Now there’s a mouthful of tongue-twisting contradictions! In fact it sounds like a recipe for unmitigated hypocrisy.
Yet, in the deranged world in which we live, it could be a good summing up of the type of reactionary conservatism that is increasingly spreading from the US throughout the west and is imposing its toxic agenda here in Britain especially.
Primarily, this scourge is a money-focused mentality. Neoliberalism is specifically an economic model. It is an economic model favoured by those on “the Right” to whom “socialism” is a dirty word.
“Social Darwinism” amounts to a view of the world that seeks to justify a dog-eat-dog ruthlessness by individuals, rather than by groups striving for the collective, which would be socialistic.
Social Darwinism is a gross distortion of the concept of “survival of the fittest”, twisting this sound, natural concept into a justification for personal exploitation of others and exploitation of anything else such from the environment to natural resources and anything on this planet that can be capitalised on.
You can bet that the greedy profiteers who push gas “fracking”, deforestation, over-fishing, etc are these miscreant sort. Anything for their own individual enrichment.
The Social Darwinist world-view is how the 1% (unbridled capitalist) sleeps soundly at night without a disruptive conscience. They convince themselves of this rationale of destructive selfishness, believing themselves the very paragons of progressive thinking.
The definition of liberalism has changed with during the last century and with our cultural metamorphism in terms of its non-economic thrust, which has become a laissez-faire morality, yet it remains broadly similar in the economic respect of freedom of markets. With neoliberal economics this has been freed up much further and is going to the extreme.
So we find the same conservatives, with a small c as we are not referring to the supporters of the Tories specifically but to those who purport to be on the “Right” politically, who claim they detest liberals, whilst fully embracing neoliberal economics.
Author Kurt Andersen astutely remarked in his thought-provoking NY Times article “Me the People”, that this ultra capitalism is as much a product of the 1960s as was the loosening of social constraints on sex, drugs, fashion, music, art etc.
Although that kind of liberal philosophy (also “libertarian”) is the source of the so-called “Leftist”, i.e. “social Marxist” developments despised by conservatives, it is the same source from which they themselves adopted their unrestrained radical individualism.
Andersen observes: “What has happened politically, economically, culturally and socially since the sea change of the late ’60s isn’t contradictory or incongruous.
It’s all of a piece. For hippies and bohemians as for businesspeople and investors, extreme individualism has been triumphant. Selfishness won.” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/04/opinion/the-downside-of-liberty.html?_r=0
Andersen points out that ““Do your own thing” is not so different than “every man for himself.” If it feels good, do it, whether that means smoking weed and watching porn and never wearing a necktie, retiring at 50 with a six-figure public pension and refusing modest gun regulation, or moving your factories overseas and letting commercial banks become financial speculators.”
There is no room for national loyalty in this “Right wing” ideology, any more than from the so-called progressive Left – although some schemer could decide there is personal advantage by claiming to be caring or nationalist with a calculated dishonestly. (Setting up an organisation like the English Defence League with its background of supporting neoliberalism, social Darwinism and the religious Right is therefore highly suspicious).
The moral climate of the past, now forgotten by the present generations, was a formidable restraint on this psychopathic, self-centred mentality. Part of this would have been guidance from the Church and partly our western traditions warning against avarice, narcissism, etc.
The Christian Right was galvanised and grew as a political force since the 1960s. One of the best ways to contrast the Christian Right of the present day with the previously socially-conscious norms is the illustration given by this quote by Paul Cranmer, an Information Architect at the Encyclopaedia Britannica, describing his observations in his essay “A World Without Trust”.
“The rise of fundamentalism has tended to replace the bond of love with the expectations and rules of acceptable performance. The focus on the unity, mutual support, and growth of the body of believers as a whole has shifted to the individual’s personal responsibility.
You must carry your own burden, and someone who appears to fail to do so is not seen as someone needing help, but rather as someone who is choosing not to accept his or her responsibility. “
He makes the cogent point that this attitude is the same thing as Social Darwinism, the idea being “if I can exploit you it’s your fault, not mine”.
This attitude has polluted our society on many levels while it kills our nation.
“Survival of the fittest”, is not about the individual. In fact it is a socialist idea.
It concerns the evolution of traits that help a group, a species, to survive and adapt – new species evolving out of a redundant species as they become better specialised for their own specific environmental needs as a group.
Being detrimental to your social group is hardly the best method to be genetically successful or to help to advance future generations.
We need to stand together as a people in order to be strong. Selfish individualism divides and puts the folk at a disadvantage, while going against the guiding principles shown by nature’s laws. Instead, a more cohesive and homogenous competing group is better adapted to survive and they will prove to be the “fittest”.
Margaret Thatcher’s notorious statement, “there is no such thing as society”, was an expression of her social Darwinist credentials.
One of her favourite authors, Ayn Rand, was a Jewish philosopher who was also a good friend of Alan Greenspan ex-head of the US Federal Reserve.
Greenspan: “Rand's Collective became my first social circle outside the university and the economics profession”. http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/bio/turbulence.html
The above are not examples of the Christian Right of course but nonetheless part of an unholy ideological and political alliance with them and with Mormons such as US Presidential candidate Mitt Romney as well as the Zionist neocons who our chairman Nick Griffin identified behind the English Defence League.
Rand presented her savage philosophy of “Objectivism” to the world in her famous novel, “Atlas Shrugged”. Despite her atheism, Rand’s ideas have become at one with the religious Right.
A clever piece of subversive trickery! Not only does her agenda fit with that conservative world-view shared by those who hate atheism, but there is also that poison we find familiar to the Marxist Frankfurt School pervading the whole concoction!
I urge the reader to pause for a moment and absorb the implications of this colossal ideological mess. It is so counter intuitive and yet it gets past our observation in the style of “razzle dazzle camouflage”!
For the likes of Rand, being good and showing altruism to your fellow man is immoral, since she insists the world works best with a morality of pure individual self-interest.
This outlook allows all the lying and corruption that has enabled hostile elite to rule us, claiming to be The Great and the Good, yet in fact they are the complete opposite.
A quote from Ayn Rand: “We can divide a meal among many men. We cannot digest it in a collective stomach. No man can use his lungs to breathe for another man.
No man can use his brain to think for another. All the functions of body and spirit are private. They cannot be shared or transferred.”
From Rand’s column for the LA Times “Textbook of Americanism”.
Darwin’s revelations about evolution and adaptation show us the need for group cohesiveness, cooperation and shared genetic interests as well as identity.
One could not be more misguided than to see the concept of “survival of the fittest” in terms of the individual standing alone, competing with everyone else.
Genetic diversity makes this unfortunate fate inevitable for all civilisations that fall victim to it.
Let us British nationalists make this boldly clear: we are socialists.
We passionately love our folk and work together striving for success and to ensure the best possible future for our kind.
Though we will work for and value a prosperous economy, we put the best interests of our people first.
We know that without our joint effort there will be no economy to benefit this nation and there is no greater wealth than our children and our race.
We are wholly distinct from the degeneration of the neoliberal, dog-eat-dog nightmare prescribed as a condition of being on the “Right”.
We are proud to say we are nothing to do with that rotten lot, and wholly oppose their wicked path to our genetic destruction.
We must have one guiding moral focus, and that is always to prioritise benefit to our folk/nation.