"Look at the latest LA Riots and tell me that a Mexican illegal entrant who waves a Mexican flag while burning the US has the same inalienable rights as a US citizen in the US and I will know you are a fool. He does not. Wisdom discriminates between the deserving and the undeserving and between the citizen and the non citizen."
You just described the US Democrat Party and almost the entirety of the legacy media in the United States (and the Anglosphere and most of Europe). A ship of fools bleating for stupidity and catastrophe. Nothing more. The sight of illegals burning an American city whilst waving foreign flags. puts the lie to all their shallow propaganda.
And this can be traced to both the reaction to the Civil Rights Era, which shocked white liberals by telling them that they were bigots, and by the active efforts of Herbert Marcuse and others, to teach Critical Theory in the universities... enabled by LBJ's push for more students to attend college.
The UK and Europe have been left somewhat “up the creek without a paddle” since President Trump turned his back on the so-called “rules-based international order” that has prevailed since WWII. Regarding the war in Ukraine, Jeffrey Sacks explains why the Trump inauguration was [potentially] the most important day for world peace in decades and how the conflict in Ukraine resulted from a very bad decision taken by the USA under President Clinton in 1994: 10-minute clip: https://x.com/ricwe123/status/1892857808246177971.
The Uniparty warmongering idiots in the UK and the EU are left in the absurd position of trying to pretend to a dubious general public that Russia has plans to invade the whole of Europe.
They are further left out on a very exposed limb now that the Trump administration has disavowed globalist puppet Biden’s suppression of free speech, mass immigration and the climate change hoax.
What a magnificent article, Daniel! I'm on exactly the same page as you. We face the same problems in Australia, with an appalling Labor government and a pathetic, "me-too" Liberal Party. I vote One Nation - an unashamedly populist party of the genuine conservative, freedom right.
As a fairly senior federal public servant in Canberra years ago, I argued - often as a lone vopice against economic rationalism and globalism - that the fundamental objective of public policy should NOT be the technical efficiency of the global economy, but the wellbeing of people in OUR COMMUNITY. I'm a nationalist.
Your remarks about Ukraine and Russia are spot on. The NATO mantra of "Ukraine today, Poland and the Baltics tomorrow" is utter garbage that serves only the interests of the military-industrial complex. Russia's invasion was neither unprovoked nor out of the blue: it came after repeated warnings that the expansion of aggressive and hostile NATO bases all around Russia's periphery , and even more, the invitation (NATO's Bucharest Conference, 2008) for Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO, and that would include the Crimean naval base at Sevastopol, was a red-line treat to Russia's national security. Plus there was the monstering and murder of many ethnic Russians and Russian speakers in the Donbas by the Ukrainian government.
The EU, NATO and Australia are absolutely mad to be supporting Ukraine against Russia.
I think this is correct: "Conservatives, at least official conservatives, got these priorities the wrong way round. They took the false lesson from WWII onwards that what they existed to conserve was the 1945 settlement. They took from the defeat of Nazism an embarrassment regarding being firm nationalists (accepting the leftist narrative of a line from nationalism to Nazism)." Have you ever gone into this more in other articles? I realised the same some years ago and ever since have been trying to spell out, ideally in a sentence or two, why they did this. I still haven't managed any succinct summary.
You're good at this writing lark aren't you? Another excellent article.
I will only add that the "traditional" British Labour Party, whilst definitely suffering from Internationalism, did concern itself with the working man. The Labour Party, certainly from Tony Blair onwards, doesn't give a monkey's uncle for the working man. Of any country. I don't think it believes in old fashioned Internationalism any more either - it believes in some mad sort of totalitarianism which doesn't seem to resemble anything that has gone before. So here we all are, stuck between a rock and a hard place - I seriously doubt Nigel Farage and his Muslim friend are going to save us. One's basically just an Establishment figure and the other is a follower of the Religion of Peace who threw a hissy fit at the idea that covering women from head to foot should be banned.
Agreed! Blair was a master of political disguise - an out and out globalist from the start. Unfortunately most people have no idea that this is the current battleground - nationalism v. globalism - they are stuck in early 20th century thinking.
I agree that the main question should be - what, exactly, is conservatism to conserve?
The Republican Party is a coalition that includes at least:
- religious conservatives
- small-government conservatives
- establishment conservatives, and
- libertarians
They have clearly different priorities, and are bound together mostly by rejection of the radicalism of today's Democratic Party. It is primarily the establishment conservatives who focus on preserving the post-WW II reality and their own prerogatives, and they often control the Party direction. Thus, we have the "Big Beautiful Bill" in which a small group of blue-state Republican Congress critters have placed the narrow interests of their state (and the ability of wealthy constituents to pass off some of the income tax burden on to other states) over the national interest of getting the federal deficit under control.
That's not based on any conservative principal beyond conserving their own elected status.
Daniel, you wrote the civic/history lesson that should be taught in every school, including our western universities.
Thanks Barry. 😀
"Look at the latest LA Riots and tell me that a Mexican illegal entrant who waves a Mexican flag while burning the US has the same inalienable rights as a US citizen in the US and I will know you are a fool. He does not. Wisdom discriminates between the deserving and the undeserving and between the citizen and the non citizen."
You just described the US Democrat Party and almost the entirety of the legacy media in the United States (and the Anglosphere and most of Europe). A ship of fools bleating for stupidity and catastrophe. Nothing more. The sight of illegals burning an American city whilst waving foreign flags. puts the lie to all their shallow propaganda.
It does. The Democrats are simply on the side of every enemy of their own nation.
And this can be traced to both the reaction to the Civil Rights Era, which shocked white liberals by telling them that they were bigots, and by the active efforts of Herbert Marcuse and others, to teach Critical Theory in the universities... enabled by LBJ's push for more students to attend college.
The UK and Europe have been left somewhat “up the creek without a paddle” since President Trump turned his back on the so-called “rules-based international order” that has prevailed since WWII. Regarding the war in Ukraine, Jeffrey Sacks explains why the Trump inauguration was [potentially] the most important day for world peace in decades and how the conflict in Ukraine resulted from a very bad decision taken by the USA under President Clinton in 1994: 10-minute clip: https://x.com/ricwe123/status/1892857808246177971.
The Uniparty warmongering idiots in the UK and the EU are left in the absurd position of trying to pretend to a dubious general public that Russia has plans to invade the whole of Europe.
They are further left out on a very exposed limb now that the Trump administration has disavowed globalist puppet Biden’s suppression of free speech, mass immigration and the climate change hoax.
Yup. You have it in a nutshell, Daniel. Fuck 'em all, as my wife and I say when we clink glasses.
No wonder a global response of populism!
The elites read the room wrong. This article reads the room entirely right.
Out with our self interested representatives!
And their useful idiots 🤦🏼♀️
What a magnificent article, Daniel! I'm on exactly the same page as you. We face the same problems in Australia, with an appalling Labor government and a pathetic, "me-too" Liberal Party. I vote One Nation - an unashamedly populist party of the genuine conservative, freedom right.
As a fairly senior federal public servant in Canberra years ago, I argued - often as a lone vopice against economic rationalism and globalism - that the fundamental objective of public policy should NOT be the technical efficiency of the global economy, but the wellbeing of people in OUR COMMUNITY. I'm a nationalist.
Your remarks about Ukraine and Russia are spot on. The NATO mantra of "Ukraine today, Poland and the Baltics tomorrow" is utter garbage that serves only the interests of the military-industrial complex. Russia's invasion was neither unprovoked nor out of the blue: it came after repeated warnings that the expansion of aggressive and hostile NATO bases all around Russia's periphery , and even more, the invitation (NATO's Bucharest Conference, 2008) for Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO, and that would include the Crimean naval base at Sevastopol, was a red-line treat to Russia's national security. Plus there was the monstering and murder of many ethnic Russians and Russian speakers in the Donbas by the Ukrainian government.
The EU, NATO and Australia are absolutely mad to be supporting Ukraine against Russia.
You are a superb writer, Daniel. Keep it up!
I think this is correct: "Conservatives, at least official conservatives, got these priorities the wrong way round. They took the false lesson from WWII onwards that what they existed to conserve was the 1945 settlement. They took from the defeat of Nazism an embarrassment regarding being firm nationalists (accepting the leftist narrative of a line from nationalism to Nazism)." Have you ever gone into this more in other articles? I realised the same some years ago and ever since have been trying to spell out, ideally in a sentence or two, why they did this. I still haven't managed any succinct summary.
You're good at this writing lark aren't you? Another excellent article.
I will only add that the "traditional" British Labour Party, whilst definitely suffering from Internationalism, did concern itself with the working man. The Labour Party, certainly from Tony Blair onwards, doesn't give a monkey's uncle for the working man. Of any country. I don't think it believes in old fashioned Internationalism any more either - it believes in some mad sort of totalitarianism which doesn't seem to resemble anything that has gone before. So here we all are, stuck between a rock and a hard place - I seriously doubt Nigel Farage and his Muslim friend are going to save us. One's basically just an Establishment figure and the other is a follower of the Religion of Peace who threw a hissy fit at the idea that covering women from head to foot should be banned.
Agreed! Blair was a master of political disguise - an out and out globalist from the start. Unfortunately most people have no idea that this is the current battleground - nationalism v. globalism - they are stuck in early 20th century thinking.
I agree that the main question should be - what, exactly, is conservatism to conserve?
The Republican Party is a coalition that includes at least:
- religious conservatives
- small-government conservatives
- establishment conservatives, and
- libertarians
They have clearly different priorities, and are bound together mostly by rejection of the radicalism of today's Democratic Party. It is primarily the establishment conservatives who focus on preserving the post-WW II reality and their own prerogatives, and they often control the Party direction. Thus, we have the "Big Beautiful Bill" in which a small group of blue-state Republican Congress critters have placed the narrow interests of their state (and the ability of wealthy constituents to pass off some of the income tax burden on to other states) over the national interest of getting the federal deficit under control.
That's not based on any conservative principal beyond conserving their own elected status.