MarkHumphrys.com

Irish. Atheist. Liberal-right. Anti-jihad. Pro-West. Pro-Israel.

Home      Blog      Contents      Contact


This site is banned in Iran
Search:

July 2014 entries      June 2014 entries

170,000 page views per month


Politics - The modern right - What am I?


 

I am a mix of "left" and "right"

I am a libertarian, not a conservative

I am a "neo"-conservative, not a "paleo"-conservative

I oppose neo-Nazis

I oppose the BNP

I oppose the EDL

Who would I vote for?


"Left" and "Right" - What am I?

I would describe myself as a moderate libertarian or a neo-conservative or a classic liberal.

Let me explain these terms.



Left-wing or Right-wing?

So what am I? Much of the political dialogue in my lifetime has been based on the illusion that political parties can be classified along some 1-dimensional line from left-wing to right-wing. But if so, why are the extremes - communism and fascism - so similar? The answer is that the whole 1-dimensional left-right division is (and always has been) rather inaccurate and misleading.

The libertarian David Nolan defines a much clearer, 2-dimensional, terminology, where one axis measures free-to-unfree on personal liberty, and the other axis measures free-to-unfree on economic liberty. See discussion. This model is made for someone like me - a common voter type who is disillusioned with the "1-dimensional" parties. I like left-wing parties' commitment to personal liberty (sexual liberty, freedom from religion, anti-censorship, etc.) but am turned off by their lack of support for capitalism. I like right-wing parties' support for a strong capitalist economy, but am turned off by their social conservative and religious conservative wings. I want to vote for parties that support a free market and a free private life - I can never understand how you can be in favour of one of these and against the other, as most left-wing and right-wing parties are.



This is all about domestic policy - what kind of society one wants to live in. One could expand to 3-dimensions by considering foreign policy - whether one should spread the model to countries that do not have it (my answer: yes), or be isolationist unless attacked (most doctrinaire libertarians, e.g. the Libertarian Party in the US).



So in conclusion, what am I? I am obviously not left-wing. I think the left is wrong about almost everything. I would like to call myself a "liberal", but the meaning of that term has changed since the 18th-19th century, and now tends to mean someone hostile to capitalism and supportive, like the left, of a powerful state. The modern liberal also tends to be hostile to America and Western supremacy and often supportive or defensive of third world tyrannies. So I am not a liberal, in the modern sense. I agree with conservatives on many things (notably capitalism, crime, foreign policy) but ultimately I am not a conservative since I believe in a free private life. I guess I would describe myself as a moderate libertarian or a classic 18th-19th century liberal.




The Political Compass rates Irish parties.
I am in the bottom RHS corner.
I liked the PDs, but they are now gone.
The rating leaves out foreign policy, which is where Labour (and all the left) fail for me, and so I would go for FG or FF.



The Political Compass rates UK parties.
I am in the bottom RHS corner.
The rating leaves out foreign policy, which is where the Lib Dems fail for me, and so I would go Tory or Labour.




I am a libertarian, not a conservative

I am not a conservative myself. My understanding of classic conservatism is that it does not believe in a free private life. Whether it is the banning of contraception in Ireland, the banning of "pornography", the War on Drugs, the oppression of homosexuals, or the forcing of religion on non-believers in schools (like creationism).

I am not a conservative. I am a libertarian or a classic liberal. However, on issues such as the economy, crime and foreign policy, I think the conservative analysis is pretty much right.


The right are the idealists now




The link above is my site's only reference to Matthew Yglesias so I thought I better put this here:
Matthew Yglesias tweets on 1 Mar 2012 about the tragic death age 43 of Andrew Breitbart, who left behind four children age 4 to 12.
In fairness I should note that Breitbart did the same when Ted Kennedy died age 77 in 2009 (also here).




I am a "neo"-conservative, not a "paleo"-conservative

If I could be considered in the conservative camp, it would be as a "neo"-conservative:


These set themselves in opposition to "paleo"-conservatives such as:

  1. Realpolitik conservatives, who value stability over freedom.
    • The National Interest
    • America has a long history of supporting "friendly" dictators and doing deals with the devil. This type of conservatism is exemplified by:

    • I have no time for these people. I am a Reagan man - True stability and true security comes from the spread of human freedom.
    • The worst thing about realpolitik is that it does not work. It seems to lead to American defeat, not victory. It is no coincidence that the old-style realpolitik Republicans presided over American defeat in Vietnam. (It is often forgotten that Vietnam was lost by the Republicans (Nixon and Ford), not by the Democrats.)
      1. Nixon and Ford's supposedly "clever" realpolitik seems to have achieved little. Their years in office saw a humiliating American defeat in Vietnam, communist victory and democide across Vietnam and Cambodia, "detente", the strengthening of the Soviet Union, the disgusting appeasement of Mao's China, and the encouragement of anti-Americans everywhere.
      2. Likewise, Bush senior's realpolitik left Saddam in power as a festering problem for the future, wasting 15 years on reform in Iraq, because Bush senior did not do what had to be done after the Gulf War.
      3. Whereas Reagan's starry-eyed idealism led to the collapse of the Soviet Union and American victory in the Cold War. If you want American victory, I would bet on idealism (like Reagan and George W. Bush) over realpolitik any day.

    • In Britain, the Tory party also has a pessimistic, quietist, realpolitik tradition that, for example, did nothing while neo-nazi genocide raged in Europe (in Bosnia) in 1992-5. This Tory isolationist tradition is exemplified by:


  2. Anti-war, isolationist conservatives


  3. Anti-immigration conservatives
    • Some of the isolationists are also anti-immigration, and sceptical of the ability of non-whites to adopt western values. (Whereas the neo-conservatives regard western values as universal values.)
    • The extreme end of the anti-immigration movement then gets into ethnic nationalism, racism and neo-fascism.

  4. Right-wing racists, and right-wing anti-semites.
    • These hardly exist any more. That is, there's still plenty of racism, but mainly in the third world and the non-western world (e.g. the black-hating racist state of Sudan). And there's still plenty of anti-semitism, but mainly on the left now.
    • Stormfront Ireland - Right-wing racists in Ireland.
    • Democratic Right (Ireland) - white racist, anti-semitic, anti-gay.
    • Again, the neo-conservatives are the most anti-racist camp of all, far more anti-racist than the left. The neo-cons think western values are universal values and everyone can adopt them. While the left thinks Arabs are unable for democracy and will always be ruled by tribal dictators.
    • Also, of course, the neo-cons, like me, are pro-Israel. The right-wing racists and anti-semites hate Jews and Israel. In fact, they hate neo-cons.

  5. Religious conservatives
    • For example, American fundamentalists like Jerry Falwell, and the American creationists and anti-Darwinists.
    • Or the Catholic conservatives who dominated Ireland until recently.
    • The Christian creationist fanatic Ann Coulter.
    • Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush may be religious conservatives personally, but they didn't actually force a religious conservative agenda on the citizens, as the Irish religious conservatives like de Valera did.


In short, I'm not like any of these groups. I'm like the neo-conservatives.

It is true that the neo-cons do contain members of one of the above groups - namely neo-con religious conservatives like Reagan and George W. Bush, and even neo-con creationists. Obviously I am a neo-con on matters of politics only. When it comes to questions of science and religion, I have no particular interest in what the neo-cons have to say. Instead, I read other writers.



Irish Nazis hate me

Nazis hate neo-cons for their anti-racism, and their support for the Jewish democracy of Israel.




"Islamanazi" hates me

I had another rather uninteresting encounter with extremists in Oct 2006.

The issue:

  1. I came across the site "Islamanazi", by "Rastaman", which Cox and Forkum, a site I much admire, linked to.
  2. It seemed a bit intemperate, but alright, based on a very quick look. I now know that if I had dug further, I would have found a ton of stuff to disagree with.
  3. Anyway, what caught my eye was a prominent icon saying that "Islamanazi" supported the neo-Nazi BNP.
  4. I couldn't believe that a supposedly "pro-Israel" site would support an anti-semitic, Holocaust-denying, Israel-hating party. Naively, I thought this might be an error by some foreigner (he is American) impressed by some BNP statement against Islamist terror, not realising that the BNP simply hates Muslims (and Jews, blacks, gays, etc.). So I emailed "Islamanazi". And sadly, it's no mistake. He really does support European fascists. I should have known.
  5. So I had to tell Cox and Forkum. There's no way they would support the BNP, and they would be horrified to link to a site that did. They agreed with me immediately, and removed the link.

The reaction:

  1. This really drove "Islamanazi" mad. He described me as "you vile little fascist" and said: "You disgust me. I consider you to be less than pond scum."
  2. Islamanazi post. He said this was someone "attacking me .. to stop Freedom of Speech".
  3. So Cox and Forkum removing their link to him is an infringement of his freedom of speech? And me telling them is an infringement of his freedom of speech? You might as well say that me criticising him at all is an infringement of his freedom of speech. In fact, he does: "This is a fascistic attempt to force me to give up my Freedom of Speech" Um, no. I criticised you.
  4. One of his readers complains that it is "persecution of bloggers" for sites to remove links to them. These people are mad.

  5. Anyway, forget my opinions. "Islamanazi" himself links to Cox and Forkum, so he clearly admires them. Surely their disapproval, and refusal to link to him, should make him think twice. In fact, soon afterwards, he uses a Cox and Forkum cartoon and yet seems unbothered by the fact that they just removed their link to him. Remember, they never had to listen to me. They could have ignored me. Instead they agreed with me, and thanked me for tipping them off. Doesn't this cause "Islamanazi" any doubts at all?

  6. He and his commenters immediately label me as "This dhimmi-type", "pro-Islamic", an Irish IRA supporter, etc. Amusingly, neither him nor his idiot commenters have discovered this blog, (*) with my support for Israel, support for Britain and America, and hostility to SF-IRA.
  7. But why justify myself to them? Their discussion is so childish. It was pointless emailing this guy. But I'm glad I told Cox and Forkum about him.
  8. (*) They've discovered it now. Don't expect any self-doubt to creep in, though. They're not that sort of people. Here's my favourite comment: "That Irish fellow is definitely pro IRA! And is a commie!" I'm referred to as "the lefty". This is comic gold.

The aftermath:

  1. While his readers deny the BNP is anti-semitic, "Islamanazi" admits it. In a first sign that his self-belief is cracking, he changes his BNP icon to:

    Yes, it's anti-semitic, so
    [BNP icon]
    Would you prefer Islam?

  2. He's changed it again, to the rather feeble:

    Still some racism, but
    [BNP icon]
    Would you prefer Islam?

  3. He now claims that the BNP have reformed, quoting Robert Locke, September 30, 2005, who is no fascist but was impressed by change in the BNP.
  4. Frankly, I think both of them are naive. Just because Hamas is in power doesn't mean the old Hamas is not still there underneath.

  5. Has the BNP "reformed"?

  6. In summary, the BNP oppose Islamism, yes, but they also oppose many of the aspects of a modern, tolerant society.
  7. "Islamanazi", like the BNP, cannot simply oppose Islamism. He has to go much, much further. He makes no attempt to distinguish between Islamism and Islam. He thinks the US should end freedom of religion. He says: "Islam is pure, evil fascism. ... Islam should be and it must be outlawed in the United States and in all free Western nations." As I say, people like him and the BNP will destroy the West, not save it. I misunderstood his site at first. Had I read this kind of thing, I would never have bothered emailing him. I would only have emailed Cox and Forkum.

An amusing followup:

  1. "Anti-Dhimmi" takes Islamanazi's side against me. "Kudos to Rastaman of Islamanazi.com for not caving in." But wait! What's that quote at the top of her blog:
    "The West is the greatest, richest, freest, best part of planet Earth, the heart of science and all knowledge, the best hope for mankind. Anyone who seeks its destruction should be destroyed themselves."
    Isn't that quote familiar? Why, here it is on my website in Oct 2001! And here it is on my site today! In fact, I wrote that quote! "Anti-Dhimmi" put up her site in February 2006. She actually nicks a quote from me, puts it as the unattributed banner on her blog, and then attacks me! How embarrassing! "Kudos to Rastaman for not caving in, but I quote Humphrys above!" Hilarious stuff.


Has the BNP "reformed"?

  1. The BNP leader is still Nick Griffin, who said: "I am well aware that the orthodox opinion is that 6 million Jews were gassed and cremated and turned into lampshades. Orthodox opinion also once held that the world is flat. ... I have reached the conclusion that the 'extermination' tale is a mixture of Allied wartime propaganda, extremely profitable lie, and latter witch-hysteria."
  2. Membership of the BNP is still only for whites: "Membership .. is open to those of British or kindred European ethnic descent."
  3. Instead of opposing ethnic minority individuals who threaten us, such as Islamists, they want to remove all ethnic minorities: "A massively-funded and permanent programme .. will aim to reduce, by voluntary resettlement to their lands of ethnic origin, the proportion of ethnic minorities living in Britain" This will happen supposedly by "voluntary" means (it used to be by compulsory means, and would be again, if they ever got into power).
  4. If non-whites are allowed stay in Britain, it is not clear that they will have the same rights as whites. They say they want to give "priority on housing and school places lists" to whites, and "We would abolish all laws against racial discrimination in employment".
  5. They still want to make it illegal to "promote" homosexuality. Until 2004, they wanted homosexuality itself to be illegal.
  6. Read their other policies. Are you still happy with them?
  7. BNP racism, anti-semitism, fascism and violence.
  8. The BNP on the Holocaust
  9. 10 examples of how the BNP are apologists for Hitler and Nazi Germany
  10. The BNP on Zionism. After a long history of hating Israel, they are re-positioning as anti-Islamic, and pretending to be friends of Israel.
  11. The BNP's legal officer Lee Barnes doesn't seem to have got the memo about Israel: "After 9/11, the Neo-Conservatives and their Zionist allies saw an opportunity and developed a deceptive strategy of "Entryism" concealing their traditional anti-white Zionist supremacist bigotry with a facade of anti-jihadism. ... The retarded Republican Right of the US public fell for it hook line and sinker - whilst waving the US flag they led their country into slavery to Zionism, Israel and AIPAC."
  12. "Stop the BNP" on Nick Griffin
  13. The BNP belittle non-white defenders of Britain such as Johnson Beharry. They call his heroic actions in Iraq "routine". They are unimpressed by a man who risked his life (and was badly injured) to fight Islamist jihadis and save British troops. Why? Because he is not white.
  14. The ADL on the BNP
  15. Melanie Phillips on the BNP
    • The clash of uncivilisations, Melanie Phillips, 24 October 2009: "the BNP remains a racist party with strong neo-Nazi overtones. ... it is cynically using the Islamisation of Britain as cover for its animus against all Muslims and non-white people. There are many British Muslims .. who are a threat to no one, who want to enjoy the benefits of a secular society and human rights and are themselves potential victims of Islamism and sharia law. But the BNP seeks to elide this distinction. It hates not just Islamism but all Muslims".
    • Though she does note (as I do) that people support the BNP because the mainstream parties have hopelessly failed to oppose and fight Islamism. To stop the BNP, "all decent people must join in the fight against Islamic supremacism. Support for the BNP would plummet if the political mainstream were to limit immigration, denounce cultural Islamic imperialism and refuse to give one inch to sharia law".


Right-wingers who support the BNP may also like to consider that their economic policies are socialist.
They also may appear to fight Islamism but they oppose the allied war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan and describe the UK-US troops as war criminals.
The BNP is a left-wing, economic socialist, anti-War on Terror, anti-Israel party.
From The Political Compass.




English Defence League




Islamofascists march for sharia in London, June 2010.
All these people should be deported.
That does not mean, however, that: (a) it would be reasonable for unelected street mobs to attack them, or: (b) it would be reasonable to impose restrictions on Islamic worship itself.



The EDL - uneducated street rioters.
I can't see Edmund Burke at the above protests, can you?



I am no fan of the loony left Unite Against Fascism (UAF) though.
One of their leaders is Islamic extremist Azad Ali. See here.
They are not very concerned by Islamic extremism: "On telephoning UAF's office to clarify the group's position on Islamic fascism, One Law for All was told by a UAF representative that there was "no such thing"."
Graphic from here.




Robert Spencer's support for the EDL




I can't see Edmund Burke getting involved in football violence either, can you?
This is the leader of the EDL, "Tommy Robinson" (Stephen Lennon), being convicted for the most shameful football hooliganism in a fight between Luton Town and Newport County in Aug 2010.
Seriously? Football hooliganism??
And defenders of the Western Enlightenment are meant to support this guy?




Who am I like?

So I don't like idiot street rioters. I don't like racists (and they don't like me). I'm not Jewish. I'm not a religious conservative, or even a Christian. And I can't stand Nixon and Kissinger.

In summary, if you're still confused, I'm like these people: Writers on politics that I like.

If you haven't heard of a lot of them - then, frankly, you should read a bit wider.

If I had to pick a single person I think like, I would pick: Victor Davis Hanson.




"The war in Iraq grew out of Bush's neocon strategy, whether or not it was a necessary part of that strategy. Since the war turned into a fiasco, neocons rightly receive much blame, just as they or their ideological predecessors did over the war in Vietnam. But Vietnam was a flawed and painful episode in what proved ultimately to be a sound, even brilliant, strategy. The strategy that led us into Iraq may also in the end be vindicated. Meanwhile, neocons take their lumps for Iraq. But realism remains as barren of answers to the threat of global terrorism as it was to the threat of global Communism."
Joshua Muravchik still (rightly) defends neo-conservatism, Sept 2008.



Return to The modern right.


Feedback form

 
Enter a URL for me to look at:
Enter this password:

See explanation. You cannot enter comments or send email. All you can do is enter a web address (a URL) for me to look at. You can put your comments at that address.

Politics      Religion      Politics feeds      Religion feeds      Maps

Bookmark and Share           Since 1995.