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/
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
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') society 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') society 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 might 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 vice-versa? 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 The Handmaid's Tale.
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 vice-versa? 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 The Handmaid's Tale.
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.