Thursday, June 13, 2024
HomeNewsReaders’ comments: We want a land to call home, not a gigantic...

Readers’ comments: We want a land to call home, not a gigantic shopping mall


In response to Andrew Cadman: For true conservatives, the war is only just beginning,

Dave S wrote:

Read the Guardian and be cheered up. There is little or no sign that the progressives there have grasped that the world has changed. Rather they are doubling down on their fantasies. Encourage them in this. When I talk with one of them I try to bolster their confidence. All will be well if only they can have more progressive fantasies believed by more and more people like them. Nice middle-class types who just want the world to be nice.

This change has been coming for a long time. Years ago I knew that in human history there has never been a time when a people that considered themselves to be a nation or a distinct people voluntarily either gave up their way of life or their place in the world. It always took force. The progressive project denied this reality and has imposed beliefs and policies that directly oppose this reality and we know these for what they are. The progressives do not have the courage for hard tyranny but want to win using the soft tyranny of the law and propaganda. It will never work. It is not working.
Brexit was the start.

Peter Evans wrote:

A stirring and truthful anatomisation of the perils facing any genuine conservative who places even a modicum of trust in Conservatism Inc, which I believe to be as much an enemy of the British people as the sinisterly authoritarian liberal cosmopolitan elite – the ‘Anywheres’/Citizens of the World, in David Goodhart’s terminology.

The wealthy ‘Anywheres’, that is, those who despise us ‘Somewheres’ for our temerity (which they consider an expression of doltish backwardness) in wishing to conserve and protect our ancestral homelands from forced multiculti transformation (especial contempt appears to be reserved for those of us of ‘gammon’ descent, like me). We want a nation and a land to call home, something precious to pass on to the next generation, not a gigantic shopping mall filled with deracinated individuals flitting from one ephemeral, mindlessly hedonistic, commodified pleasure to another.

The task of building a grass roots conservative movement for radical constitutional and social change may seem a vast one, but a substantial swathe of the population, at least in sentiment, is already on the side of such a project. Does that entail building an entirely new entity from scratch, or can some form of realigned coalition of broadly nationalist and broadly small ‘c’ conservatives be brought together from, say, UKIP, the Brexit Party and the Social Democratic Party into a new entity?

I don’t know the answer, but I do know that the Conservative Party has, by appropriating the word ‘conservative’ and through its perfidy and elitist indifference, given ordinary small ‘c’ conservatives a bad name. The Conservative Party believes that the people are there to serve the economy; small ‘c’ conservatives believe the economy is there to serve the people. And they also believe that the nation is made of the people whose ancestors created it and laid the foundation for it; it isn’t a ‘place-holder for ideas’ as civic nationalists keep bleating.

Without the people and their ancestral continuity, the nation will morph into something radically different (and radically divided and dangerous to boot, as we’re already seeing in Londonistan, Rotherham and elsewhere).

The hyperconnected elite Andrew Cadman describes so perspicuously is, I would add, a globalist elite, for whom a national people’s loyalty to one another, to home, neighbourhood, custom, tradition and country, is a nuisance and an obstacle. I think this is why we are seeing the liberal elite championing Orwellian ‘anti-discrimination’ laws and practices that openly discriminate against people of white European descent in their own homelands. Effacing group loyalty through weaponised anti-discrimination laws helps convert human beings with ties of affection and duty to one another into isolated ‘free’ consumers and units of (the cheapest) labour.

A memory came back to me while reading Andrew’s article: some years ago, during the World Cup (I forget which one – the one before last, I think), a match was preceded by both teams running across the field – both of them multiracial – holding a banner that said ‘Say No to Racism!’

But what was immediately noticeable to the more discerning eye was that all of the athletes were wearing Nike uniforms. And that to me symbolised what globalist ‘diversity’ really means: a group of athletes from unique cultures and backgrounds dressed in uniforms made by the same global brand participating in a parade aimed at effacing racial and cultural boundaries – a demonstration of globalism’s relentless and insidious efforts to undermine ethnic uniqueness, tribal uniqueness, cultural uniqueness and national uniqueness.

No matter which of the two sides wins, Nike always wins.

I find this psychopathic, a project to kill unique cultures and replace them with commercialised caricatures, reducing them to a folk dance, a costume, a cuisine. I think this harms and damages the identities of all ethnicities and cultures who are dragooned into the multiculti ‘diversity’ game of the hyperconnected liberal globalist elite.

The commercial caricature is a spiritual void, a Nothing, that hollows human beings out into what Marcuse rightly called ‘one-dimensional man’: a widget in a gigantic labour machine, and an obedient consumer of Nike products. Consumer identities are hollow, discardable and impoverishing identities – unlike national identities which are filled with love, and occasionally protective hate when loved ones come under threat.

The new grass roots movement must encourage a new and rebellious sincerity in place of globalist kitsch: that it’s natural and good to be discriminating, to conserve your own people, to build good national boundaries for that purpose, to draw lines, to say ‘No – this is for us, not for everyone.’ This movement will abandon the universal project of homogenising (and therefore obliterating) human biodiversity and reinstate a benevolent tribalism – a model that can be adopted in every single nation on the planet.

If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Unlike most other websites, we receive no independent funding. Our editors are unpaid and work entirely voluntarily as do the majority of our contributors but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here. Thank you.
If you have not already signed up to a daily email alert of new articles please do so. It is here and free! Thank you.

Sign up for TCW Daily

Each morning we send The ConWom Daily with links to our latest news. This is a free service and we will never share your details.