Majorityrights News > Category: Crusade against Discrimination in Britain

They didn’t have quite the excuse to go after Regina as they did Reginald, but if they did ...well, they just lack education, has nothing to do with distinctive black hyper assertiveness…

READ MORE...

Ignore Lana’s idiotic use of the YKW supplied “enemy term”, i.e., “Leftists”, and replace it with the correct term, “Liberals” and it is otherwise a good critique of Lauren Southern’s ((())) “Borderless.”

Lana’s inclination to get suckered into a right wing position is probably a significant reason why Red Ice has been spared the recent Youtube purge so far.

(((Lauren Southern))) equipped with gas mask, helmet and protective eye goggles, ready for the “surprise attack” from anti-fa.

And as far as Lauren Southern (Simonsen) goes, Majorityrights has long seen her game as kosher.

Related at Majorityrights:

Hardly The Battle of Cable Street: What Berkeley Doesn’t Mean

The right is infamous for getting people swept-up and lured into mistakes.

(102:47) Richard Spencer: In terms of the Alt Lite, I can only imagine that a lot of them are waking up to this obvious reality

(102:59) Charles: I think they are. (((Lauren Southern))), I think, just made a video saying that it’s time to fight back.

(103:07) Richard Spencer: Yeah

Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage, left, reacts as results are announced at the counting center for the European Elections for South East England region, in Southampton, England, Sunday, May 26, 2019. (AP Photo/Alastair Grant)

Yahoo/Associated Press News, 27 May 2019:

LONDON (AP): Britain’s governing Conservative Party was all but wiped out in European Parliament election as voters sick of the country’s stalled European Union exit flocked to uncompromisingly pro-Brexit or pro-EU parties.

The main opposition Labour Party also faced a drubbing in a vote that upended the traditional order of British politics and plunged the country into even more Brexit uncertainty. The big winners were the newly founded Brexit Party led by veteran anti-EU campaigner Nigel Farage and the strongly pro-European Liberal Democrats.

With results announced early Monday for all of England and Wales, the Brexit Party had won 28 of the 73 British EU seats up for grabs and almost a third of the votes. The Liberal Democrats took about 20% of the vote and 15 seats — up from only one at the last EU election in 2014.

Labour came third with 10 seats, followed by the Greens with seven. The ruling Conservatives were in fifth place with just three EU seats and under 10% of the vote.

Scotland and Northern Ireland are due to announce their results later.

Farage’s Brexit Party was one of several nationalist and populist parties making gains across the continent in an election that saw erosion of support for the traditionally dominant political parties.

Conservative Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt said it was a “painful result” and warned there was an “existential risk to our party unless we now come together and get Brexit done.”

The results reflect an electorate deeply divided over Britain’s 2016 decision to leave the EU, but united in anger at the two long-dominant parties, the Conservatives and Labour, who have brought the Brexit process to deadlock.

Britain is participating in the EU election because it is still a member of the bloc, but the lawmakers it elects will only sit in the European Parliament until the country leaves the EU, which is currently scheduled for Oct. 31.

Farage’s Brexit Party was officially launched in April and has only one policy: for Britain to leave the EU as soon as possible, even without a divorce agreement in place.

Farage said his party’s performance was “a massive message” for the Conservatives and Labour, and he said it should be given a role in future negotiations with the EU.

“If we don’t leave on Oct. 31, then the scores you have seen for the Brexit Party today will be repeated in a general election — and we are getting ready for it,” said Farage.

But the election leaves Britain’s EU exit ever more uncertain, with both Brexiteers and pro-EU “remainers” able to claim strong support. Labour and the Conservatives, who in different ways each sought a compromise Brexit, were hammered. The result raises the likelihood of a chaotic “no deal” exit from the EU — but also of a new referendum that could reverse the decision to leave.

The Conservatives were punished for failing to take the country out of the EU on March 29 as promised, a failure that led Prime Minister Theresa May to announce Friday that she is stepping down from leading the party on June 7. Britain’s new prime minister will be whoever wins the Conservative party leadership race to replace her.

The favorites, including ex-Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab and former Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, have vowed to leave the EU on Oct. 31 even if there is no deal in place.

Most businesses and economists think that would cause economic turmoil and plunge Britain into recession. But many Conservatives think embracing a no-deal Brexit may be the only way to win back voters from Farage’s party.

Labour was punished for a fence-sitting Brexit policy that saw the party dither over whether to support a new referendum that could halt Brexit. Labour foreign affairs spokeswoman Emily Thornberry said the party needed to adopt a clearer pro-EU stance.

“There should be a (new Brexit) referendum and we should campaign to remain,” she said.

___

For more news from The Associated Press on the European Parliament elections go to https://www.apnews.com/EuropeanParliament

___

Follow AP’s full coverage of Brexit at: https://www.apnews.com/Brexit

As a Remain voter to begin with, Theresa May’s Prime Ministership looked more and more like a grand filibuster to obstruct Brexit indefinitely. And, as Allister Heath said over at the Daily Telegraph, 22 May 2019:

Theresa May at the top nearly 3 years

As prime minister, following David Cameron

6 years before that, as home secretary

Failed to win 2017 general election outright, but stayed PM

Remainvoter in the 2016 EU referendum

Brexit dominated her time at 10 Downing Street. (PA)

There may be a chance of a Tory-Brexit Party pact as some point, but zero chance the supporters of Mrs May’s deal or her allies will be spared the full force of Nigel Farage’s Party.

The reality is that nobody who believes in Brexit can possibly vote for Mrs. May’s deal. There is no longer any excuse, no longer any room for doubt. Mrs. May’s latest version is an admission that the established parties will never allow us to leave the E.U.

It is an attempt to entrench the status-quo, the symbol of a broken West Minster stuck on a doom-loop.

In its denial of democracy and its decision to put process above substance, it is also a provocation.

It tells Brexiteers that they will only get change if they elect new MP’s from new parties; many will oblige, keen to usher-in fresh, more responsive politics

UK set for new PM as Theresa May quits

BBC, 24 May 2019:

Mrs May became emotional as she concluded her announcement.

Theresa May has said she will quit as Conservative leader on 7 June, paving the way for a contest to decide a new prime minister. In an emotional statement, she said she had done her best to deliver Brexit and it was a matter of “deep regret” that she had been unable to do so.

Mrs May said she would continue to serve as PM while a Conservative leadership contest takes place.

The party said it hoped a new leader could be in place by the end of July. It means Mrs May will still be prime minister when US President Donald Trump makes his state visit to the UK at the start of June.

Mrs May announced she would step down as Tory leader on 7 June and had agreed with the chairman of Tory backbenchers that a leadership contest should begin the following week.

On Friday, Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt became the latest MP to say that he would run for the party leadership, joining Boris Johnson, Esther McVey and Rory Stewart, who had already confirmed their intentions. More than a dozen others are believed to be seriously considering entering the contest.

The prime minister has faced a backlash from her MPs against her latest Brexit plan, which included concessions aimed at attracting cross-party support.

Andrea Leadsom quit as Commons leader on Wednesday saying she no longer believed the government’s approach would “deliver on the referendum result”.

Mrs May met Home Secretary Sajid Javid and Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt at Downing Street on Thursday where they are understood to have expressed their concerns about her proposed withdrawal bill.

In her statement on Friday, she said she had done “everything I can” to convince MPs to support the withdrawal deal she had negotiated with the European Union but it was now in the “best interests of the country for a new prime minister to lead that effort”. She added that, in order to deliver Brexit, her successor would have to build agreement in Parliament.

“Such a consensus can only be reached if those on all sides of the debate are willing to compromise,” she said.

Mrs May’s voice shook as she ended her speech saying: “I will shortly leave the job that it has been the honour of my life to hold. The second female prime minister, but certainly not the last.”

“I do so with no ill will, but with enormous and enduring gratitude to have had the opportunity to serve the country I love.”

“More blacks, more dogs and more Irish.”

Hyper-Whites with Hyper-Privilege: Jews Are Losing their Status as Persecuted Victims

11 May 2019 by Tobias Langdon, Occidental Observer:

Jonathan Portes is a Jewish economist and a big fan of mass immigration. In collaboration with the Jewish immigration minister Barbara Roche, he was central to New Labour’s successful conspiracy to open Britain’s borders to Eastern Europe and the Third World. The conspiracy was very bad for Labour’s traditional supporters in the White working-class, but very good for the rich Jewish businessmen who funded Tony Blair and dictated New Labour’s policies.

Inflammatory nonsense

But while Portes (pronounced “Port-iz”) believes in open borders, he also believes in closed mouths. In other words, he’s a big fan of censorship and doesn’t like Whites discussing racial differences and the effects of mass immigration. When the conservative philosopher Roger Scruton was sacked from a government committee for alleged anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and racism, Portes welcomed his departure and condemned him for peddling “inflammatory nonsense,” “tabloid-level ignorance and straightforward falsity.” He then went on to peddle some inflammatory nonsense of his own when he praised the heavily Jewish “Race Relations Act of 1968,” claiming that the Act “outlawed direct discrimination in housing or employment, as exemplified by signs saying ‘No blacks, no dogs, no Irish’.”

“More Blacks, More Dogs, More Irish”: SJWs exploit an urban myth

That’s how hate-filled the White English were in the 1950s and ’60s, you see: when they were offering houses or rooms for rent, they put up signs saying “No blacks, no dogs, no Irish.” Thousands of signs up and down the land. Well, hundreds, anyway. Well, they were a common sight. So common, in fact, that there’s no solid proof that they ever existed. The Irish Studies Centre (ISC) at London Metropolitan University (LMU) has a single photograph of “somewhat uncertain” “provenance” donated in the 1980s. And when the academic Steve Bruce was researching the topic in the 1990s, he “tried without success to find one and had to fake one for a book cover.” Writing in 2015, Bruce issued a “plea to Guardian readers. If “No Irish” signs were as common as is asserted, there should be plenty of them remaining in private collections, local archives and the like. … Can we please see some?” No, we can’t. Instead, we need to have faith. Dr Tony Murray, Director of the ISC at LMU, says that: “Ample evidence exists in numerous oral history interviews with both Caribbean and Irish migrants that such signs existed well into the 60s.”

An urban myth

No, that’s not “ample evidence”: it’s anecdotage. I don’t believe that such signs ever existed. They’re an urban myth peddled by people who, because they hate the English, want to believe that the English are haters. Yes, there is solid proof that English people put up signs saying “no coloureds” and “no West Indians.” But I don’t think such signs were proof of “hate.” Blacks are much more likely to be bad tenants than Whites are. Everyone who has dealings with Blacks learns this. For example, the BBC exposed non-White Asian landlords in 2013 for “discriminating” against Black tenants. Back in the 1950s, the notorious Peter Rachman (1919–62) installed violent and noisy Blacks to drive White tenants out of houses he wanted to buy or convert into flats. That’s how the English language acquired the handy word “Rachmanism,” meaning “the exploitation and intimidation of tenants by unscrupulous landlords.”

Peter Rachman, an unscrupulous Jew from Poland

That definition is from the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, which describes Rachman as a “London landlord.” In fact, he was a Jew from Poland, part of the post-war influx of Eastern European Jews that also brought us the mega-fraudster Robert Maxwell (1923-91), a Jew from Czechoslovakia whose real name was Binyamin Hoch. It’s remarkable how the tiny Jewish community have supplied the world with so many financial crooks and confidence tricksters like Rachman and Hoch — compare Bernie Madoff and Michael Milken in the United States. But if you do remark this pattern, you’ll be in serious trouble. Noticing racial patterns is strictly forbidden in the intellectual Flatland of the modern West and in Britain there are now strict laws against signs like “no coloureds” and “no West Indians.” And who can we thank for these laws, which ended the right of free association and free control of private property? It was Jews like Anthony Lester and Jim Rose, who “founded the Runnymede Trust to combat racial prejudice and promote policies for overcoming racial discrimination and disadvantage.”

Predation was ended by expulsion

I described the work of the Runnymede Trust in “Barons of Bullshit.” It has an Orwellian name, because Runnymede was where, in popular legend, freedom-loving barons forced tyrannical King John to sign Magna Carta and grant his subjects protection against the monarchy and its allies. As Francis Carr Begbie has pointed out at the Occidental Observer, when the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta was celebrated in 2015, there was no mention of “two crucial paragraphs” in the charter that sought to protect gentiles against “the Jews” and their financial wiles. Patterns of Jewish predation were obvious in Britain many centuries ago, but they abruptly ended in 1290. That was when King Edward I issued an Edict of Expulsion against Britain’s Jews and they had to depart for the European mainland.

Most settled in Spain, Germany, Poland and Itlay (Venice, of course, had its own Jewish Ghetto).

The edict was not overturned until 1656.

Edward’s Edict: Jews were expelled in 1290

Jonathan Portes and other Jews would call Edward I a “hater.” I’d call him a pattern-recognizer who acted for the benefit of his White Christian subjects. But the English monarchy was briefly toppled in the seventeenth century by Oliver Cromwell, who allowed Jews back into Britain. When Jews came back, so did Jewish predation, as Charles Dickens noted when he created the Jewish master-thief Fagin in Oliver Twist (1838). I’ve also argued that Dickens created a Jewish villain in the poison-dwarf Quilp of The Old Curiosity Shop (1840) and that M.R. James attacked both Jews and Cromwell in “The Uncommon Prayer-Book” (1921). Dickens himself said: “Fagin in Oliver Twist is a Jew, because it unfortunately was true of the time to which that story refers, that that class of criminal almost invariably was a Jew.”

That’s more hate, Portes and other Jews would say. I’d say it’s more pattern-recognition. Dickens was a genius because he was so good at recognizing social, psychological and cultural patterns and then re-creating them in his stories, often embellished or exaggerated for comic or satiric effect. The Jewish genius, by contrast, is for creating seductive ideological patterns that aren’t based on reality even as they pretend to offer deep insights into reality. Jewish ideologues like Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud and Franz Boas were masters of smoke-and-mirrors, and their seductive ideologies all contributed to the egalitarian cult that rules the modern West.

[The rest of the article by Tobias Langdon is at TOO]

From Age of Treason Blogspot:

“The Tautology of Jewing”

Captainchaos
23 APRIL 2019 AT 11:46 PM
Why is commenting disabled on the new post?

Tanstaafl
24 APRIL 2019 AT 1:56 AM
Unintentional. Fixed now.

....

And from Majorityrights:

Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 01 May 2019 23:06 | # 3

Daniel Sperglord and Mangina-in-black enjoy pounding each other’s gay asses!

DanielS:

Captainchaos, while you are trying to deride mancinblack as effeminate for supporting me and MR, why don’t you instead question the wisdom of those who expect Whites to drop all concerns for every other antagonism to our system and attack the ‘pathogen’  ....markedly, it is not going to help us to separate and achieve autonomy from the pathogen if we do not also address our naive susceptibility to the pathogen or deliberate, traitorous introduction of it to our system that happens typically through vulnerabilities and entry by liberal/right wing thin or even pseudo warranted objectivism; also typically a reaction to the contradictory language games that YKW are playing in order to keep our people associated with the right, its rational blindness, mystification, confusion, short shrift of social accountability (viz. even to our people) and with it, disruption of our social systemic homeostasis? - obviously one of the chief aims of the pathogen is to break through systemic defense. Thus, it is obviously valid and important to look at our system and its vulnerabilities.

In short, it is going to be hard to take-on an enemy full throttle while you’ve got people confused, thinking you’re doing wrong, or naively “clearly” thinking that you are wrong because they are abiding by right wing/liberal (their lefts are our liberalism, rupturing our unionization when pitted against our bounds) language games, or outright stabbing us in the back because right wing pseudo objectivity serves to “excuse” why it is that they take the liberties or pay-offs afforded, and “why” we are getting destroyed in their abiding language games as “just a fact of nature” that they have no part in aiding and abetting.

I’ve been looking at this problem since the early 90s, and started to bring it to a double entry with the YKW as the chief problems to our social systemic homeostasis in 2009 ..and have been cultivating it since.

Now, regarding “pathological altruism” (the Taylor, MacDonald thing, circa, what? 2011? I never paid much attention to it) I only suggested that it may have been their naive attempt, even a misdirected attempt to look at our part, as it would likely be (misdirected), still caught up in right wing objectivism by its very means of “description and diagnosis”, but to suggest that I was part of misdirection and not taking the YKW seriously enough because I also believe it is necessary to address vulnerabilities and other antagonism (which will usually lead to their being organized to imposition upon us by YKW, true), and the fact that I recognize serious errors in Hitler’s philosophy and regime (misdirected and misdirecting headlong into disaster for Europeans, as his right wing premises would), are things that I, and Majorityrights, deserve credit for in service of European peoples, not harassment and denunciation.

And isn’t it a perfect example, wouldn’t Trump’s vanity just have him lap-up objectivist flattery and have the YKW walk right into his system, knocking his daughter up, directing his campaign to undo the Iran Deal, get him elected, and move right into Oval Office meetings to set his administration’s agenda?

Matteo Salvini and Marine Le Pen had a cordial meeting earlier this week, in which they discussed their ‘common sense revolution’ to overtake the EU for native European nationalist purposes.

“Salvini, Le Pen considering joint rally”, ANSA, 5 Apr 2019:

The leaders are thinking about holding a joint rally to close the campaign for the European elections and “announce the start of a new Europe”, according to the sources