants has declined. Source: Pew Research Center

Constitutional scholars dismissed the idea, saying a president has no legal standing to end birthright citizenship with an executive order. “It’s basically saying the president is above the Constitution,” said Laura K. Donohue, a senior scholar at the Georgetown Center for the Constitution.

The White House didn’t further explain Mr. Trump’s assertion that he alone could make the move, and it didn’t provide further details about the scope of the proposed executive order or the timing.

“We will let you know when we have an announcement,” White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said.

Birthright citizenship is a pillar of U.S. immigration law and is protected by the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which, among other goals, was designed to grant full citizenship to former slaves. But some conservatives who favor more restrictive immigration laws have opposed the policy, saying it improperly rewards the children of people in the country who lack proper documentation.

Mr. Trump’s proposal is the latest in a string of pronouncements as he seeks to invigorate GOP voters ahead of the midterms. He recently suggested a middle-income tax cut that appeared to surprise both his staff and lawmakers. Last week, he said he would seek to cut prices that Medicare pays for some prescription drugs, but that wouldn’t go into effect until late 2019 or 2020.

READ MORE...

American Thinker,  “Trump Is the Best President Ever for American Jews”, 1 Nov 2018:

By Karin McQuillan

President Trump’s statement on anti-Semitism the day after the Tree of Life massacre truly was “electrifying.”

  The Jews have endured terrible persecution, and you know that we’ve all read it: We’ve studied it.  They’ve gone through a lot and those seeking their destruction…we will seek their destruction…Never again.

It touched my heart deeply.  Jews have never, but never, been given this kind of whole-hearted support by an American leader before.  Trump told the rally-goers in Illinois, slowly, and with great emphasis:

This evil anti-Semitic attack is an assault on all of us.  It’s an assault on humanity.  It will require all of us, working together, to extract the hateful poison of anti-Semitism from our world.  This was an anti-Semitic attack at its worst.  The scourge of anti-Semitism cannot be ignored, cannot be tolerated, and it cannot be allowed to continue.  We cannot allow it to continue.  It must be confronted and condemned everywhere it rears its very ugly head.  We must stand with our Jewish brothers and sisters to defeat anti-Semitism, and vanquish the forces of hate – that’s what it is.

           
YouTube screen grab.

Jews have never, but never, been given this kind of whole-hearted backing by an American leader before.  Jews are used to facing murderous hate alone.  We are not used to words that reflect the moral truth.  We’re used to mealy mouthed pieties condemning hate on all sides.

A dear friend who is active fighting anti-Semitism wrote me, “It is the strongest statement in support of Jews ever made by an American president.”

[...]

And now antisemitic murders of Jews have happened in America, on his watch.  Trump is putting the evil doers on notice: anti-Semitism will not be tolerated.  Anti-Semitism?  It’s got to end.

The forces of anti-Semitism are concentrated in four groups of our fellow Americans:  white supremacists like the man who murdered the congregants of Tree of Life; the Nation of Islam and our black community, Hispanic immigrants and to a lesser extent, native-born Hispanics, and progressives.  Three of these four groups are large, significant voting blocs.  All three are crucial to Democrat electoral victory.

READ MORE...