Understanding national conservatism
National conservatism sounds suspicuously like Trumpism, particularly on trade issues. "Free trade" has always sounded good to conservatives but Trump showed that it should not be an all-powerful consideration.
And Trump was not really being unorthoox in his trade restrictions. Economists have always recognized exceptions to the desirabiity of free trade: "Infant industry" and the "Australian" cases for instance. And the "supply-chain" difficulties presently besetting trade rather vindicate that
The Economist, the British magazine well-known for its particular metropolitan liberal worldview, had a pearl-clutching cover piece last week where it bemoaned ‘the growing peril of national conservatism’.
‘It’s dangerous and it’s spreading,’ the editorial warned its readers – making it sound like some new Covid variant.
What exactly is national conservatism?
Australians could be forgiven for being a little in the dark, for while there have been national conservative conferences in Washington DC and Florida in America, and in London, Brussels, and Rome in Europe, there has been nothing similar so far here. There are no mainstream Australian journalists who describe themselves using that label. Nor, unlike elsewhere, are there leading politicians or any groupings in any of our mainstream parties who march under that banner. I have found it a struggle to get those involved in the think tank world and in centre-right politics in Australia to even understand the concept properly.
The Economist labelled national conservatives as those ‘seized by declinism’, ‘the politics of grievance’, and those who see the ‘state as its saviour’. But that is unfair and does not do this intellectual movement justice. National conservatives have a deep philosophical critique of the assumptions held by policymakers in the capitals of the West. As some of the leading intellectuals of the movement, like Yoram Hazony, have explored in great depth, they are critical of aspects of classical liberalism and the dominant worldview which over-emphasises the sovereign individual, rather than the family, the nation, and our religious traditions as the source of our prosperity and freedoms. They believe the focus in centre-right circles has, in recent years, gone awry. In the words of Italian Prime Minister Georgia Meloni, it is time to ‘put conservatism back into its traditional sphere of national identity’.
Perhaps the most obvious areas where national conservatives differ from the current centre-right are in relation to immigration, trade, and foreign policy.
First and foremost, national conservatives reject the long-standing consensus on immigration. They believe that mass immigration perhaps poses more of an existential threat to the West than Soviet missiles ever did. Nations like Poland and Hungary recovered from years of communist domination. But it is far less clear whether parts of Western Europe and elsewhere will survive the ethnic conflicts and other threats to social cohesion that have been carelessly imported into their homelands. This is not simply about ‘stopping the boats’ or ‘building the wall’ – although many Western governments struggle to do even that. It is emphatically also about legal immigration. There needs to be a reassessment from first principles as to what level and what type of immigration, if any, makes sense for Western nations and our peoples going forward. In the Howard era, there was an oft-repeated line that because the government was able to control illegal immigration Australians welcomed higher levels of legal immigration. If that was ever actually true, it is not true now.
National conservatives also recognise that the trade and investment policies of the West need a serious rethink. They reject the idea that the end goal, beau ideal, should be open borders trade and investment between nations, without regard to their differing economic, social, or political circumstances. To be clear, this means large numbers of Australia’s existing trade and investment agreements, including but not limited to, the one we signed with China, will need to be torn up or at the very least significantly redesigned. Our trade and investment policies have created boom towns in places like Shenzhen and Bangalore and rust belts in places like Stockbridge, Elizabeth, and Youngstown. They have gutted our national industrial capacity and destroyed communities. They have turned us into exquisite connoisseurs of imported goods, rather than producers of anything other than primary produce or overpriced housing to sell to foreigners. The idea, so beloved by The Economist, that it should be as easy to import manufactured goods from China to Australia as it is to import the same from England to France needs to be consigned to the ash heap of history.
National conservatives also believe that our foreign policy needs to change. The reckless evangelicalism that has characterised Western military adventures for well over the last quarter century needs to stop. What is needed is a new prudence that is focused instead on our vital interests (narrowly defined) and which is far more selective about the conflicts we allow ourselves to be dragged into. Large numbers of our people are simply sick to the back teeth of endless and pointless wars in places like Somalia, Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and elsewhere. These are places that they do not really care that much about, but which they or their children have been expected to die for. These interventions always seem to follow a similar storyline: some bad guy is the ‘next Hitler’, a particular incident is the ‘new Munich’. Unless we get involved and offer unlimited economic or military support, we are Neville Chamberlain-like appeasers. Certain politicians then get to globe-trot around the globe pretending they are the next Winston Churchill. Inevitably what then follows, many years later, is a loss of blood, treasure, and national prestige, the destabilising of entire regions and a flood of refugees, and all manner of second-order unintended consequences. In nearly all cases these are not grand ideological struggles, but messy intractable ethnic disputes where there are no pure actors on either side.
There are other areas of policy where national conservatives have new and constructive things to say, including on social policy – where a reconstitution of family structures and traditional ways of life is going to be as important as the reconstruction of our national borders and identity. But if there is one theme that unites this movement, it is that they are anti-Utopian. The left was in the past the utopian ones, the ones who liked to ‘imagine there is no countries’. But since the great victory in the Cold War the centre-right has also become increasingly un-moored from reality. It has ignored the importance of the nation-state when it comes to trade, immigration and foreign policy and many other issues. All national conservatives are asking is that we get real again.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/03/understanding-national-conservatism/
***********************************************Transgenderism is an attack on women
The 21st Century Australian woman has greater freedom and opportunities afforded to her than at any other time in history, and to truly honour this legacy, we must reflect, be proud and thank those who led the way.
However, in the abundance of blessings, women face a new battle. It is not to do with votes or pay but an attack on our very being – an attack on the identity of a woman.
What is a woman? An adult female human.
Plain and simple I would have thought. Not so, according to some. Sadly, the movement to let men parade as women and demand female recognition has erased the uniqueness, beauty and femininity of a woman by claiming that womanhood is merely a subjective feeling that can be experienced by any person, notably men!
This modern tendency to question basic biology places women in greater danger than even the suffragettes would have thought possible. It disgraces the hard-fought battles women have mounted and won, to achieve equality.
Women deserve to feel safe and respected. We have achieved this through removing the marriage bar, criminalising marital rape and legislating against sex discrimination.
However, despite this progress women today now find themselves in a fight for the right even to be recognised as biological women. The right to safe spaces including single-sex toilets, change rooms and female-only prisons has now also been denied.
It is becoming increasingly common to have all-gender and trans-inclusive bathrooms to cater to a minority of men who feel like women. Women can’t even be guaranteed a safe place to champion women’s rights, including on the steps of Parliament House in Melbourne. This idea would outrage suffragette women and the early feminist movement and rightly so.
The fact is that today, feelings trump women’s safety and very existence. And for what?
The logical fallacy that people should choose the restroom that they feel most comfortable using over the protection of vulnerable girls is unacceptable. The fact that women can be raped in a woman’s prison by a man masquerading as a woman is deplorable.
The dignity of women is further disgraced by rhetoric that distorts the truth of motherhood.
The ability to produce and nurture life is a phenomenon that only women can experience. But today, inclusivity has overridden our right to be called a mother, in favour of ‘person who gives birth’, ‘chest-feeder’, or simply ‘parent’. For the record, I’m not a birthing parent but a proud mother.
Gender blindness, including the use of gender-neutral language, destroys the significant differences between men and women, a basic biological factor in life.
Our over-sensitivities today strip women of their dignity and right to existence.
I never thought that upon my entrance into the Victorian Parliament in 2018, I would have to fight to uphold the definition of womanhood and argue for the protection of rights for women and girls.
We do a great disservice to those women who achieved equality and respect by allowing the identity for which they were really fighting to be erased.
As we approach International Women’s Day, let us celebrate the achievements of women yesterday, be thankful for the blessings we have today, and proudly and boldly proclaim the uniqueness and dignity of womanhood for tomorrow and the foreseeable future. And we must also applaud our modern-day heroes, fighting at the barricades of social media and legislative halls to preserve the unique and precious identity of what is, a woman.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/03/women-back-to-the-barricades/
************************************************San Francisco overwhelmingly votes in favor of law and order ballot measures and new rule that'll force welfare recipients to pass drug tests
Reality breaks through
San Francisco voters pivoted away from their progressive reputation Tuesday night, as a number of ballot measures meant to rein in crime and drug use overwhelmingly won the vote of city residents.
San Franciscans voted in favor of two measures - Measures E and F - which will, respectively, expand some police powers in the city and require drug screenings for adults receiving welfare.
Proposition E will, among other things, make it easier for police officers to pursue suspects. It will also provide the force with new cameras and drones that are meant to make their daily job of fighting crime easier and more effective.
And Proposition F is designed to help adults struggling with drug addiction, by telling them that they will only remain eligible for cash welfare assistance from the city if they enroll in a treatment program. Drug testing will be required to ensure they comply.
San Francisco Mayor London Breed backed each of the measures on the ballot and called it a win. The Democrat has herself pivoted back from extreme progressive positions - including defunding the police - with her re-election widely believed to be in peril in the city's November mayoral election.
'It is clear that people want to see changes around public safety. What’s exciting about this for me is I get the kind of tools I need to continue the work we're doing,' said Breed, who is up for re-election in November.
As the results rolled in Tuesday evening, Breed thanked the voters for passing the measures. Prop E, said wrote, gives 'our officers more tools to do their jobs.'
While Prop F will be used to 'bring more treatment and accountability to San Francisco. This is how we get more people the help they need and change what’s happening in our City.'
A spokesperson for Breed told Fox that the election results indicate residents are 'fed up and want more action to address crime.'
'Over the last few years, the City’s policies swung too far to the left. Now, it’s time to send a message that San Francisco is closed to criminals and brazen theft will not be tolerated,' he said.
Breed is facing a tough battle to hold on to her position. Voters in San Francisco have increasingly become fed up with the city's relaxed attitude toward drugs and violent crime.
Last year, more than 800 people in the city died of an accidental drug overdose - many of them were addicts living on the streets of the city, which are plagued by an abundance of fentanyl and xylazine.
Breed's campaign has, to some extent, read the tea leaves and is trying to mold a campaign around a more moderate platform that takes into consideration the quality of life of tax-paying, law-abiding San Franciscans.
For many years, the city has voted for hyper-progressive politicians and measures, but the tide began to change in 2022, when voters recalled far-left District Attorney Chesa Boudin, who was well-known for letting violent criminals back out onto the streets following their arrests.
Those who opposed the propositions said they will be detrimental to privacy and civil liberties and will only hurt the marginalized communities the city prides itself on helping.
But Breed, the first black woman to lead San Francisco, said at a January campaign stop that residents from poorer, black and immigrant neighborhoods are pleading for more police.
Non-profit leaders who work primarily with low-income people endorse Breed's drug-testing measure.
Trent Rhorer, executive director of the San Francisco Human Services Agency, which provides cash assistance and employment services to low-income residents without dependent children, said the current situation is in the city is not improving lives.
'To give someone who's addicted to fentanyl $700 a month, I don´t think it helps improve their lives,' he said. 'In fact, I think it does the opposite.'
Rhorer said the welfare program for single adults - which serves about 9,000 people per year - already asks applicants about substance abuse, with about 20 percent self-reporting an issue.
A data check with the Department of Public Health revealed that almost one-third of recipients have been diagnosed with a substance use disorder, he said.
The ballot measure would replace that question with a more rigorous screening test that would be verified by an addiction specialist.
If substance abuse is discovered, Rhorer said, the specialist and applicant would agree on treatment options that include residential care, a 12-step program, individual counseling and replacement medication.
There is no requirement the person be sober, only that they make good-faith efforts to attend their program, with the hope that 'at one point a light bulb will go off,' Rhorer said.
The measure calls for the city to pay the rent of those accepted into the program for 30 days or longer to avoid eviction.
About 30 percent of the people who fatally overdosed in 2023 were homeless, and more were living in subsidized city housing.
*********************************************
Drake, Raleigh and the irony of ‘inclusivity’
The past has been cancelled at Exeter School in Devon. The names of Elizabethan naval heroes Sir Walter Raleigh and Sir Francis Drake are being erased from their school buildings. For so long central to Britain’s national story, the pair have now been tried and found wanting. Forget their brave exploits: the head teacher Louise Simpson has decreed that neither Raleigh nor Drake ‘represent the values and inclusive nature’ of the school. Deemed inappropriate for today’s children, their names must be scrubbed out, their legacy forgotten.
A by-now familiar irony of ‘inclusivity drives’, such as the one being undertaken by Exeter School, is that they almost always involve exclusion. Drake and Raleigh, Simpson explains, have ‘less than positive connotations’ in modern times. In other words, Elizabethan sea dogs do not stand up to woke scrutiny. They are tainted by association with a less than perfect past and must be expelled.
Removing Raleigh and Drake’s names from buildings tells us far more about today than it does about the past
The children of Exeter School will be spared exciting tales of British victory over the Spanish Armada and the circumnavigation of the globe for fear they might accidentally imbibe some of those ‘less than positive connotations’. This is a grim view of the past. Raleigh’s ventures contributed to the colonisation of North America and Drake helped captain trading vessels carrying slaves across the Atlantic but neither was primarily involved in the slave trade. These dark allusions to slavery and imperialism brand Drake and Raleigh with the very modern stamp of ‘racist’. At a stroke, their remarkable achievements and contributions to British naval history have been deleted. Exeter’s head teacher hardly thinks highly not just of the past but of her own pupils if she deems them too stupid to comprehend the nuance of historical context.
This is not the first time that Drake in particular has been targeted by the history-erasers. A petition was launched in 2020 calling for the removal of a statue of Drake in Plymouth. Signatories incorrectly claimed he was a ‘pioneer’ of the slave trade. And just last year the Sir Francis Drake primary school in south London was renamed Twin Oaks following a vote by parents and teachers. Tellingly, the BBC’s online coverage of the school renaming had to be amended. The broadcaster’s initial report ‘suggested Sir Francis Drake was predominantly known for his links to the slave trade’.
One argument against plaques, statues and buildings named after historical figures is that they do not simply inform but valorize. They help transform men into heroes by literally putting them on a pedestal. But what is wrong with children having heroes? Mythologising of the two began while Drake and Raleigh were still alive. Over the centuries, they have come to represent idealised British values. Whatever the truth about either man, their names came to stand for bravery, daring, courage and determination. Beyond even this, they became powerful national symbols of British identity, recalling an age of heroism and – yes – British military might. It is precisely these values, and the idea of a positive sense of British identity, that are now considered ‘less than positive’.
Bravery, a spirit of adventure, a desire to travel further and faster than any Englishman has ever done before. These ideas have the power to excite, inspire and also, crucially, to unite.
They have been ditched for an identikit set of woke platitudes: justice, equity, diversity, inclusion. These are not values to aspire towards but meaningless soundbites. In place of historical figures, Exeter School will name buildings after local woodlands, castles and topographical features. Woodland is certainly beautiful but it hardly represents the pinnacle of human achievement. It is to be admired, not emulated.
In terms of history, the same rejection of nuance in favour of mythologizing is taking place today as in the past. But instead of idealising Drake and Raleigh as representatives of the best of British, they have been transformed into monsters who symbolise all that is shameful about Britain’s past. The hope of the revisionists and the erasers is not so much that erstwhile heroes will be forgotten, but that they will be remembered only for their sins. Rather than offering a new generation inspiration, they serve as a lesson in the dangers of national pride and hubris.
The charges against Drake and Raleigh are historically illiterate. Removing their names from buildings tells us far more about today than it does about the past. It tells us we are a country uneasy with our national history and determined to dislocate future generations from all positive associations not just with the past but with national identity. This is a mistake. Few things are more inclusive than the nation. Citizenship has no regard for race, sex or religion.
If head teachers want to promote inclusivity, then making pupils aware of their nation’s story is a good place to start. Children raised in ignorance of their past, with scant knowledge of only national sins, are not ‘included’ but left rootless and alienated from their country.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/03/drake-raleigh-and-the-irony-of-inclusivity-drives/
******************************************Pure unadulterated hate
From a religion of hate
A Sydney imam has described Jews as a 'criminal, barbaric, tyrannical enemy' in an anti-Semitic sermon, claiming Jihad was the 'only solution' to restore Palestine.
Australian Imam Abdul Salam Zoud delivered the sermon to his congregation at Masjid As-Sunnah Mosque in Lakemba, southwest of Sydney, on February 9.
The sermon, which was streamed live on the Mosque's Facebook page, was unearthed and translated by the Middle East Media and Research Institute - an American group that monitors Muslim extremists.
Imam Zoud said the Jews had trespassed on land and oppressed the people of Palestine.
He praised Jihad and Hamas, claiming the Prophet Muhammad and the Righteous Caliphs did not conquer the world by peaceful means, negotiations or concessions.
'These people (Jews) only understand the language of force,' Imam Zoud said.
'Do not even dream that [Palestine] can be regained through negotiations. By Allah, Palestine will only be restored through Jihad.'
'Jihad for the sake of Allah is the only solution when it comes to the infidels.'
He said'all the billions that were spent to improve, beautify, and highlight the image of the Jews have all gone in vain'.
He added the goal of Jihad was not to kill people and take over their land but rather to remove obstacles preventing the spread of Islam.
The sermon has outraged MPs and Jewish leaders in Australia, with many claiming the hateful speech should not be tolerated.
Liberal Senator Dave Sharma labelled the sermon 'disgusting' and 'un-Australian', claiming the imam was inciting violence.
'If it is not unlawful it should be,' Senator Sharma told the Daily Telegraph. 'That crosses the line from free speech into inciting violence.'
NSW Jewish Board of Deputies David Ossip said the sermon was 'incredibly dangerous' and 'inconsistent with Australian values'.
'If we are serious about maintaining the communal cohesion and harmony we all treasure, we surely cannot tolerate hate preachers poisoning the minds of their adherents by vilifying other Australians and calling for jihad,' Mr Ossip said.
****************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See 
No comments:
Post a Comment