THERE IS NO ‘CONSERVATISM’ IN NATIONALISM

In another try-hard post, obviously written by a year nine kid with too much time on his hands, the far-right blog XYZ try once again to tell us exactly what is wrong with this country and how to fix it.

The first mistake made by their anonymous hack is to align Australian nationalism with conservatism in a call for a “National Conservative” revolution.

Australian nationalism is, and will forever remain in the radical tradition, while its nemesis has always been conservatism, be it of the old-world monarchist strain or the more recent globalist liberal movement.

Further to that, the XYZ jotter bemoans the current political system as corrupted and subverted, which is indeed true; what is also true is that over the last 24 years this state of affairs has been brought about almost entirely by the will of conservative voters as expressed through their elected officials.

Conservatives are the problem, the idea that they would come over to the radical side, that is to say, willingly throw themselves out beyond the pale with the nationalists is absurd due to their long-observed pattern of treachery and subversion against nationalists.

From the nationalist viewpoint conservatives are “the system”, they are the real corruption at the heart of society; we see them as essentially amoral, fork-tongued and greedy parasites.

The second bullet point listed by our would-be scribe is one that every parent just loves to hear: an obviously childless commentator telling us how to raise our kids, specifically what type of schooling is best in this supposedly decrepit society.

The first and most obvious flaw in this argument is the assertion that “Marxists” have infiltrated and corrupted the school system, to address this we have to step back in time to the late 1960s and recite a few facts that only elders would grasp.

Yes, indeed there was a sort of cultural revolution in state education peaking in the late 1970s and it was led by hard-core Marxists, many of them seemingly Maoists along with less radical, rank and file Teachers Union members.

What they did was concoct their own version of an organic working-class patriotism couched in the language of the Australian workers’ movement by which they tried to indoctrinate students.

This is why many men and women of a certain age grew up with a curriculum littered with a communal singing of old colonial songs, bush dancing and poetry readings; we were being led to socialism via the idealism of mateship and the colonial struggles against both the material conditions of the continent and the grasp of old-world privilege.

However, the assumption that these people still hold sway, or have spawned successors is totally wrong, as maybe apart from a few teachers nearing retirement age, that era of teaching has gone and, clearly, it had no effect upon its subjects other than to form nationalist thoughts in the minds of a few of us and a simplistic nostalgia among others.

Having raised kids through the state prep-12 experience this writer can assure the XYZ that there is little to no ideology being pushed in the classroom until VCE and even then it is simply devised to result in an ATAR score good enough to secure entry to a tertiary course in the liberal arts.

For the kids who are following a STEM path or eying study which will result in admission to the world of productive work, as opposed to the arts, there is little to no indoctrination of any kind.

What is more, the type of propaganda I did observe being directed at my kids would have not sounded out of place in a Scott Morrison speech; there is no Marxism embed in the text, it is all fairly benign talking points on tolerance and inclusivity.

This is all a far cry from my recollection of my longhaired social studies teacher perched on the edge of his desk raving about Fraser, Thatcher, apartheid and West Papua.

The XYZ solution here is homeschooling, or educational collectives and community facilities, which ties in with their further points.

What the writer advocates in the closing paragraphs of his article are the formation of alternative, semi-autonomous economic and social systems on a community level, basically something akin to the Israeli Kibbutz movement of the 1940s.

How has that worked out for Israel? From what I know the subsequent alternative lifestyle and religious collectives, not so much the Kibbutzim, are a pain in the neck for the authorities there as over time many of them have become estranged and essentially lawless.

Put White people in that position and you are going to get much the same result, society may change to something approaching the far-right ideal but we would be left with a patchwork of hostile cliques and cults which would require constant surveillance and policing.

Things are bad enough in that respect already with all manner of stupid ideas sprouting up on social media; subcultures are inherently problematic and something nationalists strive to suppress. I cannot imagine a scenario where such an approach would lead to community cohesion somewhere down the track.

The XYZ pundit goes on to propose a boycott of Chinese-made goods but, as with the rest of the article, it is poorly thought-out and would only result in needless hardship for Aussies.

The point is somewhat moot anyway since in the economic fallout from the Wuhan virus belts are being tightened to the extent that discretionary spending will be non-existent, people simply will not be able to afford to buy all that imported crap from China.

Looking back again to the recent past pretty much every consumer item sold in Australia when I was a lad was an import, often superior in quality to locally made products, the only difference was that the stamp on the bottom-most often read “Made in Hong Kong”, or Taiwan, or Singapore.

I have already touted the idea that the post-virus future is going to look a lot more like the 1970s than Mad Max 2, socially it will be a dream as culture paradoxically blossoms in hard soil, but it also may mean the return of high prices, mass unemployment and real social discord.

The real question for XYZ is how their “National Conservatives” propose to take the political high ground in such a harsh environment when they feel stifled by the present, overly soft and liberal system?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.