Preserving the substance of a nation: the role of a traditional conservative counter-establishment

by John Kersey

This is the text of a speech delivered earlier today to the Traditional Britain Group conference.

I am going to begin with a simple thesis: the loss of the English nation has progressed to such an extent that ordinary measures will not be sufficient to restore it. I am going to propose to you that if we aim to see the restoration of traditional Conservatism in this country, we cannot rely upon the existing mechanisms of our society – its national politics and its institutions – to serve that purpose. I have two main reasons for proposing this theory, and after I enumerate them, I will then go on to explain their consequences for us and the necessity for a traditional conservative counter-establishment.

The first difficulty we face is really more of a historical phenomenon than anything else. It is that where change of a widespread and fundamental nature has occurred, it is then near-impossible to return to the status quo ante. If we look to English history, there are events – such as the Restoration of 1660 – that may seem to look backwards, but in reality constitute the combination of elements of the past and present. The most usual pattern is that of thesis – which in this example is absolute monarchy; antithesis – the Puritan Commonwealth; and then synthesis – the constitutional monarchy that constitutes the Restoration. England is very good indeed at giving the veneer of continuity to what is in fact profound change. This can fool us into mistaking style for substance. I am going to suggest to you that we as conservatives are too often fooled in this way, and that we are sometimes satisfied with a change of style where in fact it is substance that needs to be addressed. Genuine change of substance – in this case reactionary reversion – is extremely rare, and will almost invariably be achieved at the cost of much bloodshed. We in Britain have not succeeded hitherto in turning the clock back in public life. I suggest it is unlikely that we can easily succeed in doing so in the future.

The second difficulty is in our perception of the effects of change. We often see the results of change and we must then look for its causes. Sometimes this is uncontroversial, but often we feel sure that we can connect cause and effect in a straight line more because of our inner convictions rather than because of an actual and measurable connexion. Many of us believe that much of the blame for the problems that face our country can be placed at the feet of our current batch of elected representatives, or their immediate predecessors. But what if what we are perceiving is in fact a much more gradual and deep-rooted process working its way out, and with less to do with politicians than with social change that is the outcome of a variety of post-1945 factors? The root of conservatism is in an extremely guarded attitude to change, precisely because change has unpredictable, and sometimes unmeasurable effects. We should therefore be very careful not to assume that where we propose change we can predict its outcome. In particular, we must not assume that the solutions of yesterday can be applied to the problems of today with the same results. And we must be aware that anything we create will be at constant risk from both external opposition and infiltration.

Conservatism and traditionalism are not ideologies; they are anti-ideological in that they rest upon a system of fixed, guiding principles rather than upon an agenda based upon change. As such, if we define ourselves as conservatives and traditionalists, we need to beware of ideologically-driven forces that oppose what we stand for. In our time the two most prominent ideologies that threaten conservatism and traditionalism are socialism and neoconservatism. Neoconservatism is the outcome of an attempt to apply Left-wing models of ideology and change to core conservative ideas.

Because ideology and traditional conservatism are opposed, what this produces is a hybrid of limited conservative principle and a Leftist commitment to so-called progress and constant change. Neoconservatism wins a popular mandate by accepting the Left’s rules and playing the Left’s game, but it is a complete misconstrual of conservatism, because constant change can never bring about conservative ends. If a conservative government were to behave in a truly conservative way, the first thing it would do on gaining power would be to reverse much of the legislation of the past twenty years and secure our immediate withdrawal from the European Union. We should be clear that if we do not find that the present-day Conservative Party is advocating that this is what should happen, we must conclude that it is because it is no longer conservative in any true sense of that word. Instead, what it is illustrating very clearly is the confusion between style and substance that I outlined earlier.

The reality is that the Conservative Party today is a mixture of several strands – of which the most prominent are neoconservative and centrist (that is to say left-wing) conservative. These are in what appears to be a permanent ascendancy, despite some dissonance with both the Parliamentary party and the grass roots. They are in the ascendancy for one reason and one reason only – because to engage with modern politics involves both the acceptance of change and a commitment to continuous change, which is incompatible with traditional conservatism, and it is by nature ideological. It has become impossible for anyone in mainstream politics to say that he or she is reactionary or traditionalist, or that if given power they will reverse the measures of the previous government. They must instead embrace the ideology of change and in doing so, they will cease to profess the substance of traditional conservatism and retain only, at best, its style. They will be asked “What will you do if we vote for you?” and what they should answer is “We will take such measures as are necessary to preserve and protect the enduring traditions and way of life of the English people. Other than that, we will do nothing.” The reality is that such a platform will not succeed under our present democracy. Indeed, the understanding necessary to arrive at the conclusions of traditional conservatism is reserved to a few – not because the masses are incapable of this, but because most are faced with such a raft of pressures and distractions that they are not able to form a correct overview of the actual state of things. Furthermore, most people want to fit in and lack the courage to stand out from the crowd. Most people remain absorbed in the microcosm and this enables them to embrace the paradox that it is only the present system – which is built on constant and disorienting change – that can give them security. There is also the problem that our country now contains a good many people who care nothing for the traditions and way of life of the English people because they are either indifferent to them or actively desire their destruction. I can assure you that not all of them are of immigrant stock. Indeed, a good many of them are White and English and have been made to feel thoroughly guilty about both.

What has happened to the Conservative Party is not dissimilar from the process that has affected all of our major institutions. They have all become, to a greater or lesser extent, infected by the change agenda. They are expected to move forwards, to embrace progress, to be modern and to be interconnected with other institutions that share these values. It is anathema to be old-fashioned, to resist change, to conserve, or to be independent or critical of developments in other parallel institutions. Most institutions adapt to the status quo and do not challenge it. Indeed, they judge their success by their ability to adapt and to respond to popular taste. In doing this, institutions are required to sign up to an ideological agenda. In theory, it could be that this agenda might be neoconservative. But here is the central problem. Neoconservatism is a deeply incomplete philosophy. When the Left accuse neoconservatives of philistinism and a disregard for culture, they are right. Neoconservatives have confined their attention to areas where they believe they are on safe ground – defence, economics, foreign and home affairs. They have created a yawning chasm where their cultural values should be, which is why both Tony Blair and David Cameron are correctly classified as neoconservatives even though they have led different parties. But there is no vacuum. Instead, the chasm has been very ably filled by the Left, which has created a hegemony in certain areas of our society that is seemingly unbreakable. It is now common to hear politicians of the Conservative Party embracing the cultural values of the Left. Our Prime Minister, Mr Cameron, tells us that he likes the music of The Smiths, whose music is undeniably that of the Left*. It seems to me unlikely that he has heard music by artists of the Right, or that if he were to hear it, he would recognize or respond to the traditionalist conservative elements in it. He has not done so, because fundamentally culture is not important to him except as relaxation, as aural wallpaper or as a shared experience with his peers. He does not realize that unless the Right can advance its own cultural values and successfully combat those of the Left, it will never offer a complete solution to the problems of this country.

As soon as we start to talk in depth about the cultural values of the Right, we are faced with the relentless onslaught against those values that began among Marxist thinkers and has become a key element of the post-1945 consensus. For Leftists such as Adorno and Horkheimer, Rightist culture was a symptom of what they, in the Left’s favourite quasi-psychoanalytic jargon, called the “authoritarian personality”. They convinced many that there was a direct line between Rightist culture and Nazism, and they ensured that any who associated with that culture could conveniently be dismissed with the label “far-right”. Their cultural struggle required that traditional conservatism could only be defeated by setting a directly opposing force against it in a culture war. This process also declared war on the cultural values of the White working class where those values supported Traditionalism. Teenage rebellion was not invented by the Left, but it was the Left who would cynically exploit it and ally it to the agenda of constant change, and ensure that pop music and pop culture became the repository for Leftist values. Youth became the focus for the Left because it was the group in society most susceptible to being sold change as a way of life. Meanwhile, the idea of a hierarchical society was remorselessly attacked by the Left both culturally and economically, resulting in the ascent of shallow materialism and the deification of fashion and the modern. Traditional morality and social views became the new taboos; opposition to them, notably in the recent promotion of homosexual civil marriage, has become an essential badge of the political elite.

Today, the Leftist hegemony is reinforced by an audit culture that claims to provide accountability but actually serves as a means of control. Genuine independence is impossible under such a system because all the truly significant decision-making is centralized and takes place far above the level of those at the coalface; frequently in the implementation of some European Union socialist diktat. Our schools and universities exemplify this climate. When I tell people that English universities used to regulate themselves, and that separation from the control of government was a key element of their independence, I receive looks of amazement. The professions have been key driving forces in audit culture. The purpose of a profession is to act as a gatekeeper; not so much to keep people in as to keep undesirables out. The result is ever-growing layers of standardization, accreditation and assessment. The culture of professional management tends to uphold the view that centralization and systemization is preferable to a traditionalist, human-scale way of doing things. When UKIP say that they intend to embrace professionalism, my heart sinks. If they do so, they will suppress their traditionalist and individualist elements, and rather than resisting it, will adapt to the prevailing system.

A major reason why people have accepted this regulatory culture is because they have been systematically intellectually disempowered. Gone are the days of the rounded education, the gentleman amateur and the Renaissance man as concepts at the heart of our society. The encouragement of micro-specialism is the Left’s way of reinforcing the role of the expert. In academia, post-war structures such as peer review, scientific method and departmental collegiality mean that a hegemony is reinforced and that those who would challenge it are firmly excluded. The global warming fiasco exemplifies this very clearly. Entire areas, such as sociology and cultural studies, have emerged that consist almost entirely of the study of Left-wing thought, and the ascent of postmodernism has ensured the dominance of the Left across the arts and humanities. Meanwhile, those who educate themselves on a topic find that their opinion is discredited as supposedly unqualified, not because of any deficiency in their expertise, but because they speak from outside the academy. A certain amount of dissent is, of course, tolerated within the establishment – just as it was in the Soviet Union. But if anyone transgresses too far against the sacred cows of political correctness, he or she is hung out to dry and the establishment closes ranks. Some choose to be Rightist dissidents within Leftist institutions and are granted some degree of toleration in consequence. But this is a lonely and often bitter calling. Professor Roger Scruton has talked eloquently about the decade he spent within mainstream English academia. His dissidence achieved little in the way of change; in the end it simply wore him down.

Because the Left has comprehensively captured our institutions, we cannot simply expect a change of government to bring about improvement. Nor can we adhere to a nation that may call itself by an old name while completely changing its substance. The label may say Chateau Latour, but opening the bottle reveals the whiff of Sarson’s. In place of a political adherence to the nation as it stands, we must substitute adherence to the core values that support the nation as traditional conservatives understand it. If we do not, then we fall into the very trap that the Left has set for us, and find ourselves supporting the remnants of style rather than substance.

In the culture war we need, first of all, to acknowledge that we have not so much lost as failed to put up much of a fight to begin with. Now, we would need a revolution in the prevailing culture of this country before we could see genuine results. We need, in short, to rebuild our nation from the ground up, not the top down. Most public sector employees are so ideologically committed to a Leftist agenda that they will bring this country to a halt with a general strike before they will accept the defeat of their ideology. Unfortunately, we cannot simply dispense with them; if we do we will be in a position where we cannot govern. The European Union will not go away without exacting as heavy a price as it can for our withdrawal. And although there are worthy traditionalist conservatives in a number of political parties, politics is about power, and there is no prospect that a traditionalist conservative government will be formed in the foreseeable future. In fact, electoral politics is the icing on the cake in terms of what needs to be done in this country. Unless there is a fundamental appeal to hearts and minds that leads to the widespread embrace of traditional conservatism among the populace, it will not have the broad platform that it needs to build a power base. And the reality is that change from within is a near impossibility. The Left has secured such a stranglehold not only on our institutions but their supporting, multi-layered framework that a fundamental reversion in their character would require complete control of both institutions and framework to succeed. So we are back at the grass roots, and it is there that the counter-establishment must start.

There is a parallel in the position that the Catholic Church has found herself in since the modernist disasters of the First and Second Vatican Councils. In both cases, these events have prompted resistance groups which have, in the case of those reacting to the First Vatican Council with whom I myself have association, lasted for well over a century now. Bishop Richard Williamson, who represents the resistance to the Second Vatican Council, has said “It seems that, today, God wants a loose network of independent pockets of Catholic Resistance, gathered around the Mass, freely contacting one another, but with no structure of false obedience.” Let us widen his reference to those whose adherence is to Tradition, of whatever religious background, and then we have a model for a counter-establishment; one that does not enter into the inevitable fissuring of large institutions but that instead centres each nexus upon a central and perhaps specialized principle, working co-operatively with others when necessary, but concentrating upon a local and grass roots cultural restoration that can establish the proper foundations upon which a return to order can be built.

We should be aware that it is hard to build traditionalist conservative institutions that will last. The law and its myriad regulations enforce Leftist principle and restrict what can be done. Moreover, the democracy and openness that is forced on our institutions by law is a gift to those who would destroy those institutions. The Left for years has practised entryism. Neoconservatives have done the same more recently. Unless there is not only a large caucus of traditional conservatives but a continual supply of new people with a similar commitment to these ideas, and a means of excluding those who do not share them, the institution will be diluted and in time will be absorbed into the mainstream. We must learn from the Left. For several hundred years, institutions such as the unions, the co-operative movement and the working mens’ clubs sustained and supported the Left. Thousands of men and women, their names now forgotten, pounded the pavements in the cause of socialism, propagating their creed in the workplace, at leisure, in homes and schools. From these actions, each on its own barely significant, grew the present inculcation of the Left into the fabric of our society.

We on the Right had no such support network. We too often disdained proselytization among the masses, and were too often divided among ourselves. It is only through the life and values of a community that we can allow the individual to experience what would otherwise be an intellectual abstraction. We need to use what opportunities remain to us within the law to organize and to work together with common aims to preserve and restore traditional conservative values, through institutions such as the Traditional Britain Group and through building others that will nurture and promote the culture of the Right both locally and nationally for generations to come. Above all, we need those who have wealth to establish permanent foundations that will embody and perpetuate the ideals they believe in, and we need to ensure that Traditionalists have large families and strong support networks.

Strategically, we need to assert our rights as vociferously as do many minority groups in this country. We must do so without shame, without apology and without fearing the inevitable condemnation both of the Left and of neoconservatives. The mainstream media are largely creatures of the Left or of the Quisling Right. The internet has proved a godsend largely because its reach is out of all proportion to its costs. I am greatly encouraged by the spread of Traditionalist ideas on the internet and by the number of young people who, perhaps in response to being force-fed a constant diet of socialism and egalitarianism, are discovering those ideas and actively debating them. At the end of the day, the rebuilding of our nation starts with its most fundamental units: its individuals and families. It begins with the reinforcement of inner principle that leads to knowledge and the development of consciousness – as Julius Evola terms it, inner awakening. Only when we are able to work these ideas out in ourselves to the point where we ourselves are living a free life can we then begin the essential process of passing those values on to others. Our mission is one of resistance, and our planning must be for the long term – towards an ultimate aim that is beyond the lives of many of us, and that will live on in others. There will eventually come a point where the present society will show its weakness openly and where public dissent will spill over. What will be needed then will be those who can channel that dissent and provide solutions to it that have at their root the most fundamental values of our civilization. That will be our moment, and we must be ready for it.

*In subsequent discussion, it seems that I may have erred in classifying the music of The Smiths as being of the Left. I shall endeavour to educate myself further on the matter.



  • I agree that, on balance, the restoration of 1660 was a good thing for liberty,. I also agree that the “neo con” (really Woodrow Wilson) style) wars for democracy are a terrible idea.

    As for the culture – I think the basic problem is the state having power over such matters at all. As Gladstone was fond of pointing out (but sometimes forgot in his own policies) it is folly to look to the state for moral or cultural advance (or even for moral and cultural preservation).

    Once the state has power over such things as education – that power will, eventually, be used for harm. The state is the natural environment for such people as the Frankfurt School, or for the Fabians before them.

  • Dear John Kersey,

    Thank you for an excellent essay – and I say that despite being in no way a conservative! I hope you don’t mind me taking the essay for the Libertarian International website.

    For me, you really have hit the nail on the head in at least three places:

    (1) The need to reject “political adherence to the nation as it stands.” Absolutely!

    (2) That the substitute for political adherence must be “adherence to core values.” There is, of course, the question of precisely what those core values should be. But that’s an argument for another day.

    (3) That re-building must start from the fundamental units: individuals.

    If I have a criticism, it’s that you are seeking only to re-build an English (or British?) nation. But there are very similar problems in other countries with roots in Western traditions. I would rather see a wider goal, of re-building Western civilization as a whole.

    And the point where public dissent will spill over may well be closer than you think. When the power black-outs caused by green policies hit, perhaps?

  • And an excellent speech it was John, the morning started with some very high quality content (even if I did diverge from you on who should be outside / inside the tent).

  • A brilliant speech to a most interesting conference. I will publish my own speech later today.

  • The general problem I have is that terms like traditional and conservative are rather arbitrary it seems to me. Traditional often just seems to be whatever your grandparents did, or the childhood world you grew up in (for instance, the 1950s). Many of the particular issues that seem most to unify and annoy conservatives are really radicalism of the past- such as suppression of narcotics or various sexual practises and obscenity, or particular romanticisms of the same era such as deification of the green and pleasant countryside which is associated most strongly, originally, with the Letchworth leftists once derided by many including Orwell and Betjeman.

    To take a somewhat trivial example; the “traditional” bride wearing white was a late Victorian innovation. Prior to that, you just wore your best clothes. But people nowadays consider that traditional. What of a traditional christmas turkey? Turkey is an American bird. We used to eat goose. I have an idle but as yet unsatisfied interest in pinning down when this particular change in “tradition” occured.

    If we move to an era popular with, in my experience, traditionalist conservatives, the aforementioned 1950s, it is hard to argue that in fact anything was very traditional about it. It was an era of enormous and then new statism with nationalisation and central government economic planning, and a particularly regimented and rigid society formed out of the war years, when everybody had some state assigned role and this translated into family life and social life.

    My own favourite historical period- they are all flawed, so perhaps “best of a bad lot”- would be the 18th century. This was the grand era of liberal theory, the rejection of autocracy (it produced the US constitution, modelled on our own). Small government, and also- crucially to me- a liberal, bawdy society of rude speech, wenches and courtesans and brothels in Downing Street, all things which those who plant their “tradition” later- somewhere depending on the individual between 1860 and 1960, generally- find abhorrent.

    And the problem really is that social relations are permanently in flux in a society that features technological progress. Pre-modern societies with little or none often did stay very much the same for centuries or even millennia. But new technologies in a modern society constantly alter social relations. Orson Wells’s “The Magnicent Ambersons” is an ultra-conservative polemic against the ruptive change caused by the motor car. Every generation sees such radical changes and many try to prevent them. See, for instance, the bemoaning of the dying of the printed book and library as digital readers replace them currently. Most of the current sex panic about teenagers is a refusal to accomodate the changes wrought, unstoppably, by digital communications and the changing of cameras from expensive and awkward devices used with forethought-

    “I’ve got three left on this film, I’ll do one of the castle, one of the kids and one of grandma”

    -to photography being ubiquitous and virtually free per photo, which inevitably is going to lead to some of those photos being of a sexual nature and, perhaps regrettable in that way and others (the high chance that if you get hammered and do something embarrasing at a party, it’ll be on Facebook the next day).

    Which brings me to the point that, in fact, most of the “Left”, stripped of its “progressive” lexicon, is in fact rabidly reactionary. Whether trying to ban things it considered pornography (a development itself of technologies in the post war period) or drag us backwards into a long-gone agrarian idyll and dismantle industrialism, or indeed in another manifestation maintain the social and economic relations of the grand industrial period (C19 to post-war) with its view of labour relations etc.

    So, let’s take another tack. If in my pseudo-marxist way of speaking above, we can talk of social relations being the product of technology-

    (Marx actually, wrongly, said that social relations were the product of the mode of production. In fact the mode of production is itself a social relation- economics is a part of social relations itself- and a consequence of technology, which is why social and economic relations changed with the agricultural and industrial revolutions and have changed again with the digital one. Marx nearly got this, waxing lyrical at the Great Exhibition that the electric motor would herald the end of the steam powered factory and thus create the conditions necessary for communism, but even so because he was a twat didn’t quite make the technology being the cause connection)

    -we must also recognise that it is not so determinist. A particular suite of technologies (interacting with environmental factors) will have some suite of possible appropriate social relations. As a society adapts and develops those social relations, some will be more fit than others. And here we get back to the 18th century. Liberalism was a well fitted suite of social relations to the new industrial technologies. Unfortunately, the ramifications of liberalism- the destruction of privilege- inspired an enormous reactionary movement who led us ultimately down another path, to hegemonic control systems and massive Statism. The paradigm chosen was “the nation as factory”- an idea still central to many conservative views as well as the old left, still echoed with “Great Britain PLC” sloganising- rather than the liberal paradigm of the nation as a group of freely interacting individuals. This is commonplace. Just as the pastoral Jews had a paradigm of a shepherd nation with a shepherd God, so the factory owning and labouring Victorians saw a factory nation with a- *cough*- factory God, represented by the institutions that conspire to form the State. Eventually, indeed, God himself became unnecessary. Who needs God when you have managers with degrees in Public Administration? But that’s even further off topic.

    So I think that traditionalism and liberalism (Libertarianism) are inevitably going to find more to disagree about than agree. If one considers “tradition” to be planted in 18th century liberal theory, we can agree. But if “tradition” is the managerialist social relations response that built the State and stifled liberalism, we have little at all in common. All that a libertarian can really take from the past is some general principles which existed only in part in practise and which must be adapted to modern technological society. It is simply no use saying that nobody sexted or Facebooked in 1950, or 1860, or even 1990, because nobody in a practical sense could. All the libertarian can do is apply the liberal principles as best he can to a society in which they now exist and recognise that the best means for new social relations to develop which accomodate these technologies is to let private individuals work them out for themselves. Any attempt to control them from the centre- whether nominally “left” wing or nominally “right” wing- can only generate further tyranny in attempting to stem the Canutian tide of change.

    Ultimately, I believe the lesson of the past 150 years is that two groups of reactionaries, pretending to be very different but really rather similar (the Left and the Right) have between them licked the platter of liberty clean in a futile endeavour to impose unsuitable social relations on a changing world. Liberty is, at its heart, a philosophy- perhaps the only philosophy- which enthusiatically embraces change. All we should ask is that the change must come from the bottom up- from ordinary people making their own choices- not from the top down, which is inevitably ruinous.

  • Yes Ian – national traditions do change over time. Also people do different things – for example Association Football is a part of British culture, but you would have to pay me a lot of money to get me to attend a match.

    However, there are such things as national traditions (culture) – and local and regional cultural traditions also.

    I actually like it when people really seem to value their culture (as long as the culture is nice – not nasty).

    For example, I like the way that Austrians and Bavarians seem to really value their cultures.

    “Paul you have just agreed with Sean Gabb”.

    Oh no – I will now explode….

  • Paul, I agree. But I believe that culture must be in the hands of the people, and as such some traditions (however ancient or recent in origin) will be retained and others discarded.

    Thus, if the people of some village wish to carry on rolling cheeses down a hill, at risk of broken limbs and other dairy-related accidents, they must be free to do so. But if they want to abandon it, so also must they be free to do so. What we mustn’t have is the State banning the cheese rolling for their own good or, alternatively, imposing a cheese rolling festival on a disinterested populace using taxpayers money.

    This to me is at the very heart of what a libertarian society is.

  • I’m also a little disappointed that Paul hasn’t had a go at me for being so unjustifiably Marxist 😀

  • Ian, would you mind if we mined uout all your heavier comments about the PuritaNazis, and strung them together, in a sort of word file, and sent them to you? Would this help you to do some sort of pisstake of the PuritaNazis? I don’t give a fuck if stuff isn’t Harvard-referenced: we are up against Armageddon and we haven’t time for polite niceties.

    We have to do what I scream at “slow, safe, drivers” in front of me, at things like junctions and roundabouts: “TAKE THE FUCKING SHOT! DRIVE YOUR CAR – NOW! I MEAN NOW!”

    We have to kill all the enemy _//Gramsco Fabian Nazis//_ , until they are all dead.

    • I wish you would stop going on about Gramsco Fabian Nazis.

      • Gramsco Fabian Nazis is what they are, Richard.

        They are deliberate killers, and murderers, and they will have to go, and they will go. I don’t give a fuck where they go: but go they will.

        I will continue to continue to continue to go on, going on and on and on, calling the fucking bastards what they actually are.

        Eventually it will catch on. Ordinary-Hard-Working-Children-And-Community-Oriented-and-Vibrantly-Focussed-Families-Going-Diversityly-Forward will begin to take up the sword.

        Also it gets over 9,000 hits on Google already. About 9,100 as of a second ago.

      • Actually, Richard, I ought perhaps also to ask…what exactly is your objection to the term “GramscoFabiaNazis”? You and I both know in our hearts that that is what the bastards are.

        So what’s your objection then?

        • My objection is that I find it irritating and distracting, in the same way that someone who keeps saying “erm” in a speech – you end up not hearing the speech, because you’re waiting for the next “erm”.

      • It’s as good a term as any other, and more accurate than euphemisms like “liberal” or “progressive”. What’s wrong with it?

        • They are Nazis, who are using Fabian tactics, to execute a Gramscian-defined strategy.

          • I would have thought the defining characteristic of Nazis would be the use of Nazi tactics to execute a Hitler-defined strategy. Even if there are a few Nazis knocking around, they must be surrounded by swarms of useful idiots, who do not believe in Nazism, and who may still be reached by rational discourse.

            • Well Richard, let’s watch the bastards for a few more years – if we are given the time – and see what they continue to say, and what arguments they develop, shall we, then?

              Let’s then compare that stuff with the Gramscians, the Fabians and the Nazis, all of whom were, are and will be the same people, and see what’s “left”.

  • seven syllables?

  • Richard – I think David is using the word “Nazi” (as is common practice now) to mean “evil”.

    Are the statists evil or are they just “useful idiots” (or “s*** eaters” as Mr Putin’s KGB used to call those people who believed their propaganda – that Western government were the “tools of Big Business” and so on).

    I have a growing suspicion that David Davis is correct that they actually are evil.

    Take the case of Ralph Miliband.

    It does not take much research to find out that Ralph Miliband was an evil man – even his own Research Assistant (who then went on to work for the Labour party) freely admits that he (Ralph Miliband) supported the Berlin Wall and the Eastern regimes.

    Yet, and in a front page story, the Guardian newspaper defended Ralph Miliband’s Marxism as “justice”. Marxism, to them, is “justice”.

    Why did the readership not cancel their subscriptions to the Guardian?

    Just useful idiots?

    No, I do not believe so.

    • It’s not my website and DD can write what he wants, but I think the phrase is silly, and it reminds me of Reggie Perrin’s brother-in-law:

    • No Paul, I’m not. I’m using the word Nazi to mean “socialist”. The word socialist is in the original acronym of Nazi. The bastards admitted it themselves.

      “National Socialist German Workers’ Party”.



      Whether socialism is wicked or evil or not, I have to leave others now to judge: I’m spent enough of my adult life telling people that it is, and nobody wants to listen.

  • I see David – well that works, they are socialists and so were the National Socialist lot.

    But we are not talking about Robert Owen style socialists now are we.

    We are not dealing with nice people who set up the 19th century version of a hippy communes and then stand amazed as the communes fail (again and again and again……)

    We are talking about EVIL socialists – not nice ones like Robert Owen.

    By the way – I wonder what Kevin and co would make of Robert Owen.

    Member of a “privileged class”? Provided with forced workers by the state? Had all his losses paid for by the government?

    Actually I do not think they would try that nonsense with Robert Owen – but It is astonishing what some Americans will believe.

    If only I could figure out a way of making money out of it……………..

    Is it really too late for me to reinvent myself as a leading figure of the Libertarian Left?

    They could entrust me with all their money (“it is for the Revolution Comrades!”) and then I could slip off somewhere nice…….

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s