Wednesday, May 12, 2010

A lament for England

The UK elections are over. There is now a coalition government of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats. It's David Cameron as PM and Nick Clegg as Deputy PM.

What an unfortunate result for England. Cameron is bad enough. It was reported at VFR that Cameron said on arriving at No.10,

Compared with a decade ago, this country is more open at home and more compassionate abroad and that is something we should all be grateful for.

So Cameron approves of Blair and Brown's transformation of the UK over the past decade. That's not a promising start for a supposedly conservative leader.

Clegg himself believes that Cameron is on a mission to "decontaminate" the Conservative Party of any residual conservatism:

No wonder David Cameron and George Osborne have sought to lay claim to the word progressive to describe their plans for Britain; it is the final frontier for them, the last step in their decontamination of the Conservative brand.

Clegg is no better than Cameron. Last year he wrote an essay titled "The Liberal Moment". He declares in this essay that the nation state is redundant. Society is now happily atomised, there is no longer a national identity, and therefore there is no need for "collectivist" organisation - except at the international level:

We live in a more atomised society where people are no longer rigidly defined by class or place. Our society is no longer trapped by a culture of diffidence and hierarchy.

The capacity of the nation state to act for its citizens has been dramatically diluted as globalisation has undermined its powers. The increasing accessibility of international air travel and new technologies like the internet have radically stretched people’s physical and conceptual horizons. New forms of religious and ethnic identity have dissolved the traditional glue that held the identity of nations together. In short, we live in a more fluid, less deferential world ...

Clegg believes that the Labour Party isn't sufficiently internationalist:

Labour has lost its ideological way ... They are unsure how to deal with a globalised world in which the nation state is no longer the correct locus of power. They are unsure how to react to the way people have been empowered by technology, travel and prosperity and are no longer willing to subordinate themselves to a collective whole in the name of a supposed ‘common good’ ...

So we have been "empowered" to enjoy an atomised existence in which we no longer have to connect ourselves to a "common good".

In the same essay, Clegg also lists "social radicalism in education" as one of his "liberal beliefs".

It was Nick Clegg who saw progressive opportunities during the recession. With men losing their jobs, he thought the moment had come to push ahead with a unisex family life. Men could "reinvent" themselves as house husbands or child carers. Employers could be threatened if they attempted to sack women. Gender could be made not to matter in family life:

For many [men], full-time work remains the anchor of their identity ... Yet a savage recession, like a war, shakes the traditional identity of men and women. In the Second World War it had a liberating effect of sorts. By 1943 more than 7.25 million women were employed, two million more than before the war ...

As this recession bears down on thousands of communities and families we must again be open to reinventing ourselves. Many men will be forced to let go of their earlier identities and try something new ... And many women may become the only family breadwinner for the first time. For many couples this will be unsettling and deeply disruptive to the settled patterns of life, work and marriage. A new flexibility in which men and women are supported in reinventing themselves will be vital in helping many thousands of families through this recession ...

For women, this means that Government must come down hard on employers who appear to be sacking them more readily than men ... Active support - including free legal advice - must be given to women ...

But some of the biggest changes that still need to take place are in the traditional perceptions of “male” work. Some months ago I suggested that more men should take up jobs in nurseries as childminders. At present, only 1 per cent of childminders are men ...

Rigidity in how parental leave is structured must change too. Mothers can take up to a year, fathers only two weeks ... But this split is out of step with the reality of many modern families, and discourages fathers from making a commitment to the care of their own children ...

The present rules make it almost impossible for young mothers to go back to work early, even if their husbands and partners are ready to stay at home

It is high time we moved into line with other European countries where interchangeable parental leave has long been the norm.

You might have seen photos or footage during the UK election of Cameron, Clegg and Brown standing together in their shiny suits. Three clean cut looking Anglo men (Brown less clean cut perhaps) all putting on a show of respectability.

But all three of them are committed to the liberal project. In one sense, they are all radicals, as none of them is committed to a defence of their own tradition. For Clegg a "determination to preserve, protect and defend" is an error of conservatism; he describes himself as being motivated instead by "a political ideology that stems from a restless, optimistic ambition for change and transformation."

He is a radical in a suit. He is still running on liberal ideology, still a follower of J.S. Mill, even as the damage done by liberalism mounts.

The failure to disengage from liberalism is still there. It is painful to watch. I can only hope that there are some younger Brits who are paving the way for something different politically.


  1. I was dumbstruck by this LAME verdict. The larger question is whether Brits care about their culture and western civilization?

  2. I know we've had this discussion before but I'm usually happy when a right or right leaning govt is elected. I also heard Cameron's speech following the election where he said that the outgoing Govt were one of the worst in the nation's history.

    At the end of the day a Govt’s acts are far more important than their rhetoric. Its not impossible that all this "detoxify" nonsense is absolutely meaningless and is nothing but a pr exercise to show that you're current. We all remember George Bush's "Compassionate Conservative" line and whether he was a conservative or not he generally wasn't a bleeding heart.

    The UK has the immediate concerns of immigration and ending the domination of Europe. If Cameron takes action on those fronts then he would have gone a long way to doing his job. If he doesn’t then he should be quite rightly castigated.

  3. Jesse...Bush was a total fuck up. His compassionate conservative stance was a BIG warning that I for one should have listened to. Bush did nothing for the borders, got us into Iraq, passed all the Community Reinvestment Acts that caused the housing bubble in California and the Sand States.

    I don't hold much faith in Cameron. Actually none at all :)

    We always talk about the differences between men and women. Men say what they mean. Therefore, the argument that this is all just rhetoric doesn't sit well with me.

    Here's what VDARE had to say about the conservatives...

    "The least bad outcome would have been a big Conservative majority—rather like Labour got in 1997. This, paradoxically, would have weakened David Cameron. Almost every Conservative candidate likely to win a seat at this election had been hand-picked by him. Right up to a majority of about thirty, Conservative Members of Parliament would have been ready to vote exactly as directed.

    But the bigger the majority beyond that, the larger the number of real conservatives who would have been elected—ready to demand action on the most important issues. These could have formed a bloc of several dozen Members, able to embarrass or even to threaten the Government.

    The next least bad outcome—is the one we seem likely to get. A Conservative and Liberal Democrat agreement will not change policy on the European Union, the American alliance, immigration, multiculturalism, the response to alleged man-made climate change, the dominance of big business corporatism, or much else. But, on other issues, there will be a few welcome changes. Such a Government probably will abolish identity cards and the database state that it fronts. It will probably not "regulate" home schooling. It may rein in the police and the bureaucracy."

    The Swinton Circle likes to kick out 'radical' people with views like mine. So I don't see how the Tories are going to save Britain when their most right leaning group are all leftists.

    But on the bright side, some traditionalist are bound to make it through the dam and restart society...eventually.

  4. The anger towards demographic changes to the UK have more philosophical support from me than the anger towards the demographic changes occuring here in Australia.

    The 'Anglo-Saxons' of the UK are the 'indigenous' people of that land.

    Whereas the 'Anglo-Saxon' people of Australia are 'invaders' (This reference to invasion is largely neutered by the fact there were not many aborigines living here in the 1770's.

    The majority population here in Australia are being hypocritical when they talk about forigners taking over.

    Perhaps the one thing that the UK anti-immigration supporters have to consider is that they are obligated to accept people from their former colonies.

    Savvas Tzionis

  5. His talk of atomization and the end of the nation state is not Millsian. Mills understood that free institutions cannot exist in a multi-ethnic polity. Clegg cares not for freedom.

    The rights of the Anglo-Saxon in Australia was codified, before 1945, by international law. It was called the right of conquest. Entering by force in order to conquer does not describe the current mass migration to Oz. There is no hypocrisy. The Greek immigrant foments for the destruction of the Anglo-Australian because the Greek feels an alliance with the Other serves the Greek's ethnic interest in Oz.

  6. Tzonis said:

    "The anger towards demographic changes to the UK have more philosophical support from me than the anger towards the demographic changes occuring here in Australia."

    That's a hopeless argument. Humans didn't pop out of the ground like mushrooms everybody came from somewhere else. Australia is our country now.

  7. Tzionis writes,

    "The 'Anglo-Saxons' of the UK are the 'indigenous' people of that land.

    Whereas the 'Anglo-Saxon' people of Australia are 'invaders' (This reference to invasion is largely neutered by the fact there were not many aborigines living here in the 1770's."

    Haha, nice. So, even as you're telling us that the 'Anglo-Saxons' have a right to their own country, you just can't resist using those little scare quotes.

    It's as if you're holding your nose as you type, not quite able to say something kind about one of the Anglo-Saxon peoples without simultaneously stabbing them in the back.

    You're a hateful, deeply prejudiced man, Tsionis. What self-respecting Australian, given the choice again to admit your ancestors into the country, would repeat the same mistake? Aren't you one of the best pieces of evidence for the immigration restrictionist's case?

  8. Also, Tzionis wrote,

    "Perhaps the one thing that the UK anti-immigration supporters have to consider is that they are obligated to accept people from their former colonies."

    Why? How many British colonials still reside in Pakistan? Kenya?

    If the British presence in Pakistan was temporary, why should the Pakistani presence in Britain be permanent?

    It's almost as if you were using two different standards, here, Tzionis: one for the Anglos and one for the rest. But, surely, you wouldn't do something so bigoted, prejudiced and unjust, would you?

  9. "The majority population here in Australia are being hypocritical when they talk about forigners taking over."

    Tzionis, the majority have a right to have a say on immigration policy because they are the majority. If there was a fair survey of popular opinion in any western country most would be in favour of immigration restriction. If only 10 percent of people were in favour of restricting immigration then I for one wouldn't bother to complain about it.

    You claim that Anglo-Celtic Australians are hypocrites for moving in on Aboriginal land and then complaining about new waves of immigrations, but you fail to explain to how these new immigrant waves will benefit the Aborigines.
    From what I can see more waves of immigration are just as likely to disadvantage Aborigines as Anglo-Celtic Australians.

    Furthermore, few Brits actually lived in countries like Nigeria and India, and most native people in these countries never even saw a white face, making a joke of the Marxist exploitation argument. By contrast every white person in Britain would have seen and Indian or Nigeria.

  10. The main point I am trying to make is that there is a difference between the UK and Australia.

    Even if you argue that UK also had an unwanted invasion by, say the Normans, there is no clearly defined group of people still feeling the pain of this 'invasion' (look at my words in first posting to see why I included quotation marks) unlike the Aborigines.

    Savvas Tzionis

  11. Good Point Savvas Tzionis.

    I've already emptied my closets, and the furniture moving van is on the way! I'm getting a DNA test so that I don't make the mistake of moving to Britain, in case I'm actually Latvian or something.

    Here's the deal....(this is why you all should read Kevin McDonald if for no other reason then his descriptions of whites)

    Whites, in comparison to every ethnic group, are principled peoples. To quote McDonald...

    "Non-violent forms of resistance seem to be effective in gaining the sympathies of White Europeans, but I can’t think of any other group of people that they have been effective with. I suspect that the effectiveness of non-violent protest among Westerners is due to their weak ingroup bonds — another aspect of Western individualism which cannot be assumed to operate among other peoples. While everyone else sees human suffering primarily in terms of how it affects people in their ingroup, Westerners seem susceptible to moral appeals — the moral universalism at the psychological level that was exploited so effectively in the civil rights era and now on behalf of impoverished immigrants (legal and illegal), persecuted refugees, Third World orphans, and Haitian earthquake victims."

    So....Mr. Savvas...

    As the Han Chinese destroy Tibet and the Uighurs, Israel apartheids the Palestinians, The Mexicans run amock in California (and remember they are Aztecs who used to sacrifice people), the Africans divide into tribes (remember the Zulus versus the Matabeles?) are saying that whites should just step aside?

    Whites landed on the shores of Australia. They didn't know Aborigines existed! Hell, they didn't even know really what black people were back then. Think about sail to this see these 'people' you think conflict is bound to not happen? I don't think it's anyone's fault.

    In fact...I am sick and tired of people like you twisting history to make whites feel perpertual guilty...BECAUSE...And Here's the Main Point...

    BECAUSE Whites are the ONLY Ethnic Group That is Capable of FEELING GUILTY.

    So there! Beat that shit.

  12. I mean at the end of the day how much of politics is emotion and how much reality? Obama stays in Afghanistan and its barely controversial. If a Republican did the same thing there'd be howling. We all know there's no logic behind the immigration issue its just one big mess that people are afraid to stop out of fear of being called racist.

    If someone like Cameron can embrace a leftie and in doing so it smoothes feathers and allows him to clean up the streets and close the border. So much the better. The political atmosphere in the US and Australia under the last right wing governments was actually toxic and it made it virtually impossible to get anything done.

  13. Anon:
    "The majority population here in Australia are being hypocritical when they talk about forigners taking over.

    Perhaps the one thing that the UK anti-immigration supporters have to consider is that they are obligated to accept people from their former colonies."

    No, the principle of self-interest is not hypocritical (it would only be hypocritical to deny that other groups can legitimately act in their own self-interest). It's not in the interests of Anglos to accept third-world immigration to either the UK or Australia.

    The Anglos of Australia and the USA are the indigenous national populations of those countries, because they created those countries, just as much as the English created England.

  14. I actually find it funny that you should all attack me so viciously.

    I actually agree that immigration should be halted/reduced.

    But not because I hate non-whites or am paranoically defensive of my culture.

    Its because I believe cultural change should change organically and I believe that with open borders countries like China and India (plus the rest) with their BILLIONS will change a country as dramatically as any war can. (post war migration from european countries was always going to be finite... not so from traditional third world countries)

    If the boot was on the other foot, I would not want to go to India and see it infested with White people. I want to see Indians!

    Savvas Tzionis

  15. Tzionis wrote

    "I actually agree that immigration should be halted/reduced."

    Great. So, no more immigration into Australia, then right?

  16. "Mills understood that free institutions cannot exist in a multi-ethnic polity. Clegg cares not for freedom."

    JS Mill is practically a patron saint of the Lib Dems, but they conviniently overlook all his caveats about the limitations of democracy and liberalism in general.

  17. Caveats on a big principle are always forgotten or overlooked.