“National Conservatism”

[Gweeds]

cirian75 said:

Jesus, this makes grim reading

Their "principles"

https://twitter.com/Otto_English/status/1658513414...

https://twitter.com/neillhope/status/1658515683297...

These NatCs are an American import using UK useful idiots

Gilead here we come.

I heard some of this on the radio earlier and my first thought was ‘this sounds like a load of religious headbangers’. Wasn’t so far off the mark.

[Gweeds]

smn159 said:

That does seem to have become the default argument of apologists for culture war stupidity.

Deserves an NP&E bingo entry

Oh come on. He’s ‘just asking questions’.

[Ridgemont]

Lots of ludicrous hyperventilating on here regarding values that were largely settled opinion on the right in living memory.
These aren’t fascists or nazis people. Get some perspective.

Is the Nat con movement to my taste? Not really: the explicit religiosity of the movement, clearly influenced by the US funders strikes me as discordant with how most people want to lead their lives, whether they have faith or not.

A couple of rightish sites give the perspective of more main stream conservatisms view of them (which a lot of wannabe wolfie smith’s on here are certainly not). Largely they are viewed as somewhat incoherent as yet:

https://thecritic.co.uk/who-are-the-british-nation...

I’ll dig out the other post, but from the above article this struck me:

article said:

But as I watched NatCon unfold, and listened to the first panel of the day, an idea that had been building finally took shape: this was half a conversation. Where is the Left on any of these questions? Mary Harrington, Alex Kaschuta, Ed West and Louise Perry got up, one after the other, to challenge our “biopolitical age”. This is the language of the Foucault and Agamben (post-modern Marxism, in Jordan Peterson-speak).

Knowing what a biological woman is and opposing open borders do not add up to a political movement, or a winning electoral strategy
But the mainstream Left, much like the mainstream Right, is still in love with libertarian individualism, and it is only on the dissident right that there’s a platform where it gets seriously challenged. The Guardian’s deputy political editor covering the event, Peter Walker, notes the focus on fertility by comparing it to “Viktor Orbán and Georgia Meloni”. If you’re on the Left you’re not allowed to care about the West’s plummeting fertility, unless, of course, you use them as a justification for further migration. When people have fewer children than they wish, and declining economic hopes for the future, how is mass movement anything other than a neoliberal answer; what Bernie Sanders rightly labelled as a “Koch Brothers agenda”?

Whether you like it or not: the focus of many of the talks and speeches reflects an increasingly tetchy part of the electorate that feels that the left and right in the main parties fail to specifically address things they feel strongly about.

Johnson spotted this and broke the red wall based on a populist Brexit related message but clearly vibing on wider concerns. The fact that he was a charlatan doesn’t mean that the message isn’t valid or the appetite for it isn’t there.

So this isn’t going away.

And supporting those views a nazi doesn’t you make.

[Derek Smith]

The bible as the ultimate source of support is a Mogg trope, and the others, from what I can read, are just using it as a convenient excuse. Whatever you want to say, there’s a quote to show a particular god is on your side, and death to those who say otherwise.

On the positive side, these MPs have exposed themselves for what they are, and Mogg can no longer be viewed as a harmless eccentric as the argument has ended. Him and his ilk are to be despised.

It's scary though. This mob feel it is not the end of their credibility and career to spout such offensive bile. I would have thought the openness of their intent would be against everything most people expected. Fox came out with similar, and Farage at least hid some of his intent, but these have opened up to their naked intent.

[Gweeds]

Religion poisons everything.

[s2art]

Disastrous said:

s2art said:

(Football, cricket, rugby, curry, fish and chips, pubs etc etc etc)

Sounds fking st!

Honestly, if ‘liking stuff a place has’ is what it’s all about then I’m probably a Maldivian Nationalist.

(White sands, surf, hammocks, Palm trees, diving, sailing, beaches etc etc)

This sort of tripe just makes me think Britain is fked beyond repair. Break up the Union, let England be as myopically English as it wants and have done with it.

Missing the point. and BTW you think England is some form of monoculture?

[Derek Smith]

Knocker Powell appealed in a similar way to what he saw as his way into power. He dreamed on being PM. He was shut down but, for a while, his diatribe against those from India in particular created a following. I worked in a factory at the time and the union rep organised a bus trip to one of his speeches, this despite the odious man saying that the only way to ensure a valid country was to ensure 7 million were unemployed and there would be little support. Nice bloke. Even under the dread pirate Thatcher, it only reached a bit over 3 million, but stayed there for four or five years.

He built myths around himself, suggesting he was true to his core beliefs and then changed them. A highly intelligent man, we were told, who failed to realise that 'rivers of blood' would become a meme, one that could be used to obscure the statistics. He was cut out of mainstream politics.

He was believed to be the most popular politician in the country, although the polls were run by right wing papers if memory serves. Mogg, the face of this group it appears - that's on the assumption Dorries is unavailable for the photoshoot - might not reach those dizzy heights yet, but it's his intent. He's got the Knocker skills of being superior and patronising, but has not been under attack so far. He too dreams of the top job.

Will this mob be ejected?

As ever, one hopes that the youth (in my case including the middle-aged) are able to learn from our many mistakes.

[Ridgemont]

Mogg will never get the premiership.
Johnson, flawed etc, was a bloke you could imagine sharing a pint with (but you’d keep an eye on your girlfriend). Mogg on the other hand who would probably ask for a sherry and would bang on about his nanny. He hasn’t an ounce of Powell’s sulphurous skills. And probably knows it.


Such types do not win general elections no matter what party (or sub clique) they manage to hijack. At the very most they end up being propelled into the seat if a previous electable Tory PM ends exiting stage right pursued by bears (May or Truss for example, and look how that turned out) leaving an empty throne and a passable majority, which the unelectable balloon will then pee away. And the Tory party are not by any stretch of the imagination looking like winning any election any time soon.

Ironically their only chance is the current incumbent as god knows the country could do with some serious R&R from the last 7 years.

[Mortarboard]

Ridgemont said:

And supporting those views a nazi doesn’t you make.

Having fascity beliefs does make you fascisty though.

And these are fascisty beliefs, wrapped up as patriotism or not.

M.

[andy_s]

The dumb vs the hysterical, never in sharper relief.

[Collectingbrass]

GetCarter said:

Nailed...

https://www.globalplayer.com/podcasts/episodes/7Dr...

What ever your politics this is well worth a listen to understand where this conference has come from and what it means for our politics. That this is not a fringe event with zero coverage is troubling, that this is an event that Secretaries of State in the UK Government feel they can speak freely at gives Rishi a management challenge I doubt he has ever faced.

[2xChevrons]

Ridgemont said:

article said:

If you’re on the Left you’re not allowed to care about the West’s plummeting fertility, unless, of course, you use them as a justification for further migration. When people have fewer children than they wish, and declining economic hopes for the future, how is mass movement anything other than a neoliberal answer; what Bernie Sanders rightly labelled as a “Koch Brothers agenda”?

And this is a classic sort of sleight-of-hand from this part of the spectrum - "if you say you're worried about declining birth rates they just call you a fascist". No, people call you a fascist if you become particularly concerned about native birth rates (extra points if it is versus immigrant birth rates), or if you talk about how declining birth rates are a threat to the future of humanity when humanity's population is not declining...but they are in white-majority countries. And they might also call you a fascist (or fash-adjacent, or a reactionary, or a falangist or something similar) if your solutions to the spectre of declining birth rates include to reinforce traditional gender roles, discourage women from being educated, remove no-fault divorce, roll back abortion legalisation, limit sex education in schools, reassert the primary of the heterosexual family and promote Biblical teachings about families.

The reasons for low birth rates are abundantly clear if you actually collect data on the issue - and it's not because people have been coopted by some sinister woke cult. It's because wages are relatively low, housing is incredibly expensive, job security is poor, childcare and other costs are increasing and people are increasingly unsure that any children they have will have an equal or better quality of life than their parents. And yes, factors like a reduction in social pressure/reward for having kids, increased autonomy for women, concerns about population re: climate change and other 'woke' stuff does factor in, but they're not the driving factors.

The fertility rate goes up either when a) people live a precarious existence with high mortality rates, low education levels (especially for women), poor access to family planning and other healthcare resources, strongly traditional societies and high levels of religious following or b) when they have high incomes relative to major costs, easily available good-quality housing, secure income/careers with good prospects, access to well-functioning social services and a general sense of optimism about the future and their offspring's prospects.

The NatCons seem to be plumping for a) while generally believing everything that works against b).

The Left would - and does - enthusiastically embrace many of the policies and measures that led to the post-war Western baby booms. But you're going to get short shrift if you identify falling birth rates in a fashion that has echoes of the 14 Words.

Edited by 2xChevrons on Tuesday 16th May 20:01

[pequod]

Derek Smith said:

Knocker Powell appealed in a similar way to what he saw as his way into power. He dreamed on being PM. He was shut down but, for a while, his diatribe against those from India in particular created a following. I worked in a factory at the time and the union rep organised a bus trip to one of his speeches, this despite the odious man saying that the only way to ensure a valid country was to ensure 7 million were unemployed and there would be little support. Nice bloke. Even under the dread pirate Thatcher, it only reached a bit over 3 million, but stayed there for four or five years.

He built myths around himself, suggesting he was true to his core beliefs and then changed them. A highly intelligent man, we were told, who failed to realise that 'rivers of blood' would become a meme, one that could be used to obscure the statistics. He was cut out of mainstream politics.

He was believed to be the most popular politician in the country, although the polls were run by right wing papers if memory serves. Mogg, the face of this group it appears - that's on the assumption Dorries is unavailable for the photoshoot - might not reach those dizzy heights yet, but it's his intent. He's got the Knocker skills of being superior and patronising, but has not been under attack so far. He too dreams of the top job.

Will this mob be ejected?

As ever, one hopes that the youth (in my case including the middle-aged) are able to learn from our many mistakes.

Thank goodness old Enoch died in '98, eh?

As you and I are tainted by years of promises, undelivered, and bear witness to some interesting times in UK politics, including violent revolt and terrorism, it behoves the newer generations to decide their future, not us old curmudgeons, doncha think?

If the bright and beautiful decide they wish to elect so-called religious nutjobs, then so be it!

[Gweeds]

andy_s said:

The dumb vs the hysterical, never in sharper relief.

A binary viewpoint, never in sharper relief.

[Ridgemont]

Mortarboard said:

Ridgemont said:

And supporting those views a nazi doesn’t you make.

Having fascity beliefs does make you fascisty though.

And these are fascisty beliefs, wrapped up as patriotism or not.

M.

No they aren’t. They may well be beyond the centre left/right spectrum and as currently calibrated reflect a mid Atlantic perspective, but they are not remotely ‘fascisty’.
Do I regard them as electorally appealing? No because of my aforementioned issues with religion and also because the UK public has tended towards social liberalism on both sides of the aisle (which I again agree with) but these aren’t remotely ‘fascisty’ beliefs. As I said they largely reflect a right wing view that maybe 70 years ago had resonance in the UK (not Germany).
Stop tarring by implied association.

[Vanden Saab]

2xChevrons said:

Ridgemont said:

article said:

If you’re on the Left you’re not allowed to care about the West’s plummeting fertility, unless, of course, you use them as a justification for further migration. When people have fewer children than they wish, and declining economic hopes for the future, how is mass movement anything other than a neoliberal answer; what Bernie Sanders rightly labelled as a “Koch Brothers agenda”?

And this is a classic sort of sleight-of-hand from this part of the spectrum - "if you say you're worried about declining birth rates they just call you a fascist". No, people call you a fascist if you become particularly concerned about native birth rates (extra points if it is versus immigrant birth rates), or if you talk about how declining birth rates are a threat to the future of humanity when humanity's population is not declining...but they are in white-majority countries. And they might also call you a fascist (or fash-adjacent, or a reactionary, or a falangist or something similar) if your solutions to the spectre of declining birth rates include to reinforce traditional gender roles, discourage women from being educated, remove no-fault divorce, roll back abortion legalisation, limit sex education in schools, reassert the primary of the heterosexual family and promote Biblical teachings about families.

The reasons for low birth rates are abundantly clear if you actually collect data on the issue - and it's not because people have been coopted by some sinister woke cult. It's because wages are relatively low, housing is incredibly expensive, job security is poor, childcare and other costs are increasing and people are increasingly unsure that any children they have will have an equal or better quality of life than their parents. And yes, factors like a reduction in social pressure/reward for having kids, increased autonomy for women, concerns about population re: climate change and other 'woke' stuff does factor in, but they're not the driving factors.

The fertility rate goes up either when a) people live a precarious existence with high mortality rates, low education levels (especially for women), poor access to family planning and other healthcare resources, strongly traditional societies and high levels of religious following or b) when they have high incomes relative to major costs, easily available good-quality housing, secure income/careers with good prospects, access to well-functioning social services and a general sense of optimism about the future and their offspring's prospects.

The NatCons seem to be plumping for a) while generally believing everything that works against b).

The Left would - and does - enthusiastically embrace many of the policies and measures that led to the post-war Western baby booms. But you're going to get short shrift if you identify falling birth rates in a fashion that has echoes of the 14 Words.

Edited by 2xChevrons on Tuesday 16th May 20:01

Have you told Norway this as I do not think they have got the memo...

[Mortarboard]

Ridgemont said:

No they aren’t. They may well be beyond the centre left/right spectrum and as currently calibrated reflect a mid Atlantic perspective, but they are not remotely ‘fascisty’.

I'd love to know where on your scale "fascisty" starts then.
And I haven't mentioned the Germans once

M

[Ridgemont]

2xChevrons said:

Ridgemont said:

article said:

If you’re on the Left you’re not allowed to care about the West’s plummeting fertility, unless, of course, you use them as a justification for further migration. When people have fewer children than they wish, and declining economic hopes for the future, how is mass movement anything other than a neoliberal answer; what Bernie Sanders rightly labelled as a “Koch Brothers agenda”?

And this is a classic sort of sleight-of-hand from this part of the spectrum - "if you say you're worried about declining birth rates they just call you a fascist". No, people call you a fascist if you become particularly concerned about native birth rates (extra points if it is versus immigrant birth rates), or if you talk about how declining birth rates are a threat to the future of humanity when humanity's population is not declining...but they are in white-majority countries. And they might also call you a fascist (or fash-adjacent, or a reactionary, or a falangist or something similar) if your solutions to the spectre of declining birth rates include to reinforce traditional gender roles, discourage women from being educated, remove no-fault divorce, roll back abortion legalisation, limit sex education in schools, reassert the primary of the heterosexual family and promote Biblical teachings about families.

The reasons for low birth rates are abundantly clear if you actually collect data on the issue - and it's not because people have been coopted by some sinister woke cult. It's because wages are relatively low, housing is incredibly expensive, job security is poor, childcare and other costs are increasing and people are increasingly unsure that any children they have will have an equal or better quality of life than their parents. And yes, factors like a reduction in social pressure/reward for having kids, increased autonomy for women, concerns about population re: climate change and other 'woke' stuff does factor in, but they're not the driving factors.

The fertility rate goes up either when a) people live a precarious existence with high mortality rates, low education levels (especially for women), poor access to family planning and other healthcare resources, strongly traditional societies and high levels of religious following or b) when they have high incomes relative to major costs, easily available good-quality housing, secure income/careers with good prospects, access to well-functioning social services and a general sense of optimism about the future and their offspring's prospects.

The NatCons seem to be plumping for a) while generally believing everything that works against b).

The Left would - and does - enthusiastically embrace many of the policies and measures that led to the post-war Western baby booms. But you're going to get short shrift if you identify falling birth rates in a fashion that has echoes of the 14 Words.

Edited by 2xChevrons on Tuesday 16th May 20:01

Sigh.

that may well be the case. But this is a discussion that needs to take place. Does it happen now? Right now with the existing parties talking to the electorate?
No.
FWIW I don’t agree with your analysis but that’s probably for a new thread but the *point is* that the NatCon event is largely the only event where a deeply significant issue is discussed politically. Otherwise it is business as usual and let’s deal with demographic economic impacts by migration, multiculturalism and hoping the electorate won’t notice.
And *thats* not sleight of hand. That’s the Natcons having a discussion we all need to have because it impacts everything. Both wings of the existing political settlement avoid that discussion like the plague.

[JuanCarlosFandango]

So how many of those jumping up and down about this were perfectly relaxed about the WEF "thinking aloud" that in the near future we will "own nothing and be happy"?

[IanH755]

Vanden Saab said:

Have you told Norway this as I do not think they have got the memo...

Ah don't bother, the poster has already decided that they, and only they, are 100% scientifically proven to be correct on this subject and that ZERO criticism or different viewpoints are to be allowed, and those that try need to be called nasty horrible names to shame they from ever attempting to have their own thoughts ever again etc.

It's the same on both sides, no-one is just "allowed" to have an opinion anymore, you MUST follow one side or the other side and you'll be hated by one of them for thinking differently, thats the absolutely dire state of discussion/conversation nowadays, where a simple "Lets agree to disagree" has been replaced by "If you think differently to me then you're a Fascist Bigot/Snowflake!!!!" - its just so tiring to wade through all this childish crap.