Wednesday, February 16, 2011

A step forward? Moving politics beyond Cameron

It's worthwhile, when we make small gains, to recognise the step forward.

Take British PM David Cameron's recent Munich speech. In this speech Cameron rejected a policy of multiculturalism in favour of a "muscular liberalism." According to Cameron, liberalism needs to be more strongly asserted as the basis of national identity and belonging. This, he claimed, would prevent alienated Muslim youth from turning to Islamic terror groups.

If you were to go back 25 years or so, there would have been little dissent on the right to Cameron's speech. The criticism of multiculturalism would have been thought sufficiently right-wing by the average conservative. Politics would not have moved beyond the limits of Cameron's speech.

And that's still largely the case. However, there are at least some voices on the right not falling into line but thinking through the repercussions of Cameron's position - and making principled criticisms of it.

Some examples? Well, there was my own effort. I pointed out that Cameron is advocating a civic nationalism in which a community is bound together by a common commitment to liberal political values. But civic nationalism has its problems:
  • It requires political conformity. If you don't accept a liberal political philosophy, then you're not part of the nation.
  • It is an indistinct form of identity. There are many Western nations claiming to be defined by the same liberal values. So why shouldn't they then merge together?
  • It is not a deep form of identity. A civic identity isn't likely to inspire a deep commitment to the nation or a willingness to make sacrifices on its behalf.
Elusive Wapiti also made some criticisms of Cameron's speech. According to Cameron, people in the UK will proudly declare themselves to be Muslim or Christian or Hindu whilst at the same time being bound together by liberal political values. Elusive Wapiti responded as follows:

Presumably said civic religion will permit these other competing faith systems so long as the citizens pay sufficient homage and don't oppose the state religion, viz his "freedom of worship" quote above.

But, as men cannot serve two masters, the tolerance of heterogenous faiths will ensure the cultural Balkanization he criticizes will remain firmly in place...for I am convinced that the thin Enlightenment 1.0 gruel proffered by the secularists cannot compete with the more robust value systems that compete for the hearts and minds of the citizenry. Moreover, because the secular humanist liberal faith does not provide much for the citizenry to internalize as a guide for behavior, except for the pursuit of individual autonomy, the State will inevitably have to resort to iron-fist-velvet-glove governance to keep all those individual wills-to-power and competing theories of governance in check if it wishes to remain in power.
Elusive Wapiti is sceptical that the civic creed will manage to hold things together so easily. First, because it doesn't offer the same depth of meaning as the other faiths and so won't be recognised as primary and, second, because it fails to provide a basis for the self-regulation of civil society.

Then there is the bracing challenge to Cameron made by Frank Ellis. Dr Ellis has written an open letter to David Cameron which is well worth reading. One of the arguments he makes is that there is a fundamental contradiction in wanting a national identity that is "open to everyone":

You have been reported as saying that multiculturalism has failed. I see no clear statement of that in your speech at all. In fact, you claim that it is the indigenous population that has driven Muslims into their parallel societies.

That you are still advocating some form of the cult is clear when you argue that ‘instead of encouraging people to live apart, we need a clear sense of shared national identity that is open to everyone’.

National identity by its very nature is exclusive, partial and narrow. A national identity that is ‘open to everyone’ is not a national identity. National identity is determined by a combination of genetic, racial, cultural, psychological, geographical, linguistic and mental factors, tempered by the blows of history, by shared suffering in war and peace, by humiliation and glory, by the memory of those gone before.

How can my English national identity be open to everyone? The answer is that it cannot. National identity that is open to everyone ceases to be a national identity; national identity that is open to everyone is just another way of promoting multiculturalism without using the m-word. In other words, it is a deceit, a ploy to disarm the critics of multiculturalism...
Dr Ellis also quotes the Turkish Prime Minister encouraging immigrants to resist assimilation as a "crime against humanity":

Nor do immigrants wish to share their identity with white Europeans. When, in 2008, he addressed a large Turkish audience in Cologne, the Turkish Prime Minister, Reccep Erdogan was quite clear by what he understood on the question of integration. He told his audience: ‘I understand the sensitivity you show towards the question of assimilation. Nobody can expect that you tolerate assimilation. Nobody can expect that you submit yourself to assimilation. Then assimilation is a crime against humanity.’ Erdogan’s vision of how he expects Turks to behave in Europe is just one of a number of reasons why a Muslim non-European state such as Turkey can have no place at all in the EU.

Finally, Lawrence Auster wrote a terrific post setting out the differences betweeen right and left liberals when it comes to issues of multiculturalism and assimilation. Again, if you haven't read it yet it would be profitable for you to do so. I'll quote the section most directly relevant to Cameron, in which Auster criticises the politics of right-liberals:

The second wing is right-liberalism, a.k.a. the "right." The "right" says that the West is good, but that it is good only insofar as it is defined as a universal society consisting of equal and interchangeable rights-bearing individuals. It is not good insofar as it consists of distinct historical nations, cultures, and peoples. The "right" believes in the West, but the only good the "right" recognizes in the West consists in those values and procedures that are the product of liberal individualism.

The "right" calls for non-discriminatory openness, not to alien cultures, but to the individuals who belong to those cultures. It says that people from other cultures must be admitted into the West, and that after they are admitted, they must "assimilate" and "integrate" into the Western culture. The "right" thinks this is possible, because it assumes that people from other cultures are entirely passive and have no cultures, cultural agendas, or cultural personalities of their own that they care about and seek to express. The "right" assumes that people from other cultures want nothing more than to earn a living, raise their children, and "enjoy our freedoms." In other words, the "right" sees people from other cultures not as moral actors in their own right, but as good little children whose only role in the world is to fit into "our" right-liberal program.

So, when the tens of millions of individuals from other cultures who have been admitted into the West turn out to be, not mere faceless ciphers wanting only to earn a living and "enjoy our freedoms," but carriers of alien cultural identities and of claims and grievances against our culture, i.e., actual human beings who are not like us and who want to make their own mark on the world, the right-liberals have no response except to dismiss such claims and grievances as irrational multiculturalism, and to say that we have not tried hard enough to assimilate the newcomers and must try harder. The call for "more assimilation"--meaning the assimilation of essentially unassimilable people--never has any practical program connected with it; it is the emptiest of rhetorical ploys, the only purpose of which is to defend from criticism and keep alive the right-liberal ideology.

As I said at the beginning, it's heartening to see such intelligent criticisms of right liberalism. It may not be enough right now to have a practical impact, but it's a step in the right direction. It's a model of what is needed on a larger scale in the years ahead.

61 comments:

  1. On the question of national identity, it will always be exclusive, especially in the case of the indigenous Europeans. Cameron can only appeal to "muscular liberalism" as the source of national identity. To appeal to "British identity" or, even worse, "English identity" is to automatically exclude those who are of different stock. The ethnic make up of modern Britain ensures that no person wishing to win the next election will ever link British identity to shared genetic, historical or cultural ties.

    ReplyDelete
  2. anon:
    "The ethnic make up of modern Britain ensures..."

    No, indigenous white Britons make up the great majority of voters in most constituencies.

    "no person wishing to win the next election will ever link British identity to shared genetic, historical or cultural ties."

    This is because they'd be torn to shreds by the overwhelmingly liberal media, by liberal politicians such as Cameron, and by the metropolitan elites. The Equalities Commission would sue them, and the police might prosecute them for hate speech.

    But most of the whip-crackers are indigenous white Britons, too. And it's definitely not about votes or popular opinion, which is despised. Only in the most extreme cases like the current votes-for-prisoners row does popular opinion have any input.

    ReplyDelete
  3. But how to get to that larger scale Mark...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Laurance Austar said that many immigrants are essentially incapable of assimilation. Wasn't that argument, however, used in relation to the Italians, Irish and Poles in America in the late C19th? Obviously such assimilation was not without its issues but many would point that out as an example of successful assimilation.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The difference between 19th century Poles, Mics and Wops, and the current Islamic immigrants is the shared western identity and Christian faith of the former compared to the completely foreign nature of the latter. Other than the shared belief in a monotheistic faith, there is no common cultural ground to be found between Islamic immigrants and host cultures they have inundated.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ned,

    I don't disagree with that, however, in the C19th century there would have been the view that there were substantial differences between those cultural groups and the existing population.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ned,

    I don't disagree with that, however, in the C19th century there would have been the view that there were substantial differences between those cultural groups and the existing population.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The "right" assumes that people from other cultures want nothing more than to earn a living, raise their children, and "enjoy our freedoms."

    This isn't assumed of all people from other cultures; just those that want to live in the West. If they place a high value on their own culture they should stay within that culture, not move to a foreign country with dollar signs in their eyes and then complain about "crimes against humanity."

    Not all people are unassimilable. Some are perfectly capable of adapting to a foreign culture.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I don't disagree with that, however, in the C19th century there would have been the view that there were substantial differences between those cultural groups and the existing population.

    The proof is in the pudding, Jesse. In America, ethnic strife between the original Saxon-Celtic groups and the Italians, Irish, Germans, etc. who came later is today virtually non-existent. The Mestizo group, which has been in some areas almost as long as the whites, are among the most vocal in their demands for concessions from the white majority. For Mexicans, there has been half the assimilation in twice the period of time.

    I don't think any immigrant of any race should expect a rose garden on arrival.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Jesse_7 writes: "Wasn't that argument, however, used in relation to the Italians, Irish and Poles in America in the late C19th? Obviously such assimilation was not without its issues but many would point that out as an example of successful assimilation."

    The people making that argument against Catholic ethnics were in the main Protestant Christians. They accurately foresaw that assimilating Catholics would mean America could no longer be a confident Protestant nation, but its identity would be diluted. Perhaps they did not foresee the generic "America is a Christian nation" rhetoric common even among some U.S. Catholics, but if they did I do not think they would believe it to be an improvement.

    Accepting these white ethnics made it more difficult to maintain American continuity without transforming it into a "proposition nation." Those of us Americans who are white ethnics but are also skeptical of propositionalism are in quite a fix.

    As for ethnic strife, here's a thought experiment: read the American "culture wars" as a fight between the WASP establishment (now dedicated to feminism and sexual liberation) and Catholic traditionalists. In this light, fully assimilated Catholics side with the WASPs while culture warriors like Pat Buchanan are still imperfectly assimilated immigrants. (Or they assimilated to outgroups, like low church Southerners or Midwesterners, and not the ingroups of the Northeastern establishment.)

    In this interpretation, there is more ethnic strife than you'd presumably have in an ethnically uniform country.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Kevin and Van Wijk,

    You can't ever get totally away from ethnic strife. England has its issues with the Scots and Irish. Germany with southern Catholics etc. This is history and its unrealistic to expect a perfectly homogenous society. Even Japan would undoubtedly have regional differences between a historically very homogenous people.

    The issue isn't totally whether people will fit in or not. The issue is whether they should be expected to. Multiculturalism says that they shouldn't even try and that its oppressive to suggest they should. It also says the more the merrier and any watering down of the traditional attitudes or people is a positive. Yes even the Italians and Irish brought their own ethnic strife to the new countries, read mobs and the unionised Irish. Nonetheless for every draw back there was also a benefit and America dominated the world in the C20th in part because of its immigration policies in the C19th.

    You will not turn back the clock to the C18th so its pointless even to try. The issue is what are we going to do with the people in our countries now and what are we going to do in the future. If we recognise that immigration has pros and cons and that right now the pros are far in deficiency, then we can make an argument for stopping or limiting immigration. Trying to tell the people who are born and raised here that they are not real citizens is pointless.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It's pleasing to see that Frank Ellis' robust and astute commentary on Cameron's disingenuous speech is getting publicity from several sympathetic blogs (that I know of).

    The point that Dr Ellis makes about the restrictive nature of national identity is very cogent and should be digested by anyone perplexed by liberal propaganda on behalf of "diversity" etc.

    A few years ago, Frank Ellis was virtually compelled to resign from his job as lecturer at Leeds University because of his "abhorrent views". He had merely endorsed the theory of the Bell Curve - which strongly suggests that ethnicity is a significant factor in IQ Levels.

    ReplyDelete
  13. ""Not all people are unassimilable. Some are perfectly capable of adapting to a foreign culture.""

    This is true, and before the 20th century there would very rarely have been population movements so large as to make assimilation needed.

    Now such population movements are the norm, and in numbers larger than anything earth has seen before.

    We remind me of the Romans peering out from our river forts in central europe thinking that the Germans are no so bad, after all we have German neighbours, we trade with Germans, they have been a part of our life for centuries, we have German allies and even German soldiers in our armies, what have we to fear from the Germans?

    Then the Franks, Lombards, Vandals, Burgundians and all the other tribes of the dark forests came out and took what the Romans were too weak to defend.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Oh and the Goths, don't forget the Goths, they were probably Germanic in origin as well.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The issue isn't totally whether people will fit in or not. The issue is whether they should be expected to. Multiculturalism says that they shouldn't even try and that it's oppressive to suggest they should. It also says the more the merrier and any watering down of the traditional attitudes or people is a positive.

    Fit in with what? Right liberals don't recognise the existence of cultures. They look at society as being made up of millions of stripped down, abstracted individuals. That's what they want the immigrants to be. That's what they mean by immigrants fitting in. So they get upset with immigrants who violate liberal norms, not with those who don't fit in with a pre-existing culture.

    Nor is there anything within the philosophy of right-liberalism that might limit mass immigration. If you see society as a collection of abstracted individuals, then what's to limit bringing in more? Particularly if you believe in allowing business free rein to import labour according to market principles.

    Right liberals are sometimes sensitive to social cohesiveness and have therefore been known to limit immigration when there are signs of popular discontent, but they'll ramp it up again when "confidence in the system is restored".

    ReplyDelete
  16. You will not turn back the clock to the C18th so its pointless even to try. The issue is what are we going to do with the people in our countries now and what are we going to do in the future. If we recognise that immigration has pros and cons and that right now the pros are far in deficiency, then we can make an argument for stopping or limiting immigration. Trying to tell the people who are born and raised here that they are not real citizens is pointless.

    Precisely. This is why I try to make more mitigated propositions, for we must adapt to the circumstances in order to live up to our objectives. At this point, we will only alienate people, if we start telling them they are not real citizens.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Thanks for the mention, Mark.

    I've heard it said that "to be an American" means loyalty and affinity not for those who look like / talk like / act like you, but adherence to the principles outlined in a certain set of documents and the "rule of law".

    This to me is idiocy on stilts. It is willful blindness to the realities of human nature and how humans group together and form loyalties to one another. I am happy to see elements of the Anglosphere finally able to speak openly of the truth that other races, nations, and ethnicities never disavowed: culture matters. National identity matter. It is not something you put on like a suit of clothes. It is something you inherit.

    Moreover, other cultures and ethnicities don't want to assimilate and see little reason why they should give up their ways in order to adopt ours.

    To that, I say, without a hint of animosity: fine. Keep your foreign ways in your foreign land. Leave us ours and we'll leave you yours.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Elusive Wapiti said,

    "Moreover, other cultures and ethnicities don't want to assimilate and see little reason why they should give up their ways in order to adopt ours."

    Well how succesful were the Irish and Italians at integrating? We can say that they were not that different now but when they first arrived they were considered substantially different.

    The Romans managed to run a multicultural society, in the sense that they granted the citizenship widely. There were obvious problems with their system which became pressing in the latter empire but I don't think you can say that their view of a citizen was of an autonomous stripped down individual. There is such a thing as a civic nationality that can be embraced which is not just a traditional culture writ large. I don't say that such a thing can survive easily without a traditional culture at the base, nonetheless concepts such as nationalism of civic commitment are substantial concpets. They involve a sense of a larger collective that is based on loyalty, established principles, and not just blood. People can assimilate to this, provided they are expected to and provided the numbers involved are not too great.

    ReplyDelete
  19. In case anyone is curious I was using my mate's computer.

    ReplyDelete
  20. On the one hand we have to stand up for the majority culture, but on the other we have to recognise that the minority immigrants we've already let in aren't going to fully assimilate into the host culture, and it wouldn't be natural for them to. This is especially so when the immigrants are from different continents. Also many of them are now second generation immigrants who never signed on to western liberalism and are naturally reverting to their indigenous customs.

    The best we can do is make them asslimilate to the extent that they must respect the laws of the country which pertain to all citizens and learn to speak the language of the majority, otherwise they will become a burden on the majority, and thus undermine the host culture.

    For us to complain when they say, cheer their home country at a cricket match, while British immigrants politely cheer the locals is naive. They are too different to us to want to identify with us at this level. If we aren't happy with this, we shouldn't have let them in.

    Also we need to let them know that in interactions between natives and immigrants, the immigrants will have to bend to the will of the majority.

    For example, if Muslims want Sharia Councils to help decide civic cases amongst themselves, I'm not that bothered since its decisions have no bearing on the lives of the non-Muslim majority. Right liberal don't oppose Sharia councils because they are a threat to non-Muslims but because they are ideologically opposed to the traditionalist customs of these councils and want to force liberals to be Muslims.

    However, if Muslims women expect to wear veils when they walk into banks and airports, they can think again, since this is issue which has consequences for everyone, and if the majority aren't happy with it, then it's the majority way or the highway.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The Indian elite classes still send their kids to English style private schools within India. An urbane Oxford or Harvard educated Jordanian would probably not seem that different to a sophisticated Italian or Greek. I don't think that we can say that just location is suifficient to determine whether people will likely assimilate or not. Obviously cultural divide is a real thing, however, I'm inclined to think that simple numbers are the biggest issue. For the "melting pot" to cook there must be heat and time. Current immigrants are given little heat and with the current rate that we bring them in there is no time.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Obviously cultural divide is a real thing, however, I'm inclined to think that simple numbers are the biggest issue.

    Good point. If an immigrant goes to live in a foreign country alone they will be naturally forced to adapt to the local culture to fit in and make relationships with the local community. On the other hand, if an immigrant goes to live in a foreign country where there is already an immigrant community they'll have no need to associate with the locals; and thus no need to adapt to local culture and customs.

    ReplyDelete
  23. OT. Readers might like to visit this poll about whether London School of Economics should have invited Thilo Sarrazin to a discussion on “Europe's Future: The Decline of the West.”

    Should Thilo Sarrazin have been invited to speak at the German Symposium?

    ReplyDelete
  24. England has its issues with the Scots and Irish.

    A few centuries of conquest and coercion might have something to do with that. The Welsh don't care for the English either.

    Immigrants, on the other hand, came over of their own volition and can simply return home if they believe they're being mistreated.

    This is history and its unrealistic to expect a perfectly homogenous society.

    Who's arguing for one? While abuse of both immigrant and host certainly occurred, I think the immigration of all those disparate Caucasian ethnic groups worked out well for all involved.

    Trying to tell the people who are born and raised here that they are not real citizens is pointless.

    So deporting Moslems is out of the question if they've been given citizenship, and asking them not to breed is likewise out of the question. What, then, is to keep them from outbreeding you and conquering Australia that way?

    At this point, we will only alienate people, if we start telling them they are not real citizens.

    And I'm sure you won't alienate them when you say that your country must remain majority European, implying that your fellow citizens are only desirable in small doses. Face it, you're going to alienate most of these folks just by holding the views you do.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The Romans managed to run a multicultural society, in the sense that they granted the citizenship widely.

    The Romans offered citizenship to the people whose lands they had conquered. Conquered lands were thoroughly Romanized, and in many cases the people in those places knew no life but the Roman one from an early age. Roman multiculturalism worked on some level because the Roman people and the Roman way were considered superior to all others; Rome set all standards, and those who would not meet them would suffer.

    Even so, ethnic revolts were common, and they were always met with overwhelming force. You cannot compare contemporary assimilation with that of the Roman state.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Van Wijk,

    Why argue for deportation when you haven't even won the argument yet for slowing or ending immigration?

    ReplyDelete
  27. ""The Romans managed to run a multicultural society, in the sense that they granted the citizenship widely.""

    In order to advance their political and economic agenda.

    Most empires are Multi-cult by need, not by choice. Joining with a culture is something that takes time and needs small numbers of total immigrants.

    Our society would be better if we could restrict immigration to 10,000 a year or so, rather than the thirty times that which seems the norm these days.

    With 10K we could get the skilled workers that industry needs to expand without destroying or even altering the cultural dynamic of Australia, esp if combined with other policies.

    ReplyDelete
  28. A:Trying to tell the people who are born and raised here that they are not real citizens is pointless.

    B:So deporting Moslems is out of the question if they've been given citizenship, and asking them not to breed is likewise out of the question. What, then, is to keep them from outbreeding you and conquering Australia that way?

    A: At this point, we will only alienate people, if we start telling them they are not real citizens.

    B: And I'm sure you won't alienate them when you say that your country must remain majority European, implying that your fellow citizens are only desirable in small doses. Face it, you're going to alienate most of these folks just by holding the views you do.


    This is an interesting exchange. Traditonalism seems to me to be an attempt at "respectable" white nationalism.

    Traditionalists, like most of us here, want 1. to maintain a white majority in white nations, and 2. a return to traditional (European) Christian morality. They want to achieve this "fairly" and "democratically" and hence advocate ending immigration.

    This is well and good but at some point, thanks to differential fertility, closing the gates will not suffice. In fact, I would argue that the US is already beyond this tipping point as half of its under-3 population is non-white. The only alternative then is to accept the destruction of your nation or to embrace what are essentially neo-nazi ideas (i.e. expulsion, pro-white natal policies, outlawing miscegenation). This is the logical endpoint that all traditionalists must reach but, scared off by their own conclusions they back off.

    This is why traditionalism will never gain traction. All a leftist has to do is ask them what they will do once that tipping point has been reached. All the traditionalist can then do is dissimulate and make a fool of himself.

    I am not saying that we should go around espousing these ideas to the public but on forums such as these we need to be honest with each other.

    ReplyDelete
  29. If we advocate deportation how will that help in the argument to restrict immigration? The general public supports less immigration but won't support deportation.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Bob, I am sure you know about the fabians, their tactics seem to have worked well, i suggest anyone who wants to change society should emulate them.

    Think baby steps.

    ReplyDelete
  31. And I'm sure you won't alienate them when you say that your country must remain majority European, implying that your fellow citizens are only desirable in small doses. Face it, you're going to alienate most of these folks just by holding the views you do.

    No, Van Wijk, not if we do it in a stealthy fashion. The priority is to close the floodgates, then we will turn to those already present.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "bob said..."
    Do you wonder how long white people are going to listen to people like you call them nazis all day, for simply refering to themselves as a collective with self interest. Wether you are white or not there will be a day when people like you are exiled from homogenous white socities for being a pain in the ***.

    ReplyDelete
  33. he only alternative then is to accept the destruction of your nation or to embrace what are essentially neo-nazi ideas (i.e. expulsion, pro-white natal policies, outlawing miscegenation). This is the logical endpoint that all traditionalists must reach but, scared off by their own conclusions they back off.

    National socialism may have been associated with these ideas, but it cannot claim a monopoly on these.

    This is why traditionalism will never gain traction. All a leftist has to do is ask them what they will do once that tipping point has been reached. All the traditionalist can then do is dissimulate and make a fool of himself.

    You wait until the countries already down the slope (the United States, the Netherlands, Sweden, etc.) show the others how their multi-cult dreams turns into a nightmare, then some countries will start questioning the existing liberal order, Australia seems in an especially good position to do so. Others will follow. Do not let us forget multi-cult and colonization have not reached Eastern Europe yet. There will be strong resistance in parts of Europe: Austria, Italy, Denmark, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "Laurance Austar said that many immigrants are essentially incapable of assimilation. Wasn't that argument, however, used in relation to the Italians, Irish and Poles in America in the late C19th? Obviously such assimilation was not without its issues but many would point that out as an example of successful assimilation."

    How successful was the Irish immigration to the USA and UK?
    Ireland was essentially a Third World country until railroaded into the EU and financed by Germany. As Ireland was dragged up to First World status by German finance, the Irish regressed and blew it all. Ireland is now a bankrupt state with little hope for the future.

    The Irish have emigrated in large numbers to live off the wealth created by the Protestant Anglo nations in the UK, Australia and USA but in these countries the majority of the Irish immmigrants have regressed and been unable to adapt. They are still working class. They fill up the prisons, mental hospitals and benefits claimants.

    What is the contrbution of the Irish to the USA? They have largely been the driving force behind the Immigration Acts which have allowed Third World immigrants to enter the USA, the democrat party with its left wing policies and much criminality in the cities where they have settled.

    The Italians are a more astute and adaptable race who are better able to assimilate but I question the assimmilation of the Irish and to some extent the Poles.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Ireland was essentially a Third World country until railroaded into the EU and financed by Germany. As Ireland was dragged up to First World status by German finance, the Irish regressed and blew it all. Ireland is now a bankrupt state with little hope for the future.

    This is an entirely incorrect statement. The main factor behind Ireland's spectacular recovery as of the 1970s was its ability to liberalize and wipe out inefficiencies, cut red tape and the use of shrewd fiscal policies to attract firms (it is still home to a third of American firms present in Europe while only representing less than 1% of the overall EU population). The corporate income tax is 12.5%. By contrast, France's is 33.33% and Germany's approximately 30%, enough to make up for the productivity gap. Also, there have been significant productivity gains in recent years. The Irish economy has collapsed mainly because of the EU (and, in particular, the single currency). Whilst the German economy has been mostly sluggish for two decades, the Irish economy was booming and subject to inflation and a housing bubbles which should have been met with rises in interest rates in order to keep down inflation and prevent overheating. This could not be done, simply because the euro is piloted by the Frankfurt-based ECB and is but a copy of the former Deutsche Mark, taylored for Germany's, not Ireland's, interests. The single currency really is the main factor explaining why Ireland is going bust. So, your assumptions about the Irish people seem pretty weak. You also cast assertions upon their being natural lefties, which is simply not true. If you had had a look at how things are in Ireland you would doubtless have realized the Irish are among the most conservative people (along Italians and Poles, by the way) in Europe these days. This is admittedly not saying much, but they do compare favourably with other European countries, including Britain where Labour has long been in charge. For all its present difficulties, Ireland could have the potential to bounce back, and is still one of the richest countries in Europe (for all it is worth, its PPP GDP per capita is among the highest in the EU). It would probably be underway if it had not bailed out the banksters, and had followed Iceland's example, except the EU would not allow it.

    ReplyDelete
  36. James said,

    "Bob, I am sure you know about the fabians, their tactics seem to have worked well, i suggest anyone who wants to change society should emulate them.

    Think baby steps."

    Its pointless advocating harsher policies when we can't even manage a restriction in immigration yet.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Ireland

    Southern Corss' response seems to be tinged with rose coloured glasses. In the 1970s Ireland was dirt poor. It was largely due to its entrance into the EU that it was able to obtain EU grants to allow it to develop some infratructure, keep its corporation tax low and attract foreign companies. But foreign companies do not make an economy and many of these are now leaving.

    The Irish don't have a bright future. They are effectivley slaves to the Germans and the people will face severe cutbacks for years until their debts to the Germans are repaid.

    "This is admittedly not saying much, but they do compare favourably with other European countries, including Britain where Labour has long been ... "

    The Labour party in Britain draws its support from the Irish immigrant population in the UK who are largely socialist in their political orientaion with large numbers dependent upon welfare.
    The IRA is also a Marxist organisation.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Southern Corss' response seems to be tinged with rose coloured glasses. In the 1970s Ireland was dirt poor. It was largely due to its entrance into the EU that it was able to obtain EU grants to allow it to develop some infratructure, keep its corporation tax low and attract foreign companies. But foreign companies do not make an economy and many of these are now leaving.

    And yours is tinged with black-coloured glasses, or blinders. EU grants were marginal and patently useless as in anything the EU endeavours to do. Fianna Fail cut spending on a dramatic scale, which allowed Ireland to cut taxes. Many companies will stay, they have already said so and urged government not to raise the corporate income tax rate, government gave in, and many are staying. Why should they go to Germany to have up to a third of their profits confiscated by the state with no significant gap in productivity to make it up?

    The Irish don't have a bright future. They are effectivley slaves to the Germans and the people will face severe cutbacks for years until their debts to the Germans are repaid.

    Maybe, who knows? EMU has been a dismal failure, this is the only thing Ireland (and Greece) has proven so far. All eurozone countries are slaves to Germany, including the French.

    The Labour party in Britain draws its support from the Irish immigrant population in the UK who are largely socialist in their political orientaion with large numbers dependent upon welfare.
    The IRA is also a Marxist organisation.


    Any source? So far, these are gratuitous assumptions. As far as I am aware, Labour strongholds are located, for the most part, in Wales, Scotland, and Northern England (where there might large numbers of people of Irish descent). You may not like it, but Ireland as a whole holds far more socially conservative views on abortion, marriage and a myriad of other issues than Britain. On the other hand, we do agree as far as the IRA is concerned.

    ReplyDelete
  39. There are references to "traditionalists" in this discussion which I understand, generally speaking, is a shorthand description of opponents of every ubiquitous aspect of political correctness that has been imposed.

    But can anyone suggest a peaceful series of political expedients that would give "traditionalists" the upper hand?

    ReplyDelete
  40. It's moving slowly and step by step beyond Cameron. With more and more conservatives rejecting libertarianism little by little things are getting clearer.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I agree with Jesse that we're jumping ahead of ourselves in some of this discussion.

    We're just beginning to witness a breaking with liberal orthodoxy, particularly from those coming from a right-liberal background.

    It's still difficult to know how far this might go. And that will determine what might be realistically achieved.

    But there are certainly things that might be achieved, even in the conditions that have been left to us.

    Let's say that we were to gain numbers, but not adequate to gain a democratic majority. Does that mean it's all over?

    Not really. We could try to dominate somewhere in Australia. It's a big country. If numbers were big enough, we could set up some schools, some local media etc. It's likely that you'd get at least some people from elsewhere in Australia wanting to join in.

    And what if we had enough support to at least get some senators into Parliament? That would then give us at least some political leverage.

    We could intervene in whatever political issues of the day were happening and either establish a traditionalist party or else have a greater influence within an established party.

    But we have to take this step by step. At the moment, we're still at the stage of breaking apart the liberal monopoly on politics - of trying to demonstrate the possibility of a principled, non-liberal politics.

    There really are some encouraging signs right now that politics (amongst the rank and file) is beginning to open up.

    ReplyDelete
  42. "Let's say that we were to gain numbers, but not adequate to gain a democratic majority. Does that mean it's all over?"

    No. We have to make small gains. Plus I doubt that democracy is a good form of government (perhaps the monarchy or something else).

    ReplyDelete
  43. Ireland was essentially a Third World country until railroaded into the EU and financed by Germany.

    A little off topic, but please do not confuse an agrarian society with a third world one.

    I also don't think that anyone on the "alternative right" should be praising Anglo capitalism, which is responsible for much of the mess we find ourselves in.

    ReplyDelete
  44. ""But can anyone suggest a peaceful series of political expedients that would give "traditionalists" the upper hand?""

    So you want "gettable" goals?

    1. Reduce immigration by as much as possible [this being favoured by a large chunk of the popuation already]. Any downward pressure on it or shift in community attitudes against it is good.

    2. Shrink government spending, something a large chunk of the Right-libs want to do for themselves anyway for their own reasons. When you shrink government spending you weaken the State and strengthen the family.

    Do these things and further progress can be made from there.

    Don't do these things and it may well be time to start building gated communities.

    ReplyDelete
  45. ""I also don't think that anyone on the "alternative right" should be praising Anglo capitalism, which is responsible for much of the mess we find ourselves in.""

    You have a point, but that same capitalism is the reason why my Grandfather couldn't afford shoes and I have a dozen pairs despite not being very wealthy.

    It is the cultural ideology of liberalism rather than the economic system of capitalism itself that creates the atomisation issues and social disintergration that traditionalists generally detest.

    ReplyDelete
  46. James suggests some gettable goals at which traditionalists should aim in order to get the upper hand (eventually).

    Well, I agree with every sentiment wrapped up in these goals, but none of them is going to be aimed for by the powers-that-be. Only the liberal establishment has the political power to achieve these goals, and it isn't going to dissolve itself and give anyone else the chance to turn its world upside down.

    Whether the incremental steps, suggested by Mark, will work depends on many factors - not least of which is persevering for as long as the desired transformation will take. And how long will it take: another generation or two?

    Small numbers of people who are fed up with political correctness and the loss of their freedoms, aren't going to destroy the apparatus that controls everything from the centre by wanting to. Merely wanting to do what's right isn't enough.

    It's no use hoping for a revolt of the people. There are no signs among the brainwashed masses that they are willing to give up the goodies which the liberal militants have bribed them with.

    ReplyDelete
  47. "But we have to take this step by step. At the moment, we're still at the stage of breaking apart the liberal monopoly on politics - of trying to demonstrate the possibility of a principled, non-liberal politics.

    There really are some encouraging signs right now that politics (amongst the rank and file) is beginning to open up."

    This is naive. People power is not an efective force without the backing of the elites. In order to achieve significant results it is essential to have the logistical support from an intelligence service, either one's own or a foreign one which has a strong interest in changing the prevailing order.

    Cameron is not changing his political philosophy, he is simply changing the spin.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Anonymous said,

    "In order to achieve significant results it is essential to have the logistical support from an intelligence service, either one's own or a foreign one which has a strong interest in changing the prevailing order."

    You've read too many spy novels.

    ReplyDelete
  49. People power is not an effective force without the backing of the elites.

    Maybe I didn't express myself well.

    What I've said all along is that you get the chance to change things when you start to win over a section of the political class - the political class being those people in society with an abiding interest and involvement in politics.

    In Australia the ordinary voters were a lot more conservative than the politicians for decades. But because the political class was solidly liberal it never amounted to much.

    You're not in the game if you aren't represented in the political class. And traditionalists haven't been.

    The encouraging sign is that some of the rank and file right liberals within the political class are starting to open up a bit to certain traditionalist positions. Also, there are other non-orthodox political currents that have sprung up, including those within the men's rights movement.

    It's not happening in a neat and orderly way, but there are signs of some people moving beyond liberal orthodoxy.

    But it's not enough right now to affect official party politics, which continues on as before.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Mark Richardson said,

    "The encouraging sign is that some of the rank and file right liberals within the political class are starting to open up a bit to certain traditionalist positions."

    I can attest to the wets being on the back foot generally within the Liberal party. Their agenda is weak and they know it. If you can change the "Liberal" party to the "Conservative" party you are advancing the cause.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Wherever positions of authority and influence are occupied by "liberals" - which is more or less everywhere in Western societies - they will have to be displaced and much of their political legacy will have to be dumped before "traditionalists" can get their hands on the levers of power and effect the changes they want.

    This task is incredibly difficult to accomplish peacefully in a democracy.

    ReplyDelete
  52. "What I've said all along is that you get the chance to change things when you start to win over a section of the political class - the political class being those people in society with an abiding interest and involvement in politics.

    In Australia the ordinary voters were a lot more conservative than the politicians for decades. But because the political class was solidly liberal it never amounted to much.

    You're not in the game if you aren't represented in the political class. And traditionalists haven't been."

    The ordinary voter is largely irrelevant in most democracies which are essentially controlled by powerful vested interests. In most Western countries (USA, UK) these are corporations and in the Asian countries these are powerful families (India). The ordinary voter has no effective means of control of the political system and public opinion is largely manipulated and often disregarded.

    To obtain influence in politics it is essential to acquire the power and wealth to gain leverage over the political system and this means the control of key positions and key sectors of the economy. Conservatives in most countries do not have the resources to do this.

    Once a political organisation or movement which is opposed to or at odds with the prevailing political order becomes significant it is inflitrated by the intelligence services and is subverted from within and attacked from without.

    The idea that a traditionalist politcal movement can succeed is not realistic without having a strategy to overwhelm the resources of security and intelligence apparatus of a country.

    ReplyDelete
  53. But anon think of the example of feminism.

    In Australia in the 1980s and early 1990s feminism ruled unchallenged. Feminists had the levers of power and could do what they liked with this power.

    But this intensified the faults within feminist ideology. The influence of feminism on society became unbearable even for a section of those on the left.

    So there was a backlash from which Australian feminism has not still quite recovered.

    In the meantime, a men's movement has sprung up which was mocked at first but which is now unlikely to go away. The movement is not politically unified but has some genuinely non-liberal elements within it.

    We haven't got to the point at which feminists are out of power - they are still there in government passing feminist legislation.

    But there is now more of a contest when it comes to promulgating ideas and beliefs. Young men in the political class are no longer falling into an allegiance to feminism as being the naturally 'moral' option.

    ReplyDelete
  54. "You're not in the game if you aren't represented in the political class. And traditionalists haven't been."

    True, which is why whenever a traditionalist or even part traditionalist breaks into the mainstream they get savaged by the elites.

    Take the kiwi politician Winston Peters, for example. He expresses very midlly traditionalist views on issues like immigration and has the advantage of being mixed race, but is still ridiculed and demonised by both the left and right. If fact the right hate him more than the left because he is mildly protectionist. However, he has still had a significant impact on NZ immigration policy, and has single-handedly moved it slightly to the right of Australia's.

    The elites know that liberalism in its full-blown form is very unpopular with the masses, and know that even with a relatively small minority of elite representation, traditionalists could box well above their weight.

    By contrasts, liberalism is a relatively unpopular ideology that is imposed from above. Hence it needs to have near total elite support to succeed. Which is why liberal elites are so intolerant about traditionalists having a seat at the table, and are so aggressive in imposing things like politically correct speech codes.

    I also suspect that when traditionalists were dominant the reason why they weren't that bothered about left liberals getting a foot in the door was because they assumed the left liberals would never be able to take over since their views were unpopular with the masses, and they could never achieve hegemony in a democracy.

    Basically, then the right underestimated the left liberals ability to control society by imposing orthodoxy among the elites.

    Hence it's going to be very tough to break into mainstream politics, but once traditionalists get into the mainstream, they will have a lot of political clout if they have politicians that know how to play to the crowd.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Hence it needs to have near total elite support to succeed.

    I think that's pretty much right. People in a "closed" system can persuade each other to follow a world view that doesn't correlate well to reality (particularly if there's some self-interest involved). But open up the system and attitudes can change relatively quickly.

    You can see the same kind of thing at certain websites. To use feminism as an example again, there are feminist websites which don't allow non-feminist comments. It's easy at these sites for the feminist women to hold to the belief that all men are abusers, rapists etc. But if there was a more open discussion, it's likely that the handful of true believers in the men as abusers theory would not as easily hold sway over the others.

    Liberals have in the past managed to keep to a closed system, which is what PC was all about.

    But if even 15% of the political class were to adopt non-liberal views it would become difficult to keep the system closed.

    ReplyDelete
  56. "But there is now more of a contest when it comes to promulgating ideas and beliefs. Young men in the political class are no longer falling into an allegiance to feminism as being the naturally 'moral' option."

    There needs to be a challenge to left-liberalism (liberalism) and right-liberalism (libertarianism) I agree.

    "Liberals have in the past managed to keep to a closed system, which is what PC was all about."

    PC is the logical consequence of liberalism. It's a consequence of the female way of thought versus the male way of thought. It's also closely related to anti religious (mostly Christian) sentiment and the theory of evolution (we are always progressing, etc).

    "But if even 15% of the political class were to adopt non-liberal views it would become difficult to keep the system closed."

    Both the masses and the political class have become infected with liberalism. I disagree that it's just political class (the masses support it as well) but agree that we need to transform both segments. So what system of politics is better than democracy? The monarchy perhaps?

    ReplyDelete
  57. And how will we challenge the worldview of liberalism? Equality, individualism (autonomy), progress, democracy, human rights and other things?

    ReplyDelete
  58. "In Australia in the 1980s and early 1990s feminism ruled unchallenged. Feminists had the levers of power and could do what they liked with this power"

    I must say that the pre occupation of this web site with feminism and its "power" displays an utter naivety of the political process.

    You have not understood that politcal power is dependent upon wealth and influence. Feminists don't have that wealth or influence and never have had it. They may have had an illusion of power but that is quite differnt from having actual power.

    Feminists are the poster girls for Liberal wealthy men who need to market their policies and put spin on their ideas to make them acceptable to the target market.

    Feminists are not the driving force behind any political movement. They are simply the poster girls for the campaigns of the real powers behind the scenes.

    The men's movement is politically irrelevant. The war in politics is between the globalised wealthy elite who are imposing their policies via their direct control of the political system and the powerless masses who will need to find the means to overthrow them.

    ReplyDelete
  59. "But if even 15% of the political class were to adopt non-liberal views it would become difficult to keep the system closed."

    No it is not - they just get rid of the politcal actors with non traditional views.

    To change a politcal order requires revolution. The only ccountry in which this has happened is the Lebanon where Hezbollah took over the Government. But they had the backing of the Iranian Government in order to achieve it.

    ReplyDelete
  60. "To change a political order requires revolution."

    Don't underestimate boredom and apathy. As I pointed out the liberal left took over the cultural sphere of western society due to the complacency of conservatives who assumed the left could never take over. The 60s counter culture revolution was a reaction to the cosy economic stability of the 1950s (the kids were bored). The Soviet Empire fell because the elites no longer had the will to up hold it.

    The masses may also be somewhat liberal as well but the fact that independent populist politicians are demonised and excluded by the elites indicates that there is still a big ideological gulf between them and the elites.

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.