Well-written and cogently argued, Matt Goodwin’s new book, “Values, Voice, and Virtue: The New British Politics” tells the British version of a story familiar to those of us in the United States.
Keep in mind that Britain is a puppet state, whose political leadership has no freedom to act outside American diktat.
For their part, Americans should get wise to the fact that America is by no means a "democracy" or a "democratic republic" but an oligarchy retaining vestigial trappings of a democratic republic. Because it does not matter who wins the elections - the policies don't really change.
"while this new ruling class dismisses this backlash as an outpouring of RACIST, ignorance or imperial nostalgia, in reality it marks a rational response to how the new elite have consolidated their power? "
Everytime you spot a quote like this you can rewrite it as.
""" While Comrade Stalin dismissed peasant agitation as an outpouring of CAPITALIST sentiment, it really marks their demand that we return to the purity of true marxism 1.0 of the days of comrade Lenin, which unlike the perverted current 'Marxism' 2.0 provided for their needs."""
This of course is a lie. The peasants may not understand that what they really need is CAPITALISM, they do understand that they are poor and miserable and that many things were better before. And to avoid this understanding leading to the reversal of communism it is necessary to crush them. The same is true of racism. We were told that other races were fundamentally equally capable, equally moral, and just needed a little time to adjust so we should abandon all racial identity and embrace them as members of a single human race. Then, normal blacks/latins/arabs/pakistanis/ failed to integrate at all, and the ones that did began a campaign against colorblindness to give spoils to their counterparts.
All things flow from the answers to the following questions:
1) Are average members of other races, intellectually and morally inferior to the average white European or east Asians?
2) Is it the norm for elite members of these races (those who aren't intellectually inferior themselves) to nonetheless identify not with their host countries, but with their racial underclass counterparts? Do they accept a colorblind meritocracy that they could thrive in, or do they immediately form a lobby to attack whites and demand special privileges for their own race?
* If 1 and 2 are true; racism is justified. It's important to be honest with yourself, whatever cover-names you might use with other people. If you believe what Aporia readers claim to believe, and are a good person, then you are a racist.
Even if the races were perfectly equivalent in intellectual, moral and artistic ability, societies of individuals with similar cultural and genetic composition would still be justified. Culture recapitulates biology; the only way to preserve the diverse nature of our world is to ensure that separations and loyalties exist.
In the case of these cosmopolitans, I am generally reminded of O. Henry's Cosmopolite, who derides the idea of calling any place on Earth his home, yet celebrates the vast diversity of the people he has encountered, hoping they will all call each other brothers one day. Curiously enough, he is later offended, in an O. Henry-worthy twist, over the insult of a patron towards his hometown, which reflects an aspect of this situation as well.
Something that is not widely appreciated by American conservatives is just how much of a special case the UK is in terms of the progressive/conservative 'culture war'. It is a special case (an especially dismal one) for various reasons but one of the biggest is the decades-long unusually monolithic nature of its BBC-dominated television news media. Other countries' media has had a far less uniformly progressive stranglehold; particularly the US. Last election in the US about 40% (was it?) voted for a non-liberal-establishment candidate. In Britain, thanks to decades of BBC -type taming, they would get maybe 5% max. In the last 30 years the UK has made itself virtually conservatism-free.
The great exception was Margaret Thatcher's leadership. "The great majority of [British] politicians think it politic to dance a kind of tango with the media; to come across as emollient." A big part of the Thatcher appeal was her Joan-of Arc refusal to be cowed by this.
American conservatives have a special love for Britain, imagining it as the land of Winston Churchill, School Uniforms, Tradition, Properly Tailored Suits, Motor Cars, Men's Clubs, and Male Buggery.
For their part, American liberals have a special love for Britain, imagining it as the land of Cool Brittania, Class Consciousness, Intellectuals Running Policy, Socialism, Punk Rock and of course, Male Buggery.
I feel there's been some wandering off topic here. But since there has, you might find this portrait of Englishness (plus more obliquely the other nations of the UK) of interest:
I wasn't personally offended....I don't think so anyway. In fact the subject of article link I gave you is about England's peculiar deficit of national chauvinism.
Keep in mind that Britain is a puppet state, whose political leadership has no freedom to act outside American diktat.
For their part, Americans should get wise to the fact that America is by no means a "democracy" or a "democratic republic" but an oligarchy retaining vestigial trappings of a democratic republic. Because it does not matter who wins the elections - the policies don't really change.
"while this new ruling class dismisses this backlash as an outpouring of RACIST, ignorance or imperial nostalgia, in reality it marks a rational response to how the new elite have consolidated their power? "
Everytime you spot a quote like this you can rewrite it as.
""" While Comrade Stalin dismissed peasant agitation as an outpouring of CAPITALIST sentiment, it really marks their demand that we return to the purity of true marxism 1.0 of the days of comrade Lenin, which unlike the perverted current 'Marxism' 2.0 provided for their needs."""
This of course is a lie. The peasants may not understand that what they really need is CAPITALISM, they do understand that they are poor and miserable and that many things were better before. And to avoid this understanding leading to the reversal of communism it is necessary to crush them. The same is true of racism. We were told that other races were fundamentally equally capable, equally moral, and just needed a little time to adjust so we should abandon all racial identity and embrace them as members of a single human race. Then, normal blacks/latins/arabs/pakistanis/ failed to integrate at all, and the ones that did began a campaign against colorblindness to give spoils to their counterparts.
All things flow from the answers to the following questions:
1) Are average members of other races, intellectually and morally inferior to the average white European or east Asians?
2) Is it the norm for elite members of these races (those who aren't intellectually inferior themselves) to nonetheless identify not with their host countries, but with their racial underclass counterparts? Do they accept a colorblind meritocracy that they could thrive in, or do they immediately form a lobby to attack whites and demand special privileges for their own race?
* If 1 and 2 are true; racism is justified. It's important to be honest with yourself, whatever cover-names you might use with other people. If you believe what Aporia readers claim to believe, and are a good person, then you are a racist.
Even if the races were perfectly equivalent in intellectual, moral and artistic ability, societies of individuals with similar cultural and genetic composition would still be justified. Culture recapitulates biology; the only way to preserve the diverse nature of our world is to ensure that separations and loyalties exist.
In the case of these cosmopolitans, I am generally reminded of O. Henry's Cosmopolite, who derides the idea of calling any place on Earth his home, yet celebrates the vast diversity of the people he has encountered, hoping they will all call each other brothers one day. Curiously enough, he is later offended, in an O. Henry-worthy twist, over the insult of a patron towards his hometown, which reflects an aspect of this situation as well.
Something that is not widely appreciated by American conservatives is just how much of a special case the UK is in terms of the progressive/conservative 'culture war'. It is a special case (an especially dismal one) for various reasons but one of the biggest is the decades-long unusually monolithic nature of its BBC-dominated television news media. Other countries' media has had a far less uniformly progressive stranglehold; particularly the US. Last election in the US about 40% (was it?) voted for a non-liberal-establishment candidate. In Britain, thanks to decades of BBC -type taming, they would get maybe 5% max. In the last 30 years the UK has made itself virtually conservatism-free.
The great exception was Margaret Thatcher's leadership. "The great majority of [British] politicians think it politic to dance a kind of tango with the media; to come across as emollient." A big part of the Thatcher appeal was her Joan-of Arc refusal to be cowed by this.
https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/mrs-thatcher-and-the-good-life
American conservatives have a special love for Britain, imagining it as the land of Winston Churchill, School Uniforms, Tradition, Properly Tailored Suits, Motor Cars, Men's Clubs, and Male Buggery.
For their part, American liberals have a special love for Britain, imagining it as the land of Cool Brittania, Class Consciousness, Intellectuals Running Policy, Socialism, Punk Rock and of course, Male Buggery.
I feel there's been some wandering off topic here. But since there has, you might find this portrait of Englishness (plus more obliquely the other nations of the UK) of interest:
https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/englishness-as-a-brand
If it makes you feel any better, I wasn't so much slagging on the English as I was on certain types of fawning American anglophile.
But I agree, I am getting offtopic.
I wasn't personally offended....I don't think so anyway. In fact the subject of article link I gave you is about England's peculiar deficit of national chauvinism.
So I read.