Thursday, 17 December 2015

Anne McElvoy on British Conservaliberalism

British Conservatism: The Grand Tour
British Liberalism: The Grand Tour

Liberalism meaningless: the rich think it means freedom from laws and taxes, the poor think it means freedom from poverty and oppression.

Either Liberalism is the same thing as Conservatism or it is not. Anne McElvoy seems to think they are the same.

Do you get the impression that Anne McElvoy uses Liberalism and Conservatism interchangeably? I do.

Is Anne McElvoy's series on British Liberalism just a rehash of her series on British Conservatism?

Listening to Anne McElvoy on British Conservatism/Liberalism, do you get the impression it is just "shit UK governments do"?

British Liberalism and British Conservatism seems to be nothing more than "shit the British government does and thinks".

Anne McElvoy's on Conservatism/Liberalism should be a programme called What Passes for British Political Thought since the French Revolution.

British Conservatism came from an Irishman as a belated response to the French Revolution.

Conservatism is an ideology no older than the American and French Revolutions, which failed to prevent Russian Revolution.

Ask a Western politician or journalist to tell you where Conservatism ends and Liberalism begins, and he will start prevaricating and looking nervous and shifty. Try it yourself if you don't believe me. Predictably, I received no answer from Anne McElvoy when I asked her this question.

Liberalism and Conservatism means whatever Western politicians want it to mean.

Liberalism and Conservatism means motherhood and apple pie to the typical British voter.  It therefore means precisely nothing.

In Australia the party closest to Conservatism is called the Liberal Party.  Does this mean confusion, incoherence bordering on mania and dementia?

The West whose ideology is Conservatism and Liberalism do not even have an agreed "scripture" for their "religion".

Has Conservaliberalism stood the test of time - all 252 years of it so far?

ISIS have the Koran said to come from God, while the West do not even have an agreed "scripture" for their ideology. Perhaps it can only be found in The Unholy and Unwritten Conservaliberal Book of Making It Up As You Go Along?

There was a reason why the plebs demanded that The Twelve Tables of Romebe placed in a prominent part of the forum so that the operation of Rome's laws would be accessible and foreseeable.

What are Western values? It seems to mean Conservaliberalism which it cannot even agree on or officially define.

Would Edmund Burke be shocked and disgusted that a Conservative Prime Minister has legalised gay marriage?

Liberalism + Conservatism + Wolfowitz Doctrine + Full Spectrum Dominance + Neoconservatism + Neoliberalism = American Imperialism

Can even the most intelligent intellectual defend an ideology that does not have a commonly agreed source?

Is it wise to defend ideologies that are clearly incoherent and make no sense at all which no one can define?

It is clearly unwise to present a programme on these incoherent ideologies relying only on politicians' reminiscences of what was said and done when they were in government and politics without any attempt to define where Conservatism ends and Liberalism begins. Let us call it Conservaliberalism then!

Is PC Liberalism the equivalent of Sexual Liberation and casual fornication leading to widespread bastardy and national degeneracy? Is this the "way of life" the West is so keen on defending?

ISIS hate gay marriage while Conservaliberals seem to be saying they are prepared to defend it to the death.  What is the point of defending a practice that would result in racial and national degeneracy which God has already declared to be an abomination in both the Bible and Koran?

Conservatism + Liberalism = Gay Marriage

Conservatism + Liberalism + Democracy = Immigration?

Another expression of Conservaliberalism is being in the EU and NATO, irrespective of whether or not it is in the national interest, because, let's face it, these pygmy politicians have no idea what to do outside it, because they have no imagination or principles, and have no idea what the national interest is. They only want to be in office without being in power and only think in terms of elections the way children think of playing musical chairs.

Why do Liberals and Conservatives pretend they can't understand why people hate immigration when they know being hospitable to even family members can be a pain?

Would Victorian Conservaliberals' views on sexual morality be closer that of ISIS than the gay and female advisers of Downing Street?

Did Anne McElvoy mention that the National Liberal Party merged with the Conservative Party in 1947? I don't think so.

The Liberal Nationals also changed their name to National Liberals at this stage. (Their reluctance to take this label originally is said to be a reaction to Lloyd George's use of the name for the earlier National Liberal Party in the 1920s.)

So, Conservaliberalism is a good thing then? Well, it has made the West what it is now  ...

If I had been presenting the programme, I would have pointed out that Conservatism was no more than a response to the French Revolution.

Since both Conservatism and Liberalism are the same thing in the mind of Anne McElvoy, we can say that Conservaliberalism is no more than 252 years old. I choose 1763 because that was the beginning of the American Revolution, which the French had a part in.

If the French had not fought the Seven Years War then they would not have found their coffers empty and having to replenish them through the imposition of objectionably high taxes.

If Louis XVI had been Caliph of France - a Caliph is a constitutional dictator - and governed Islamically according to all the rules of the Koran, he would not have lost his head.

If Henry Tudor had been Muslim, it would have been no big deal for him to have up to four wives. Think of the number of heads that would have stayed on shoulders and the wars avoided if there had been no Catholic Church for Protestants to protest against and all the religious wars and persecution in Europe that would have been avoided. Forget all the non-Christians the Christians killed, ask yourself how many Christians the Christians killed. It is just possible that Christians killed even more Christians than they killed Muslims. Quite a thought, eh? It was the schismatic nature of Christianity that caused white people to endlessly fight, persecute and kill each other. It was Conservaliberalism that started two World Wars, after all, but Anne McElvoy doesn't mention that either. It is not surprising then that white people became so good at war and took over the world. Now that they only go around hypocritically pretending that they invade oil-rich Muslim countries to save Muslims from themselves and pay mercenaries to fight their wars, they will most probably go the way of the Roman empire.

Was the The Seven Years War fought for Koranically-approved reasons?  No, because it only officially permits defensive wars. Sure, go acquire an empire if you want - the Koran allows Muslims conquerors to impose the jizya on their conquered after all, but if you don't win it or can't really afford it, then on your head be it.

An Islamic rate of tax is only a flat rate income tax of 20%. Did you know hedge funds also charge 20%?  Why is 20 the magic number? Because it is the highest percentage most people would willingly pay without trying to avoid or evade it.

Was WW1 fought for Koranically-approved reasons? Nope. Should Russia have entered it? Nope. If the Russians had had a Caliph of Russia rather than silly Tsar with an equally silly Tsarina carrying on with Rasputin, there would have been no Russian Revolution either.

What do the French now think of their Revolution? Do you know they are now on their fifth Republic? Yep, every time they change their constitution, a new republic is formed, and they have changed their constitution five times already, cos they keep getting it wrong ...

As Zhou Enlai said, it is too early to tell if the French Revolution was a good thing. Since he is dead, perhaps we should ask the French people what they think of the French Revolution now. I did recently and the response was a Gallic shrug.

Does the picture below say anything you might want to say about Conservaliberalism?

Anne McElvoy's series on British Conservatism


RM said...

This is a standard thing - academics constantly refer to 'liberal democracy', but ignore how little resemblence there is between an 18th century ethno-state with crypto-anarchistic tendencies and a left-wing managerial empire that rules an increasingly brown horde.

This is really exactly the same as Christians pretending their (current) version of Protestantism has anything to do with Gnostic mystery religions from the Levant. Christianity is obviously not remotely the same religion it was 1400 years ago, but they will go to their graves swearing that St. Valentin was a Presbyterian.

RM said...

I think one of the major problems with liberalism, both classical and modern, is its Christian slave morality and Puritanical roots. Whether the libertarian or modern managerial State everything is framed in terms of being more-egalitarian-than-thou. The actual legal positions of classical liberalism, i.e. free trade and the self-destruction of state power, are quite sensible; it's the cult of slaves attached to them that make them so vulnerable to subversion and perversion.

Lord Sheikh said...

"If Louis XVI had been Caliph of France - a Caliph is a constitutional dictator - and governed Islamically according to all the rules of the Koran, he would not have lost his head."
So how did being Caliph/constitutional dictator prevent the murder of Uthman or Ali? Surely they governed Islamically?

"Was WW1 fought for Koranically-approved reasons?"
It was from the point of view of the Caliph. Perhaps if the silly old Caliph and his liberal ministers had not entered the war the Caliphate would not have been overthrown and things might be different today in the Middle East?

The fact that the only thing the Islamic world has left to conserve is the Koran does not make the Islamic world conservative. Women were recently elected as councillors in Saudi Arabia, even the Saudis have embraced Conservaliberalism!

American Republicanism + European Socialism + Koran - minus tradition = Islamism.

Claire Khaw said...

To RM:

The point I was trying to make about Conservaliberalism is that no one knows what it means. It is not a coherent ideology at all. Thatcher and Farage called themselves Classical Liberals, after all. The Father of Modern Conservatism, Edmund Burke, was not a Tory but a Whing. Did Anne McElvoy even mention this??

As for Islamism, these Islamists are quite clear about what they want, which is for the world to be a theocracy under God's laws as stated in the Koran. These Islamists have the virtue of being clear and coherent, and this will help them.

Defenders of liberal democracy on the other hand cannot even define their beliefs in a sentence, or even after Ann McElvoy's series on British Conservatism and British Liberalism respectively.

It is frustrating that so many people cannot see my point. If you don't even know what you are supposed to believe in, or do not really believe in what you are supposed to believe in, you will lose the ideological debate and eventually the clash of civilisations between Islam and the West.

Islamism is the International Patriarchy and Liberalism is the International Matriarchy. The former is strong and clear, while the latter divided and incoherent.

Claire Khaw said...

To "Lord Sheikh":

"If Louis XVI had been Caliph of France - a Caliph is a constitutional dictator - and governed Islamically according to all the rules of the Koran, he would not have lost his head."
So how did being Caliph/constitutional dictator prevent the murder of Uthman or Ali? Surely they governed Islamically?

If Louis XVI had not involved France in expensive laws he would not have found his coffers empty and needing to replenish them through imposing taxes on his subjects which they found objectionable.

I never suggested that ruling Islamically would magically prevent you from being assassinated.

"It was from the point of view of the Caliph. Perhaps if the silly old Caliph and his liberal ministers had not entered the war the Caliphate would not have been overthrown and things might be different today in the Middle East?"

What Caliph are you referring to? What was what from the point of the view of the Caliph? What Caliphate are you suggesting has been overthrown?

You have not got the point of my piece, which is that Conservatism and Liberalism as ideologies are not strong enough to defeat Islamism, because nobody can define what they are.