Essay for today
This is an extract from an article published today. Here's the link. It makes for extremely interesting reading.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/why-are-we-embracing-our-own-destruction/
This is an extract from an article published today. Here's the link. It makes for extremely interesting reading.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/why-are-we-embracing-our-own-destruction/
Top | Newest First | Oldest First
ArishMell · 70-79, M
He does make a point about declining civilisation, but his definition of that decline is very unpleasant indeed, based on wanting some sort of authoritarian rule yet claiming to uphold liberty.
It soon became apparent that Andrew Devine is a far-right American writing for what is probably American-based, but is clearly far-Right, extremely homophobic and religiously-intolerant.
It seems to side with President Putin against Ukraine - Ukraine has its faults but they do not excuse Russia trying to destroy it. It utterly despises the BBC - probably for being British and independent not a US Republican mouthpiece - just as much as it hates its own nation's Democrat Party.
What people like Devine fail to do, having highlighted what they see as wrong, is offer any sensible alternative. Nor make any concessions whatsoever to their political opponents, whom they do not define but bundle under vague terms like "globalist".
A "globalist", such people seem to say, is anyone evil enough to want to co-operate, trade, share cultural links, share scientific endeavours, try to be friends; with other nations even if not necessarily of their own outlooks on life.
The whole tone of this strange publication, which appears not to reveal where it is based (America or Moscow?), struck me as wanting a single-party, hard-Right, socially out-dated and even racist, isolationist USA in which "freedom" means the freedom to express only the political, social and religious views of which it approves.
"Interesting" reading maybe, but opinion, that's all, and the publication generally, rather unpleasantly MAGA-uber-alles opinion at that. The trade-trophy winning Devine and his publisher are entitled to their views they present as if "facts", rather ironically; but they offer nothing constructive, no conceding, no analysis, no alternatives, no understanding and acceptance of others.
A sort of polite BNP - though anti-British because Britain has a very liberal (small 'l') [i]society[/i] and laws, and (thankfully) is not part of poor, bitterly divided America.
It soon became apparent that Andrew Devine is a far-right American writing for what is probably American-based, but is clearly far-Right, extremely homophobic and religiously-intolerant.
It seems to side with President Putin against Ukraine - Ukraine has its faults but they do not excuse Russia trying to destroy it. It utterly despises the BBC - probably for being British and independent not a US Republican mouthpiece - just as much as it hates its own nation's Democrat Party.
What people like Devine fail to do, having highlighted what they see as wrong, is offer any sensible alternative. Nor make any concessions whatsoever to their political opponents, whom they do not define but bundle under vague terms like "globalist".
A "globalist", such people seem to say, is anyone evil enough to want to co-operate, trade, share cultural links, share scientific endeavours, try to be friends; with other nations even if not necessarily of their own outlooks on life.
The whole tone of this strange publication, which appears not to reveal where it is based (America or Moscow?), struck me as wanting a single-party, hard-Right, socially out-dated and even racist, isolationist USA in which "freedom" means the freedom to express only the political, social and religious views of which it approves.
"Interesting" reading maybe, but opinion, that's all, and the publication generally, rather unpleasantly MAGA-uber-alles opinion at that. The trade-trophy winning Devine and his publisher are entitled to their views they present as if "facts", rather ironically; but they offer nothing constructive, no conceding, no analysis, no alternatives, no understanding and acceptance of others.
A sort of polite BNP - though anti-British because Britain has a very liberal (small 'l') [i]society[/i] and laws, and (thankfully) is not part of poor, bitterly divided America.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@WalterF Yes - not to trust single-issue blogs from unknown sources even if the author's name is given, but I accept the author's views [i]might[/i] be sincere!
The piece does highlight a few points that should be examined, such as his claim that standing up for heterosexuality and its biology is seen by some as wrong and bad - though his "hate crime" charge overstates his case. It is not a "crime" at all of course, but as he might mean, such support is likely to attract all sorts of anonymous, cowardly viciousness on TikTok and Faceless.
At one point he criticises racism by blacks against whites - yes, such racism is wrong; but what of the [i]vice-versa[/i]? Both are wrong but the latter not mentioned. It is racism unadorned he should criticise, not [insert skin colour] against [insert another skin colour].
It reads all over as an attack perhaps not on Western ways of life as a whole, but on those he does not like among them, especially tolerance and acceptance of race, religion and sexuality differences; and he offers no constructive solutions for the problems he raises.
I will at that point be fair to him. All societies under all political systems have had their own problems since time immemorial, so trying to solve them is perhaps a lost cause although we can try; and in the UK we do at least try with for example laws designed to protect minorities. Mr. Devine won't accept though; because he sees that which is being protected, as somehow wrong.
'
It is also in an anonymous on-line "magazine" published God-knows-where, promoting only illiberal, hard-line views. It calls itself "Conservative Women UK" but even if the publishers really are women, they are not "Conservative" in British political-party terms and I don't think even British anyway.
Rather they seem more like the ones others have raised elsewhere on SW, as extreme "conservative" (small 'c') in American social and political contexts; the sort calling for example, for schools to be stripped of any books not explicitly read and "approved" by these campaigners. Some, but probably not all, tend to be para-Christians, proposing ideas including mysoginy as in Margaret Attwood's novel[i] The Handmaid's Tale[/i].
That's why I thought it either American or Russian.
American because it does largely reflect American social attitudes and divisions, even if we overlook one or two American spellings.
Russian? Possibly! It is polemically anti- "Western" society, anti-BBC and anti-Ukraine; and we know the Kremlin employs very able Internet-propaganda staff and does try to interfere in other nations' - notably the USA's - politics and societies.
The piece does highlight a few points that should be examined, such as his claim that standing up for heterosexuality and its biology is seen by some as wrong and bad - though his "hate crime" charge overstates his case. It is not a "crime" at all of course, but as he might mean, such support is likely to attract all sorts of anonymous, cowardly viciousness on TikTok and Faceless.
At one point he criticises racism by blacks against whites - yes, such racism is wrong; but what of the [i]vice-versa[/i]? Both are wrong but the latter not mentioned. It is racism unadorned he should criticise, not [insert skin colour] against [insert another skin colour].
It reads all over as an attack perhaps not on Western ways of life as a whole, but on those he does not like among them, especially tolerance and acceptance of race, religion and sexuality differences; and he offers no constructive solutions for the problems he raises.
I will at that point be fair to him. All societies under all political systems have had their own problems since time immemorial, so trying to solve them is perhaps a lost cause although we can try; and in the UK we do at least try with for example laws designed to protect minorities. Mr. Devine won't accept though; because he sees that which is being protected, as somehow wrong.
'
It is also in an anonymous on-line "magazine" published God-knows-where, promoting only illiberal, hard-line views. It calls itself "Conservative Women UK" but even if the publishers really are women, they are not "Conservative" in British political-party terms and I don't think even British anyway.
Rather they seem more like the ones others have raised elsewhere on SW, as extreme "conservative" (small 'c') in American social and political contexts; the sort calling for example, for schools to be stripped of any books not explicitly read and "approved" by these campaigners. Some, but probably not all, tend to be para-Christians, proposing ideas including mysoginy as in Margaret Attwood's novel[i] The Handmaid's Tale[/i].
That's why I thought it either American or Russian.
American because it does largely reflect American social attitudes and divisions, even if we overlook one or two American spellings.
Russian? Possibly! It is polemically anti- "Western" society, anti-BBC and anti-Ukraine; and we know the Kremlin employs very able Internet-propaganda staff and does try to interfere in other nations' - notably the USA's - politics and societies.
Graylight · 51-55, F
And that is the difference between progression and conservatism. When information changes, when new methods are found, when solutions are developed, well, that’s when conservatives feel most under attack. They see the world change, shifting, being taken from them. Progression is not only natural, it is behind every advancement humankind has ever made. It is something to be welcomed. Evaluate it yes, but synthesized.
And it’s usually rooted in misinformation and factually disprove about myths. Ona low level, it’s why we can’t go swimming after eating or we think the lemon tree will grow in our belly if we swallow a seed. On a more dangerous level, bad and old information is promulgated while out of fear new information is kept from people for fear of upsetting them.
The world progresses. Knowledge progresses. Mankind, and both mind and body, progresses. To ignore. It is to choose darkness over light.
And it’s usually rooted in misinformation and factually disprove about myths. Ona low level, it’s why we can’t go swimming after eating or we think the lemon tree will grow in our belly if we swallow a seed. On a more dangerous level, bad and old information is promulgated while out of fear new information is kept from people for fear of upsetting them.
The world progresses. Knowledge progresses. Mankind, and both mind and body, progresses. To ignore. It is to choose darkness over light.
SW-User
@WalterF I'm going to take that back now that you've published the source. Still, it is simply a thinly veiled racist, transphobic polemic. The only accurate piece of reporting in there is that Ukraine was, and still is, riddled with corruption.
Also, quite funny to see that the article for conservativewoman was written by a man.
Also, quite funny to see that the article for conservativewoman was written by a man.
View 5 more replies »
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@SW-User Following a more careful study, I seem to have been wrong about its origins. Despite appearances the edition above is British, or a British branch of a US publication, but it certainly looks like inspiration for a Margaret Attwood dystopia. It has a real postal address, too, in London.
I don't think it odd that this publication invites male contributors if they follow its rigidly hard-right line (while attacking others for being left-wing or neutral). For if we examine [i]The Conservative Woman[/i] home page:
[i]Editorial Board[/i]: Alan Ashworth, Margaret Ashworth, David Keighley. Two men and one woman!
[i]Writers[/i]: 26 listed for this edition. One is a "Chris" and I am not sure if Christopher or Christine, but of the remaining 25 "Conservative Women", 16 are men.
It says:
[quote] We welcome new writers to 'The Conservative Woman'.
If you would like to contribute please email info@conservativewoman.co.uk
All ideas will be carefully considered. [/quote]
NB: It does not tell us that "considered" may not mean "accepted"!
Headline areas in this edition; each divided into very many, individual topic essays. From the sub-headlines and a few samples:
[i]Covid[/i]: Virulently, resolutely anti-vaccination, pro the "Covid Creationists". Pro-disease???
[i]Brexit:[/i] Hard to tell on first look, but apparently very anti-EU. Possibly very isolationist.
[i]The BBC:[/i] Hatred. Pure and simple. Maybe because it dares allow Labour, as well as Tory, politicians their say.
[i]"Culture Wars"[/i]: Whatever they are. Basically, whatever it is.... attack anyway.
[i]Stateside:[/i] Essentially Republican, but while these Britons take sides in the USA's business, they still find a way to hurl stones at the BBC.
And Walter wonders why I don't take TCW too seriously? It is basically a very hard-line right-wing magazine whose claim to be campaigning to protect our freedoms is not very convincing at all. Nor does it even pretend to be at all balanced.
'
It reminds me a bit of the so-called "Alternative" or "Counter" -Culture magazines [i]Oz[/i] and [i]IT[/i], circulating in the 1960s school-playground [i]samizdat[/i], though they were strongly[i] left-[/i]wing. These grew out of America's contemporary anti-Vietnam War feeling and "hippy movement"; but were far less "sophisticated" and far more childish than TCW in presentation.
I don't think it odd that this publication invites male contributors if they follow its rigidly hard-right line (while attacking others for being left-wing or neutral). For if we examine [i]The Conservative Woman[/i] home page:
[i]Editorial Board[/i]: Alan Ashworth, Margaret Ashworth, David Keighley. Two men and one woman!
[i]Writers[/i]: 26 listed for this edition. One is a "Chris" and I am not sure if Christopher or Christine, but of the remaining 25 "Conservative Women", 16 are men.
It says:
[quote] We welcome new writers to 'The Conservative Woman'.
If you would like to contribute please email info@conservativewoman.co.uk
All ideas will be carefully considered. [/quote]
NB: It does not tell us that "considered" may not mean "accepted"!
Headline areas in this edition; each divided into very many, individual topic essays. From the sub-headlines and a few samples:
[i]Covid[/i]: Virulently, resolutely anti-vaccination, pro the "Covid Creationists". Pro-disease???
[i]Brexit:[/i] Hard to tell on first look, but apparently very anti-EU. Possibly very isolationist.
[i]The BBC:[/i] Hatred. Pure and simple. Maybe because it dares allow Labour, as well as Tory, politicians their say.
[i]"Culture Wars"[/i]: Whatever they are. Basically, whatever it is.... attack anyway.
[i]Stateside:[/i] Essentially Republican, but while these Britons take sides in the USA's business, they still find a way to hurl stones at the BBC.
And Walter wonders why I don't take TCW too seriously? It is basically a very hard-line right-wing magazine whose claim to be campaigning to protect our freedoms is not very convincing at all. Nor does it even pretend to be at all balanced.
'
It reminds me a bit of the so-called "Alternative" or "Counter" -Culture magazines [i]Oz[/i] and [i]IT[/i], circulating in the 1960s school-playground [i]samizdat[/i], though they were strongly[i] left-[/i]wing. These grew out of America's contemporary anti-Vietnam War feeling and "hippy movement"; but were far less "sophisticated" and far more childish than TCW in presentation.
WalterF · 70-79, M
@FragileHeart Exactly. My satirical use of these ridiculous terms reflects their use in the mainstream media. Or at least in the many that I read, to keep abreast of trends
FragileHeart · 22-25, M
@WalterF but the "trends" go against these reductive ways to view sex/gender. Also you exaggerate the amount of coverage it gets
FragileHeart · 22-25, M
Things change in society and culture hasn't been homogenous ever since the globalisation process started. This "we" that is mentioned in the essay doesn't exist.
Framing societal processes as an "attack" that comes from within is a typical right wing narrative.
Framing societal processes as an "attack" that comes from within is a typical right wing narrative.
SumKindaMunster · 51-55, M
@FragileHeart [quote]Yes but that's something that heats up the discourse, not impose things since trans people existing is simply a fact and the acceptance growing is as well.
When talking about the problems we face in the west naming trans people is a big ignorant in my opinion.[/quote]
I don't agree. First of all, I said "trans activists", not trans people. Second, criticizing their rhetoric and beliefs is not denying their existence, if anything it is confirming it.
Finally, and you will hear me say this a lot. If trans people and their allies want tolerance and acceptance, then they too need to practice tolerance and acceptance. It's a two way street. I see a LOT of criticizing, depersonalizing, and attacking of those that don't agree. Be the change you want to see in the world.
Personally, I don't see it as a big problem that needs the amount of attention it is getting, so we agree on that, but not for the same reasons.
When talking about the problems we face in the west naming trans people is a big ignorant in my opinion.[/quote]
I don't agree. First of all, I said "trans activists", not trans people. Second, criticizing their rhetoric and beliefs is not denying their existence, if anything it is confirming it.
Finally, and you will hear me say this a lot. If trans people and their allies want tolerance and acceptance, then they too need to practice tolerance and acceptance. It's a two way street. I see a LOT of criticizing, depersonalizing, and attacking of those that don't agree. Be the change you want to see in the world.
Personally, I don't see it as a big problem that needs the amount of attention it is getting, so we agree on that, but not for the same reasons.
FragileHeart · 22-25, M
@SumKindaMunster In todays political climate trans identity is made political turning any trans person looking for protection and acceptance an activist.
But tolerating hateful rhetoric or people wanting to shame and ban trans people from public space would in turn destory any tolerance.
It's the same struggle gay people have partially won in certain parts of the world . Should we have accepted some people calling us perverts, groomers or disgusting back then? Had we accepted their language as just their opinion queer people would not have any rights or protection in society.
But tolerating hateful rhetoric or people wanting to shame and ban trans people from public space would in turn destory any tolerance.
It's the same struggle gay people have partially won in certain parts of the world . Should we have accepted some people calling us perverts, groomers or disgusting back then? Had we accepted their language as just their opinion queer people would not have any rights or protection in society.
SumKindaMunster · 51-55, M
@FragileHeart [quote]In todays political climate trans identity is made political turning any trans person looking for protection and acceptance an activist.[/quote]
Regardless of the reasoning, and I am not saying I agree with you here, the fact remains that trans activists are an intolerant and divisive movement and if they want acceptance, they need to accept others. For what it is worth, I don't have a problem with people choosing their gender, however, I must insist that my beliefs are respected as well.
Again, its a two way street.
[quote]But tolerating hateful rhetoric or people wanting to shame and ban trans people from public space would in turn destory any tolerance[/quote]
Well then expect push back, criticism and intolerance then.
I'm pretty neutral on the issue, but I'm not going to support a movement that looks to destroy others for disagreeing with their beliefs.
[quote]Should we have accepted some people calling us perverts, groomers or disgusting back then?[/quote]
You know what was different back then? Homosexuals didn't choose to start calling heterosexuals "breeders", demean their choices, or demand that people change their beliefs to match theirs. They simply wanted to live their lives as they saw fit. And society chose to accept that because we could see that they meant no harm and were just like anyone else except for that one thing.
It's a lesson that the trans activists should study.
Regardless of the reasoning, and I am not saying I agree with you here, the fact remains that trans activists are an intolerant and divisive movement and if they want acceptance, they need to accept others. For what it is worth, I don't have a problem with people choosing their gender, however, I must insist that my beliefs are respected as well.
Again, its a two way street.
[quote]But tolerating hateful rhetoric or people wanting to shame and ban trans people from public space would in turn destory any tolerance[/quote]
Well then expect push back, criticism and intolerance then.
I'm pretty neutral on the issue, but I'm not going to support a movement that looks to destroy others for disagreeing with their beliefs.
[quote]Should we have accepted some people calling us perverts, groomers or disgusting back then?[/quote]
You know what was different back then? Homosexuals didn't choose to start calling heterosexuals "breeders", demean their choices, or demand that people change their beliefs to match theirs. They simply wanted to live their lives as they saw fit. And society chose to accept that because we could see that they meant no harm and were just like anyone else except for that one thing.
It's a lesson that the trans activists should study.
SW-User
There it is, right at the bottom.
It's trans people that scare you, isn't it?
It's trans people that scare you, isn't it?
@WalterF Ignore him mate he lives in his own world. I will respect the pronouns clown/clownself for non-binary people though.
@WalterF I think you'll find there are more genders than that you facist! Lol. At least mental assylums have to admit less patients with the tolerance to these people.
Rome fell with the type of idiots I debate with on here, Ancient Rome's collapse was probably caused by their ancestors