Brexit – a Berlin Wall moment?

The Leave vote in the Brexit referendum is obviously very good news indeed. I just hope that Brexiteers realise that while this has been a glorious victory it’s just the opening battle in what will be a lengthy war. 
Britain cannot be a truly independent nation until the globalist  elites who created the mess are thoroughly eradicated. That means the existing Conservative and Labor parties must be destroyed. It can be done.
This victory was won by a temporary alliance that would have seemed unthinkable a decade ago – dissident Tories united with dissident Labour supporters. In fact it was an alliance of what could be called old school Tories (the ones who actually cared about their country) and the old school Left (leftists who actually care about working-class people). They were united for one magnificent moment by their detestation of the smug elites who currently run the Conservative and Labor parties. This was what Peter Hitchens has described as “an alliance between the social conservatives trapped and ignored in a liberal Tory Party and the social conservatives trapped in a liberal Labour Party.” 
Hitchens fears that the referendum may have brought this alliance about too soon and that it may not last. He may be right. It is very much in the interests of both groups to burn the existing political establishment to the ground, but the danger is that after the euphoria of the referendum victory has worn off it may be back to business as usual with voters continuing to vote for established political parties that despise them.
On the other hand it may be that now that ordinary people have discovered that they can actually change things, and all they have to do is motivate themselves enough to go to the polling station, they might start taking an interest in finishing the job. There is the chance that this may be a Berlin Wall coming down moment for the British political establishment.
The elites of course have been sneering about the fact that the referendum was won by old white people. So it was. And now those old white people have had a taste of power. They’ve ditched the EU and they’ve ended the dismal disastrous career of David Cameron. They’ve discovered they can outvote the moronic Millennials. They can, should they choose to do so, take back their country.
In some ways it’s to be hoped that the EU is as obstructive as possible about Brexit – it will serve to maintain the rage. Maybe the British people will eventually figure out that if they want real independence they need to eliminate the current self-serving self-appointed political class.
Of course it could be a Berlin Wall coming down moment for the EU as well. Now everyone in Europe who hates the EU knows that it is possible to leave. What seemed like an impossibility has been demonstrated to be a very real possibility. Anti-EU movements in other countries are going to be really energised now.
Just remember, the collapse of the Soviet Union was an impossibility until it happened. And when history happens it tends to happen surprisingly quickly.

the alt-right – the new cuckservatives?

This is in response to a couple of excellent recent posts at Bloody shovel and Vanishing American.
Both posts raise issues that have been giving me great concern recently. My greatest fear has always been that conservatives might be dumb enough to buy the ridiculous idea of allying with the cultural left against immigration. This would mean that conservatives would have to accept the complete progressivist cultural agenda. Conservatives would then find themselves fighting to defend homosexual marriage, feminism and all the other evils that have undermined the foundations of western society for the past half century or so.
It was always plausible that the mainstream conservatives, those whom the alt-right like to refer to contemptuously as the cuckservatives, would fall for this. Their one infallible instinct is to surrender on any matter of principle. It’s what they have always done. It has always ended in disaster and they keep on doing it.
Post-Orlando it’s profoundly depressing to see that many people on the alt-right seem to be determined to make exactly the same mistake. They are preparing to jettison their principles in exchange for what they think will be a political advantage.
This is really no different at all from the Republican establishment saying that the Republican Party should reach out to minorities because minorities are natural Republicans. Or the party should reach out to women because women are natural Republicans. Such tactics have failed every single time.
And now we have people on the alt-right telling us the alt-right should reach out to homosexuals because homosexuals apparently are natural alt-rightists. And they can’t see the tragic irony of it all. These alt-rightists are copying the methods of the cuckservatives. 
It needs to be understood that there are certain enemies who can never ever under any circumstances be regarded as allies, not even as short-term allies. For those who care about western civilisation that means that homosexuals and feminists in particular can never under any circumstances whatsoever be allies. Homosexuals and feminists are absolutely determined to destroy our civilisation and they would be delighted to ship us off to the GULAGS. 
To pander to our most dangerous enemies is pathetic, cowardly and futile. It will backfire catastrophically. 

down the slippery slope we go

I went to the website of one of my favourite book dealers the other day and what did I find? They were having a celebration of LGBT “young adult” books. Think about this for a moment. The Young Adult Library Services Association of the American Library Association defines a young adult as someone aged between 12 and 18. This is homosexual propaganda aimed directly at people who are, legally, children.

It seems that whenever social conservatives have invoked the “slippery slope” argument against social engineering it almost invariably turns out to be absolutely correct. And when children are being targeting for homosexual propaganda we are a long way down that particular slippery slope. The depressing thing is, we may end up sliding even further down that slope. Make no mistake – there are absolutely no limits to the demands of the LGBT lobby. 
This is very much about the sexualisation of children, an agenda that is driven almost entirely by the LGBT lobby. It is also part of the increasingly proselytising nature of that lobby – they are actively seeking out converts. And the best source of converts is children.
Gandhi was reportedly once asked, “What do you think of western civilisation?” To which he replied, “I think it would be a good idea.” I’m starting to think he may have had a point. 
If what we have now is western civilisation – is it even worth trying to defend it?

conservatism, individualism and collectivism

I recently read a claim by someone who claimed to be a conservative (Michael van der Galien) that conservatism is focused on individuals. It’s quite possible that that’s how many  people see it these days but I really don’t agree. 
Neoconservatives definitely would like us to believe that there is a spectrum and at one end of the spectrum you have individualism (which they equate to freedom) and at the other end you have collectivism or statism. 
Is this really true? It’s certainly true that individualism and collectivism are opposed but is it a simple spectrum? 
It seems to me that traditional society was focused on groups rather than individuals but that did not make such a society collectivist. There were some major differences. For one thing the groups that comprise traditional western European society (the family, neighbourhoods, the village, churches, etc) were to a large extent voluntary. You were not forced to marry. If you really disliked your village you could leave and move elsewhere. If you were tired of being a Methodist you could switch to the Anglican Church. For another, these groups were organic rather than artificial. They were not created and maintained by government edict. 
In this respect any kind of traditionalist conservatism is quite distinct from individualist ideologies but is just as opposed to statism.
There is in fact a name for a philosophy that focuses on individuals rather than groups. That philosophy is called liberalism. Anyone who espouses such an ideology is a liberal, not a conservative. Almost all of those within the Anglosphere today who claim the label conservative are in fact liberals. This is especially true in the United States where actual conservatism, as a political philosophy, scarcely exists (and never did exist to any significant degree).
It’s extremely amusing to see the attacks launched by self-described conservatives against Donald Trump. They claim he is not a true conservative. They are of course correct. He is a liberal. The amusing part though is that these self-described conservatives are, almost without exception, much more thoroughgoing liberals than Trump. Trump is a liberal with a few mild conservative leanings. They are liberals with no conservative leanings at all.
At least in Australia our Liberal Party is honest enough to label itself correctly. It is not by any stretch of the imagination a conservative party. 
So where does this leave people who actually do have conservative beliefs? If we call ourselves conservatives we will be misunderstood. We will be confused with the neoconservatives (who are in fact the extreme wing of liberalism). For some years now the word conservative has been becoming less and less useful. It is now not only not useful but dangerously misleading. 
Other potentially useful words, such as reactionary, have been claimed by small splinter groups (in this case the neo-reactionaries). This is annoying to me since reactionary is a much more accurate epithet in my case than conservative. I have no desire to conserve the status quo. I wish to restore a much earlier version of the status quo. Restorationist has been proposed but it suggests an exclusive focus on a desire to restore the powers of monarchy. Personally I would like to see a dramatic increase in the powers of the monarchy but only as part of a wider programme.
Perhaps I could call myself a paleo-reactionary!

the lesser of two evils? I think not

We’re now about a month out from a federal election in Australia. And for the first time in my adult life I genuinely don’t care who wins.
Social conservatives like myself will once again  be expected to hold our noses and vote for the “conservative” Coalition on the grounds that it’s the lesser of two evils. I’m starting to think this is both futile and counter-productive. The Coalition has betrayed us so many times. Voting for them simply encourages them to do what they’ve done for the past few decades – serving the interest of the rich and big business whilst pretending to be marginally more social conservative than Labor. 
If we are ever to have a genuine conservative party in Australia then the Liberal-National Party Coalition must be destroyed. No true conservative party will be possible until that is achieved.
When a Coaltion government in Victoria funds (to the tune of nearly half a million dollars) a Trotskyite group spreading homosexual propaganda in primary schools you seriously have  to ask yourself – how can this be the lesser of two evils? 
The only thing I do take a mild interest in is the Senate. If we’re going to have bad government (and whoever wins we are certainly going to have bad government) then I’d prefer to have a weak bad government that has to deal with a hostile Senate. So I’ll be voting for a minor party candidate in the Senate. The fact is that the independent and minor party senators (I don’t count the Greens as a minor party since they’re part of the political establishment and they’re bankrolled by billionaires) might be slightly loopy but they’ve done far less harm to this country than successive governments of the major parties.

And it would amuse me to see Malcolm Turnbull humiliated.