D for Doom is an interesting character who uses political words in strange ways. I think this is about where each of us is coming from.
I’ve seen him use the term conservative pejoratively, note the very important small ‘c’ there, which is why I made the post title that way – capital ‘L’, small ‘c’. Now there’s nothing pejorative about small c conservatism at all, it represents all the sound values a society can have but I can understand someone who has been of the Left saying that. Someone of the small r right would not think along those lines.
The problem is what we mean by those words. There is a principle in the west of ‘classical liberalism’ which accepts that there are limits to freedoms when they impinge on others in a real way.
The devil of course is in the details. Is that person next door infringing on my personal space by blasting music at 3 a.m.? Most would say yes. Are you infringing on someone’s rights if you go to a cafe and the smoke drives you out? The smokey drinkies would say so and I think they’ve been terribly badly treated – what’s wrong with having smoking and non-smoking areas? And as for being able to smoke in the beer garden – that’s just fascistic to try to stop them due to an overdose of nannyism and bansturbation.
You see, I’m in the middle on it. What separates us from Muslim nations and states like the USSR and Korea, throw China in there too, is that we do have this notion of personal freedom … up to a point … but what is that point? Where is the line?
When you start with this ‘passive aggressive’ thing at me, then I get anything but passive, e.g.
Which seems quite at odds with how the people I’m comfortable act and speak:
Whether it’s British or American, we are of the same rough area in socio-politics, ditto with the Italians and Poles now, the Hungarians – so where is that xenophobia we’re meant to have, just because we want all Muslims shipped out right now?
Truth is, we want alien cultures which are aggressive and want to take over our land – those are what we want out, not Mr. Orban who would be my honoured guest if he came over here. But I’d certainly not invite May or Soy boy, nor Mandelson.
We’re speaking here of the way of life we once had and which the Donald is trying to get back to – I saw a photo of London yesterday of a clerk going to work and around him were five women in heebeegeebees and some man in a white kaftan and with a beard and fierce eyes. That actually said it all.
The left try everything to pin the idea of Little England or racist on us and it’s nothing to do with that at all – we are just as, if not more, cosmopolitan than the left.
But notice that when I refer to bad things, I use the word ‘left’, whereas DforDoom uses the word ‘liberal’. I avoid the word ‘liberal’ unless I specify which definition we’re using – the new, hijacked left-liberal or the old classical liberal. Whereas DforDoom, trying to defend where he’s coming from, does not use the word ‘left’ pejoratively, for him it’s a good thing.
So you see our communication difficulties here – we’re not even referring to the same things when we use the same words.
So you see our communication difficulties here – we’re not even referring to the same things.
Now to the word ‘conservative’. It’s ill defined and certainly today, to conserve the status quo is to defend the leftwing notions of PCism, SJWism, Millennialism, feminism, victimhood, self-entitlement, bansturbation – conserving that is what ‘left’ means today and it is the status quo, the global hegemony which does not recognize country:
Therefore, we are the new radicals, not conservatives. Aaaggghhh!!
And what to make then of Kate Hoey [Labour] and David Blunkett [Labour]?
Obviously, there’s something wrong with our definition when these people come out with what I’ve always regarded as ‘conservative’ positions.
And Dfor Doom would not be surprised in the least – this is the old left to him, the good left. Yes but the ‘left’ is also these tossers:
Now this is never done by people calling themselves conservatives. And as my mate said some time back, most women have this tendency to leftism, even nominal Conservatives, but about a third are sane and those are the ones you see at these two sites and on Twitter. [LBJ here is LeBron James]:
There you see two different kinds of women – the first has dubious tendencies in that she confuses compassion and caring for leftism. The left have no monopoly on caring and compassion – I believe I’m quite that way with most people I deal with. It’s just our enemies I have no time for.
We can look at this a different way:
Talking wets and dries introduces another element – the economic – and what of Christians? I don’t mean the pointy-hatters and pageantry-fetishists but real Christians who try to follow the Sermon on the Mount in ordinary daily lives? I’m a failure at this.
Where does a real Christian stand? Certainly not with the Pope or Welby, nor their synods or college of cardinals or whatever they call them.
The real Christian has a dilemma – his chief loyalty is to God as defined in the Judaeo-Christian way, as most people see it – the Beatitudes, love thy neighbour, that sort of thing, his chief loyalty is not to his country.
But there is a scriptural reference to this – “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.”
Seems simple enough to me. That enables Christians to become conservatives but certainly not globalist satanists – that’s for the Mason upper echelons and the Illuminists.
Now I’ve not mentioned to this point, because I assume we’re sufficiently au fait to see it, that as DforDoom says, the organizations Conservatives and Republicans are anything but conservative for the most part. if you want numbers, then look at the British C&UP – two-thirds left-liberal global socialist [Remain] and the others some shade of loyal to country [Leave].
It’s not hard in the States to see who they are – Ryan, McConnell, Graham, Rubio, Bush, Romney, McCain are RINOs, possibly Sessions too, jury’s out … and on the other side – Dobbs, Limbaugh, Tucker, Malkin, Hannity, James Woods, Sheriff Clarke, all the Deplorables.
And to these must be added, over here, the ‘good’ Labour people like Kate Hoey and the other five, plus Sarah Champion and so on. If DforDoom wants to speak of ‘old’ labour, then that is them – people loyal to the country.
And remember that a huge number who put Leave across the line were former labour people up this way, as distinct from the metro bubble.
So I’d accept that the lines have been redrawn to an extent, that there is this pro-people thing in the middle here, pro-our own culture and it is cross-party for sure.
Into this, let me bring:
Ho ho ho, now ain’t that interesting? Our Gerard’s party pushed out AMW because she’s on about Islam and yet here he is bringing UKIP back to where they should be.
Why? Because much as he wants just Brexit to be the big issue, he knows damned well that immigration and Islam are the hot topics inside people’s minds up and down the country – there are votes in there.
The party which gauges the mood of the nation and cares for that is going to get many, many votes, although the legacy party tribalists will, of course, reduce that effect overall in the country.
‘Nuff for now.