Majorityrights News > Category: Activism

Elitists need to hear criticism and to be told of bad news.

Posted by DanielS on Sunday, 02 February 2020 05:02.

Should take his own advice.

Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 258
A Conversation with Laura Towler

Laura, a solid English ethnonationalist

If you insert the word “international” for them, before the term “left”, you do them the favor of undoing their unwitting complicity with Jewish interests; though in Greg’s case, he perhaps cannot help it, as doubling down saves him from the criticism and bad news that he claims his elitism should hear.

Otherwise, some good thoughts in that conversation.

   
    Meanwhile, “I am not an ethnonationalist” - Richard Spencer
.....

Criticisms of Johson’s elitism, for example:

In his conversation with Morgoth just prior to this one with Laura, he calls the Scottish Nationalist Party the “perfect example of left nationalism.”

Is it really so hard for you to do something like put the word international before the term left?, Greg, or do you insist upon an oxymoron like internationalizing nationalism, which is what you are talking about with The SNP?

Also in this discussion, he wants to contrast aesthetics to counter the avarice of sheer mercantile utilitarianism.

I endorse the essence of the project he’s after, that is, countering radical liberalizing effects of mercantile hegemony…

But the concept of usefulness is not the opposite of the importance of aesthetics. Aesthetics play important, useful functions for people.

And paying attention to what is useful is an under utilized, liberating suggestion in service of orienting the popular understanding and deployment of philosophy. Hence, Greg’s superficial suggestion of aesthetics over utilitarianism just to play opposite day with me is a bum steer.

I guess that snooty right wing elitism is a comfy perch for Greg.

Related at Majorityrights:

Elitism, secrecy, deception … the way to save white America?

READ MORE...


The Funding Behind Drag Queen Story Hour

Posted by DanielS on Friday, 31 January 2020 07:34.

On Bitchute:

THE FUNDING BEHIND DRAG QUEEN STORY HOUR | TPS #625


The UK (finally) exits The European Union after 47 years.

Posted by DanielS on Friday, 31 January 2020 06:16.

“Enjoy The Moment” - Mancinblack

A Union Jack flag flutters in front of Big Ben as workers inspect one of its clocks, in London on Sept 11. (Reuters photo)

Britain Is Finally Leaving the EU. That’s Where the Debate Begins.

And it’s not just about Leave vs. Remain.

Politico, 30 Jan 2020:

LONDON, ENGLAND: Anti-Brexit campaigner Steve Bray protesting outside of the Houses of Parliament on January 30, 2020 in London, United Kingdom. At 11.00pm on Friday 31st January the UK and Northern Ireland will exit the European Union 188 weeks after the referendum on June 23rd 2016.

In 2016, Britain voted for Brexit. On Friday—four years, three prime ministers and two general elections later—the country will leave the European Union. Officially stepping out into the world is a major moment for a country that has driven itself mad on the tortuous path to the exit door. And yet, even the buildup to this historic event typified the silliest aspects of the years between the “leave” vote and the actual leaving.

Two quarrels about how Britain would mark the occasion broke out in recent weeks, one about a bell, the other about a coin. First came the fuss about whether Big Ben would ring out to mark the moment of independence. This Brexiteer wish was complicated by the fact that the bell, and the tower that houses it, are undergoing renovations, meaning a single bong would come with a $700,000 price tag. After Parliament refused to fund the move, and an online fundraising campaign failed to fill the gap, there will be no Big Ben bongs. “If Big Ben doesn’t bong, the world will see us as a joke,” lamented Brexit campaigner Nigel Farage.

A second brouhaha broke out over a commemorative 50 pence coin issued to mark the occasion. The coins, which read, “Peace, prosperity and friendship with all nations,” soon drew the ire of disbelieving Remainers. Otherwise serious and self-respecting members of the British establishment said they would refuse to use the coins or would deface any that came into their possession. (The novelist Philip Pullman also complained that the coin “is missing an Oxford comma and should be boycotted by all literate people.”)

Britain’s talent for turning these trivial rows into front-page stories illustrates how much the Brexit debate has become a negative-sum culture war, with Leavers and Remainers each compelled to take a side. Yet these dust-ups also obscure some of the more interesting, and important, divides over what Britain does with its newfound freedom. So far, much of the conversation has been backward looking, focused on whether the country would give effect to the 2016 vote with a viable version of Brexit, or whether that vote should be ignored. As Britain leaves the EU, and finally casts an eye forward, there are as many disputes as ever, with global implications, and the fault lines are more complicated than just Leave vs. Remain.

When Prime Minister Boris Johnson triumphed in last month’s election with a promise to “get Brexit done,” his opponents argued that after the sun rises on February 1, Britain’s future relationship with the EU, and a host of related questions, would remain unresolved. In a narrow sense, that claim is irrefutable. But it also misses the bigger picture.

The case for Brexit was built on possibilities. Among other things, exiting the EU allows Britain to decide for itself what trade relationships it should pursue with the rest of the world, the criteria it should set for its immigration system and how to regulate a host of areas that have been the competence of the EU for decades. These are big, difficult decisions in and of themselves. They aren’t part of a Brexit process that will ever be finished. Britain will not one day declare mission accomplished and no longer give any thought to, for example, trade policy—something that, as Americans will know, is an ongoing consideration in the politics of sovereign countries.

Understand that fact, and the divide between Leave and Remain starts to look less significant. On trade, for example, there is a split among Leavers. An image of buccaneering “Global Britain” striking trade deals with fast-growing economies around the world was a big part of the case pro-Brexit politicians made. There is little enthusiasm for this vision among Leave voters. According to one poll, Leave voters were more likely to support protectionist trade policies than Remainers. In fact, whether someone voted Leave was the single best predictor of a person’s support for barriers to trade. Politicians eager to use Brexit as an opportunity for liberalizing UK trade will have to think carefully about which voters they can rely on.

READ MORE...


Finding issues of coordination & coalition when differences in worldview can be put off indefinitely

Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 28 January 2020 15:32.


America’s two constitutions — since the ‘60s, competing visions of a more perfect union

Posted by DanielS on Monday, 27 January 2020 10:47.

Christopher Caldwell: America’s two constitutions — since the ‘60s, competing visions of a more perfect union

Christopher Caldwell, author of the book ‘The Age of Entitlement,’ says Democrats and Republicans have two different conceptions of what the country is about. Fox News, 27 Jan 2020:

     

Not long after he left the White House, Bill Clinton gave what is still the best description of the fault lines that run through American politics. “If you look back on the ’60s and on balance you think there was more good than harm, you’re probably a Democrat,” he said. “If you think there was more harm than good, you’re probably a Republican.”

What could he have meant by that?

Though Americans are reluctant to admit it, the legacy of the 1960s that most divides the country has its roots in the civil rights legislation passed in the immediate aftermath of John F. Kennedy’s assassination. It was enacted in a rush of grief, anger and overconfidence — the same overconfidence that had driven Kennedy to propose landing a man on the moon and would drive Lyndon Johnson to wage war on Vietnam. Shored up and extended by various court rulings and executive orders, the legislation became the core of the most effective campaign of social transformation in American history.

This campaign was effective both for its typically American idealism and for its typically American ruthlessness. It authorized Washington to shape state elections, withhold school funds, scrutinize the hiring practices of private businesses and sue them. It placed Offices of Civil Rights in the major cabinet agencies, and these offices were soon issuing legally binding guidelines, quotas and targets. Above all, it exposed every corner of American social, business and political life to direction from judges.

Americans assumed that solving the unique and extraordinary problem of segregation would require handing Washington powers never before granted in peacetime. In this they were correct.

But they were also confident that the use of these powers would be limited in time (to a few years at most), in place (to the South), and in purpose (to eliminating segregation). In this they misjudged, with fateful consequence for the country’s political system.

Civil rights law may have started off as a purpose-built tool to thwart the insidious legalism of Southern segregation and the violence of Southern sheriffs. It would end up a wide-ranging reinvention of government.

After the work of the civil rights movement in ending segregation was done, the civil rights model of executive orders, regulation-writing and court-ordered redress remained.

This was the so-called “rights revolution”: an entire new system of constantly churning political reform, bringing tremendous gains to certain Americans and — something that is mentioned less often — losses to many who had not necessarily been the beneficiaries of the injustices that civil rights was meant to correct.

The United States had not only acquired two codes of rules (two constitutions), as people rallied to one code or the other, they also sorted themselves into two sets of citizens (two countries). To each side, the other’s constitution might as well have been written in invisible ink.

Civil rights became an all-purpose constitutional shortcut for progressive judges and administrators. Over time it brought social changes in its wake that the leaders of the civil-rights movement had not envisioned and voters had not sanctioned: affirmative action, speech codes on college campuses, a set of bureaucratic procedures that made immigrants almost impossible to deport, gay marriage, transgender bathrooms.

In retrospect, the changes begun in the 1960s, with civil rights at their core, were not just a major new element in the Constitution. They were a rival constitution, with which the pre-1964 one would frequently prove incompatible — and the incompatibility would worsen as the civil-rights regime was built out.

Our present political impasse is the legacy of that clash of systems. Much of what we today call polarization” or “incivility” is something more grave. It is the disagreement over which of the two constitutions shall prevail: the pre-1964 constitution, with all the traditional forms of jurisprudential legitimacy and centuries of American culture behind it; or the de facto constitution of 1964, which lacks this traditional kind of legitimacy but commands the near-unanimous endorsement of judicial elites and civic educators, and the passionate allegiance of those who received it as a liberation.

As long as the baby boom generation was in its working years, permitting the country to run large debts, Washington could afford to pay for two social orders at the same time. Conservatives could console themselves that they, too, were on the winning side of the revolution. They just stood against its “excesses.” A good civil rights movement led by the martyred Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had been hijacked, starting in the 1970s, by a radical version that brought affirmative action and eventually political correctness.

But affirmative action and political correctness were not temporary. Over time they hardened into pillars of the second constitution, shoring it up where it was impotent or illogical, the way the invention of judicial review in Marbury v Madison (1803) shored up the first constitution.

Both affirmative action and political correctness were derived from the basic enforcement powers of civil rights law. And this was the only civil rights on offer. If you didn’t like affirmative action and political correctness, you didn’t like civil rights. By 2013, when Americans began arguing over whether a cake maker could be forced to confect a pro–gay marriage cake, this was clear.

The United States had not only acquired two codes of rules (two constitutions) —as people rallied to one code or the other — they also sorted themselves into two sets of citizens (two countries). To each side, the other’s constitution might as well have been written in invisible ink. Democrats were the party of rights, Republicans of bills. Democrats say, by 84 to 12 percent, that racism is a bigger problem than political correctness. Republicans, by 80 to 17 percent, think political correctness is a bigger problem than racism. The Tea Party uprising of 2009 and 2010, and its political mirror image, the Black Lives Matter uprising of 2015 and 2016, were symbols of that division.

Much happened this century to bring matters to the present boil. Barack Obama, both for his fans and his detractors, was the first president to understand civil rights law in the way described here: as a de facto constitution by which the de jure constitution could be overridden or bypassed. His second inaugural address, an explicitly Constitution-focused argument, invoked “Seneca Falls and Selma and Stonewall” — i.e., women’s rights, civil rights and gay rights — as constitutional milestones.

In this view, the old republic built on battlefield victories had been overthrown by a new one built on rights marches and Supreme Court jurisprudence. When Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote his decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 gay marriage case that was in many ways the culmination of this new rights-based constitution, he said as much.

The election of 2016 brought the change into focus. Today two nations look at each other in mutual incomprehension across an impeachment hearing room. It appears we are facing a constitutional problem of the profoundest kind.


On Replacism

Posted by DanielS on Wednesday, 22 January 2020 17:52.


Virginia Second Amendment Movement - Lobby & Rally for Gun Rights! “We Will Not Comply!”

Posted by DanielS on Tuesday, 21 January 2020 06:35.

Virginia Second Amendment Movement - Lobby & Rally for Gun Rights!

“We Can Change The World!”


Chants of “we will not comply”

...followed by pledge of allegiance by gun rights protesters in Richmond.


Meet the (((Boudins)))

Posted by DanielS on Friday, 17 January 2020 10:52.

At Luke Ford Live Stream #404 1-16-20, min. 1:59:15. Kevin Michael Grace comments on a Paul Kersey story (below story from Unz and V-Dare):

KMG’s comments are helpful because he adds some clues about the relevant parties under discussion, which Kersey, being in the Jarod Taylor camp, would shy away from. We can then in turn, add the brackets.

Kathy Boudin gets mugged herself

KMG: I’ll introduce (((Chesa Boudin))). He is now the district attorney of San Francisco. Lets talk about his parents. His mother’s name is (((Kathy Boudin))); and she’s a convicted murderer. She was a member of The Weather Underground, formerly The Weathermen, which I suppose is the most notorious domestic terrorist group operating in the United States after the Second World War. She later became an adjunct professor at Columbia University. How about that? His father, (((David Gilbert))), is also a former member of The Weather Underground and a convicted murderer; and he’s still in prison.

So, this fellow, Chesa Boudin has now promised, according to Paul Kersey at V-Dare, to stop gang enhancements to stop criminals of color. It was the law in San Francisco that people who were arrested for serious crimes and had gang affiliations, that this meant a longer sentence for them, because the authorities were eager to bust gangs.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, “one of Chesa Boudin’s first planned policy changes when he takes over as San Francisco’s District Attorney next month seeks to answer a question that has long ignited debates in this city:

Should people accused of crimes face harsher punishments if their actions allegedly benefited a street gang?”

PAUL KERSEY at Unz Review 13 Jan 2020:

Because Non-Whites Committing Violent Crime in California Frequently Are Gang Members, New San Francisco District Attorney Promises to Stop Gang Enhancements to Protect “Criminals of Color”

Previously on SBPDL:

San Francisco Chronicle Covers Up Black Violent Crime Epidemic in Six Percent Black City By… Blaming Whites for Low Clearance Rate in Black Homicides

“What I’m saying is that man had rights!”

Well I’m all broken up about that man’s rights.

— Dirty Harry

The new District Attorney of San Francisco has declared war on the criminal justice system. Why? All because the concept of law and order is, in his eyes, deemed to perpetuate “structural inequalities and white supremacy.”

READ MORE...


Page 15 of 99 | First Page | Previous Page |  [ 13 ]   [ 14 ]   [ 15 ]   [ 16 ]   [ 17 ]  | Next Page | Last Page

Venus

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Immigration

Islamist Threat

Anti-white Media Networks

Audio/Video

Crime

Economics

Education

General

Historical Re-Evaluation

Controlled Opposition

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Europeans in Africa

Of Note

Comments

Manc commented in entry 'A year in the trenches' on Sat, 17 Aug 2024 12:54. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'A year in the trenches' on Fri, 16 Aug 2024 22:53. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'A year in the trenches' on Thu, 15 Aug 2024 23:48. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'A year in the trenches' on Thu, 15 Aug 2024 12:06. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'A year in the trenches' on Wed, 14 Aug 2024 23:43. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'A year in the trenches' on Wed, 14 Aug 2024 22:34. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'A year in the trenches' on Tue, 13 Aug 2024 11:15. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'A year in the trenches' on Sat, 10 Aug 2024 22:53. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'A year in the trenches' on Fri, 09 Aug 2024 20:27. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'The legacy of Southport' on Fri, 09 Aug 2024 09:19. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'The legacy of Southport' on Thu, 08 Aug 2024 23:05. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'The legacy of Southport' on Thu, 08 Aug 2024 11:45. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'The legacy of Southport' on Thu, 08 Aug 2024 11:26. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'The legacy of Southport' on Thu, 08 Aug 2024 08:50. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'The legacy of Southport' on Thu, 08 Aug 2024 04:44. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Slaying The Dragon' on Thu, 08 Aug 2024 04:31. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Slaying The Dragon' on Wed, 07 Aug 2024 19:58. (View)

James Bowery commented in entry 'Slaying The Dragon' on Wed, 07 Aug 2024 19:15. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'The legacy of Southport' on Wed, 07 Aug 2024 11:35. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Slaying The Dragon' on Wed, 07 Aug 2024 06:04. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'The legacy of Southport' on Wed, 07 Aug 2024 04:08. (View)

Manc commented in entry 'The legacy of Southport' on Tue, 06 Aug 2024 21:26. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'The legacy of Southport' on Tue, 06 Aug 2024 10:15. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'The legacy of Southport' on Mon, 05 Aug 2024 12:38. (View)

son of a nietzsche man commented in entry 'The legacy of Southport' on Mon, 05 Aug 2024 12:17. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'The legacy of Southport' on Mon, 05 Aug 2024 10:25. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'The legacy of Southport' on Sun, 04 Aug 2024 23:24. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'The legacy of Southport' on Sun, 04 Aug 2024 21:16. (View)

James Bowery commented in entry 'The legacy of Southport' on Sun, 04 Aug 2024 20:06. (View)

James Bowery commented in entry 'The legacy of Southport' on Sun, 04 Aug 2024 17:52. (View)

James Bowery commented in entry 'The legacy of Southport' on Sun, 04 Aug 2024 14:22. (View)

James Bowery commented in entry 'Harvest of Despair' on Sat, 03 Aug 2024 16:44. (View)

Thorn commented in entry 'Farage only goes down on one knee.' on Sat, 03 Aug 2024 11:07. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'Farage only goes down on one knee.' on Sat, 03 Aug 2024 05:05. (View)

Al Ross commented in entry 'The legacy of Southport' on Sat, 03 Aug 2024 04:09. (View)

Majorityrights shield

Sovereignty badge