Time small c conservatives split from the neo-libs and neo-cons

There is such an article just now by Gerald Warner, at Breitbart. Seems I’m not the only one exploring where we stand these days and the misconceptions of others attending that.

What triggered this was little Miss Ignorant, Charlotte Church [I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take any more] protesting on the street yet again, who knows what for this time.  The thing which stuck me were the placards speaking of “the people” and what they want, as if those on the street somehow represented ordinary people.

Pardon me but ordinary people do not want floods of illegal migrants and yet Ms Church is all for it – how is that for “the people”?  Which people?  Certainly not the British people.  Many people do not want same sex “marriage” and yet she would force that on society too. Society did very well, thank you, without it in the days when the family was still not under threat.  But it is now under grave threat.

So it’s still pretty clear that the left gets it just as wrong as ever – see Corbyn and supporters – excuses ISIS and Hamas atrocities and so on, all the while pretending they are compassionate people.

Let’s leave the left aside for now, wallowing in their wild animal luxury, as Bob Dylan would say, and look at a different division which has always existed but is now becoming more visible to the mainstream.

Gerald Warner:

Th[is] is the plain truth of the matter: we have reached a point where everything that conservatives value is threatened less by Corbynista neo-Marxism than by rampant neo-liberalism.

Is anyone certain, any more, what “neo-liberalism” means?

In the 1980s it was shorthand for a worldview that looked to the freeing up of enterprise and the rolling back of the state to make people prosperous. Conservatives could go along with that: the enlargement of the role of the state had been the consequence of post-War Marxist hard totalitarianism in Eastern Europe and social democratic soft totalitarianism in the West.

Liberation from those straitjackets was a universal conservative aspiration, so it was natural for conservatism to find economic neo-liberalism congenial and adopt it as an instrument of wealth creation.

Now this throws a spanner in the works. As conservatives, we’re meant to like the free market, alongside such stalwarts as Rothbard, von Mises, Adam Smith, Tim Worstall.

Whilst I agree with Nige that we have to get out of the EU in order to trade again with the world, the idea extended in the minds of many calling themselves conservative to include global corporatism, outsourcing, cheap imported labour and crony capitalist shenanigans.

Closed shops and corruption, rampant banksterism, is not at all what I have in mind as a free marketer.  I’ve this vision of any of you being able, in a friendly economic climate, at a low rate of taxation, to start up a new venture, provided you can convince a companies house of your plan.

Then we get to these public private “partnerships” which is another name for monopolies, insider sweetheart deals and corruption, a la JPM who are, essentially, Them.  I can trace that back to the 1857 crash in America, when JPM was right in there with its sweetheart deals – it’s never altered.

So in this sense, I’m down on the street with Charlotte and OWS – the banksters are a huge problem, the crony capitalists who care not a fig about any land, let alone their own – just as the left does not care for our nation.

Gerald Warner hits the nail on the head when he says:

The inbuilt incompatibility, however, resided in the fact that neo-liberalism spilled over from the economic arena into the political, social and cultural zones.

We have this strange situation where the multinationals are meant to be the epitome of capitalism, blue bloods and Tories, the essence of capitalism but their social and cultural policies are global left or Themist – they are for constraint of trade, elimination of choice, exploitation of the lowest paid and a whole raft of social nasties, e.g. gay “marriage” by definition of being in bed with the EU and other bureaucratic totalitarians.

The whole bunch of ’em are evil muvvers and most certainly not “of the people”. How apt was John Buchan, in 1915, who put these words into his character’s mouths:

I could not help saying that his Jew-anarchists seemed to have got left behind a little.

‘Yes and no,’ he said.

‘They won up to a point, but they struck a bigger thing than money, a thing that couldn’t be bought, the old elemental fighting instincts of man.

If you’re going to be killed you invent some kind of flag and country to fight for, and if you survive you get to love the thing.

Those foolish devils of soldiers have found something they care for, and that has upset the pretty plan laid in Berlin and Vienna.

To Them, nation was only ever a means to an end, a way of getting people to go and kill themselves overseas over nothing but a few redrawn lines on a map but people are not expected to actually start loving this nation – Them have no nationality – they are the global left.

The left say capitalism has no conscience and if they’re referring to the banksters and cronies here – I agree wholeheartedly. What the left doesn’t say is that mocking the flag, the nation, disrespecting those who died for them – see Corbyn at the cenotaph, see Straws’s comments about England – plus acting without decency – see the left’s attack on Farage’s family at that Sunday lunch, see this Bunny Roche character – what the left doesn’t say is that this is a halmark of the radical left.

Back to the “neo-liberal” love-in with small c conservatives:

Yes, [the neo-liberals and neo-cons] privatised utilities, but … quickly compensated for this by intruding into every other sphere of [the] citizens’ existence. Where was the gain in privatising railways, water or electricity, when children have been nationalised, subjected to state-sponsored sexualisation and brainwashing, with their parents sidelined?

Nice. Exactly my point about the sexualization of children.  This is where libertarians and I part company.  Libertarians see children as short adults who are perfectly capable of making their own choices, deciding on their sexuality at 5 years of age and so on.

A conservative is horrified at the idea – this is so alien a concept, so anathema, that the conservative even sides with the non-libertarians here, in order to protect children. I see fellow OoL and NO people also make fun of “for the cheeldren”, as if children need no protection and I have to say hang on a minute – yes children do need protection and along with that – proper parenting.  We might start with teaching children good manners.

Governments embarked on neo-Marxist projects of social engineering, enforcing political correctness and abolishing free speech. They coercively reconfigured their countries’ demography by imposing mass immigration, against the known wishes of the majority of the population.

They even presumed to redefine marriage.

As I mentioned above.

Neo-liberalism comfortably accommodated itself to this encroachment of tyranny, encouraging mass immigration as a source of cheap labour, to enhance profits.

But it was not a joined-up response. No thought was given to the strain on hospitals, schools, housing, or to the fact that immigrants, seen as the solution to an ageing population, themselves grow old and consume welfare resources.

The quarterly bottom line was the limited horizon of neo-liberal free-marketeers.

This explains a lot.  Capitalism has no conscience.  What the hell am I spouting leftism for here?  Answer – because it’s true. There are some words separating the small c conservative and the neo-lib neo-con – ethics is one. Caring for one’s nation are some others.  Dignity and decency are two others. WAs Call Me dignified and did he show decency slotting his tadger into a pig’s mouth?

And the following explains even more:

Above all, neo-liberals have shown no regard for cultural priorities. National identity and the broader culture of Christian Europe are to be discarded, true community identity replaced by a rootless individualism whose only enduring relationship is with technology.

Think about that one a moment. The type of “Rightism” divorced from the individuals’ own past, its own heritage, is just as bad as the left wanting a great big melting pot and no nations at all.

The family is despised, fiscally oppressed and treated with contempt. Conservatism can no longer cohabit with this nihilist, deracinated force that is already inflicting more damage on Western civilisation than communism ever achieved.

Neo-liberalism is not even true to its own tenets. It has long departed from the principles of Hayek, with his respect for tradition, and degenerated into crony capitalism and complicity with the intruder state. Conservatives urgently need to cut loose.

Yep.  Nail on the head.

And that is why I find I cannot abide Fraser Nelson, Isabelle Hardman, many others at the Spectator, I certainly can’t read the FT, Bloomberg or Reuters without now disagreeing with their stance on so many issues.  To disagree with them, they say, means I must be some sort of Kipper radical or even a lefty.  No, it just means we’re not tribal. We are Brits and proud of it.

Just as with Gerald Warner himself, I go to Breitbart to try to get some sound thinking, which is not found in the rest of the Tory press.

And thus we get to the key point:

Sometimes even economic growth must take second place to cultural, social and religious priorities. That is the case now.

What has conservatism actually conserved in recent decades?

If it is to improve on that abysmal record it must break with multinational, multicultural, blindly materialist neo-liberalism and return to the defence of the fundamental identity of nation states, and pre-eminently Britain.

I am proud to call myself small c conservative. It is not a dirty word and cuts across parties – there are many on the old left who were for protectionism for Britain’s workers – they just made the error that they needed to support British industry as well, instead of outrageous demands.  But complicit in there were the crony capitalists too  – just look at the state of British management today – the CBI lot.

When I support capitalism, I support the right of you or me to start up my own business, smiled upon by the government in the form of low taxes and greedy councils constrained from stealing my money before I even get going.

The Osborne austerity is a lie. There is no place for it, based as it is on faux figures from criminal organizations such as the IMF and WB.  There was every reason, instead, to slash taxes, free up start-ups, stomp on greedy councils and get the economy moving again through buying and selling.  Through people actually having the incentive to work, with benefits disadvantageous.

But Osborne, pretending to be a conservative, is anything but. He is Them’s minder of Cameron, the man on the ground, which is why he cannot be sacked.  And he cares nothing for small c conservative fiscal policy, his is a caricature of conservatism- bash the people into insensibility, pretending it is “responsible”, whilst in bed with the very moneylenders trying to bleed Britain dry.

Them are no friends of the people, the left aren’t either with their marriage wrecking and migrant flooding ideas, neither are the Westminster puppets, nor the MSM, nor the law courts, nor the NHS.

Who are the friends of the people?  3.8 million who did not vote for the Big Three or the Greens in 2015, plus those among the non-voting who want our country back.

Note on the author

The author was recently attacked as “paleoconservative”. Actually, that’s the nicest compliment he can imagine. Proud to be one of those. And part of that is libertarianism within reason, which makes the author classical liberal. Plus he wants to preserve rainforests but not hug trees. He wants to protect the aged and animals from cruelty. And he bids ye a good day today, if ye be of good intent.

5 comments for “Time small c conservatives split from the neo-libs and neo-cons

  1. Tammly
    September 24, 2015 at 12:55 pm

    Thoroughly agree. We need a new Westminster party along these lines so that we can be represented properly once more.

    • September 24, 2015 at 5:19 pm

      It all comes down to people’s voting patterns and if they’ll voice their anger.

    • mikebravo
      September 25, 2015 at 12:00 pm

      It will take more than just another political party that people can vote for every 5 years.
      The question is who is being represented, why and to whom. Who is in charge that we need to be represented by a politician anyway?
      The problem is that people just want what Jones has got. A wide screen tv and a new car.
      While them can provide cheap tv’s and cars they can do what they want and the plebs will go along with it.
      While the majority are happy to be serfs with a so called vote every 5 years for a supposed representative them will eradicate our liberty and enslave us all.

      • Henry Kaye
        September 26, 2015 at 12:11 pm

        We need a Messiah!

  2. Rob
    September 25, 2015 at 2:17 pm

    Good piece. I can’t disagree with your views.

Comments are closed.