I founded the Imperial British Conservative party in New Zealand in 1974 having stood three times as an independent candidate in the Australian general elections. I fully realise that the mere mention of such words as "Imperial", "British",or "Conservative" is likely to produce shudders of horror or mocking laughter. However, before rejecting my terminology out of hand, I beg the reader to temporarily suspend his or her educational conditioning and follow this brief explanation of my choice of such an unpopular title for a political party.
For example Australians often portray themselves as good honest folk who came to a new land to get away from an oppressive British government. The story goes that when they arrived they found nasty red-coated troops still oppressing them. When they became independent (without a shot being fired) they began to portray themselves as freedom-loving heroes who had thrown off the yoke of an occupying power.
However both the settlers and the troops, being a mixture of English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish were all British. Apart from the convicts, the only people who really were oppressed were the Aboriginals, and their lot did not improve under the new ruling elite of "dinkum Aussies" who were being taught in the schools to despise their British roots. In fact the treatment of the native peoples worsened.
In this they were only following the example of what had already taken place in the USA when the colonists "threw off the yoke etc." of the nasty British, and behaved even worse towards the native people.
In New Zealand, until they became "Americanised" and began slavishly copying the life style of the wretched blacks in the urban ghettos, Maori had more trust in the fairness of the Crown than in the New Zealand Parliament. Parliament had a record of authorising illegal land grabs for the settlers who voted for it and ran it, in spite of the opposition of the central imperialist government in the United Kingdom.
he Economic Benefits of Imperialism
Anti-imperialism has often had exactly the opposite effect. Look at Africa today. Only red-necked anti-imperialists can do so without questioning their own educational conditioning. British imperialists brought the sugar to the West Indies and the rubber to Malaysia etc. and, given enough time, built up the economic infrastructure in their colonies in a much sounder fashion than international communism (led by Russia and China) or international capitalism (led by the USA and Europe).
conomic Consequences of Anti-Imperialism
Having brought in trained revolutionaries like Bolivar and backed them with money and weapons to overthrow the Spanish administrators and the North Americans replaced them with corrupt dictators who could be easily manipulated by American and European investors. The only beneficiaries of anti-imperialism are multinational corporations and the corrupt bullies who rule the "independent" ex-colonies.
re Russia, America and China Anti-imperialists?
At the end of WW2, at Yalta and Teheran, the USA and USSR jointly carved up the British Empire, then exhausted by years of a lone struggle against the Nazis. Spheres of influence were settled. America may have bribed her "colonies" and Russia may have bullied hers but both became imperial powers in all but name.
he White man's Burden
Judged by this standard the British Empire was a remarkable success and the pseudo anti-imperialists with their puppet colonies have a truly ghastly record. How can anyone who studies history impartially conclude that the end of the British Empire was a good thing and the heartless, faceless, multicultural and corrupt Global Economy replacing it is to be admired?
The only branch of human knowledge which specialises in studying human cultures is anthropology. Anthropologists define culture as an integrated set of beliefs and practices, or values, which produce cohesion and give meaning to a people. The mass adoption of American consumerist lifestyle and their "neophiliac" rejection of the past has resulted in the collapse of many cultures and their transformation into corrupt and shallow imitators of the American Dream of materialism and freedom from tradition.
ulticulturalism and The New World Order
The word "multicultural" is often used to justify the erosion of the existing culture with its laws and customs in preparation for a take-over by a conglomerate of irresponsible multi-nationals whose only interest is in personal gain for their managerial elites and shareholders. In other words, the New World Order.
Today the word British is commonly, if wrongly, limited to describing only citizens of the United Kingdom. At the same time both the Scots and Welsh peoples are preparing to set up separate sovereign national governments.
itizenship Versus Cultural Identity
The USA was the first nation founded on the assumption that culture, with its strong connections with the past, should be broken down in the "melting pot" and replaced with citizenship based on the future. In other words, "The American Dream." The recent growth in political power and economic influence of the USA is producing a world-wide but shallow culture based on the slavish emulation of new American fads and fashions in clothes, food, music, sexual mores etc.
Although this has affected all peoples in the world, obviouly the English-speaking peoples are most at risk of losing their sense of cultural identity. The people of the UK have had some protection as a result of being surrounded by their rich cultural heritage, particularly with the powerful British Empire still a living memory, and the congruence between their culture and their geographical location.
In Canada, Australia and New Zealand, already separated from the British Isles by thousands of miles, the situation has been aggravated by the UK joining the European Economic Community
ational Identity And Geographical Location
The Poles have suffered from the opposite problem. There has never been a clear demarcation of the boundaries of Poland and they have frequently been occupied by stronger neighbouring states, yet the Poles have a very strong sense of cultural identity.
he Power of a Name
Like "The United States" "Europe" and "Western Civilisation", "The Commonwealth" as a descriptive term eliminates any cultural component. This is linked with the doctrine of economic determinism, in both capitalist and socialist versions, which is fast replacing cultural explanations of "the meaning of life".
During the 1950s, for both political and economic reasons, the Canadian, Australian and New Zealand governments broke their links with the British Isles and turned towards the USA. The word British was removed from the passports and history was rewritten for the school children, with the enthusiastic help of the French Catholic intellectuals in Canada and Irish Catholic intellectuals in Australia.
The new history falsely portrayed the British administrators and armed forces of the 19th Century as either tyrants or poltroons, and the settlers as heroic refugees fleeing from an oppressive government in the British Isles. In Australia, convicts and brigands were transformed into noble heroes against the wicked British establishment. In New Zealand the process took longer as there was no similar intellectual grievance group.
anipulation Of Indigenous Peoples
They appoint themselves as spokesmen, leaders and guardians of "the people" and especially any groups who can be turned against the "Establishment". The use of this technique has brought many "radicals" rapid social advancement. In Canada, they espouse the rights of the Native Americans; in Australia, the rights of anyone who is not British; and in New Zealand, the rights of the Maori tribes.
The Treaty of Waitangi is completely misrepresented as giving the Maori tribes joint sovereignty when it in fact granted the Maoris the precious gift of British citizenship, whilst guaranteeing them their ancient rights to hunt and gather food in their traditional way, if they so chose. The nineteenth century wars were recently portrayed in a series on TVNZ written by an historian from Auckland University as an attack on the noble, peace-loving Maori people by the usual villainous and/or doltish British. Those tribes who had embraced British Citizenship for all the advantages it brought them and fought beside the troops sent from the British Isles, were portrayed as crawlers and traitors.
The attack on the use of the word British to describe the culture in New Zealand has been in full force now for a generation. At the same time the predominant role model for the youth sub-culture has become the Black American ghetto dweller, inarticulate, illiterate, resentful, promiscuous and addicted to drugs, sex and rock and roll (rap, hip hop, etc.)
The new power brokers who run the government, mass media, and mass education institutions are still suppressing any knowledge that the people who founded the New Zealand culture of today were not Polynesians or Europeans but British.
The perfect illustration of this is Te Papa (Our House), the new National Museum of New Zealand. At the spectacular opening there was a display of multiculturalism where performers from just about every culture were invited to celebrate the occasion. Guess what! There was nothing at all from the English culture. Inside the picture is much the same. The settlers are described throughout as "Europeans" and the word "British" mainly restricted to negative contexts!
hat Is British?
Briefly; the collapse of Caesaro-papist Western Christendom in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries led to the emergence of various language-based "divine right" kingdoms. Until the Protestants there opted for closer ties with Anglican England, Scotland was controlled by Roman Catholic France. Elizabeth I arranged for her throne to pass to the Scottish King James to continue her policy of avoiding unnecessary wars.
In the eighteenth century the world's most democratic people entered into a Union of Scotland with England and Wales and the progressive granting of voting rights to the Irish produced a new culture which became known as British.
Shakespeare's beloved England became the United Kingdom or Britannia, and a maritime empire began to grow. Part of North America was lost but Australia and New Zealand provided space for emigration and India became the "jewel in the crown".
Unlike Napoleonic France, the USA, or USSR in the nineteenth century, this empire was based on mutual trading advantages and improving local economic infrastructures rather than on land conquest and elimination of local ancient traditions. Anyone who has studied history without wearing anti-Britidsh blinkers will realise that the peoples in Asia, Africa, India and Australasia were fortunate that they were colonised by the British rather than the Germans, French, Belgians, Russians or Japanese.
here Is No "New Zealand" Culture
urning Into Pakehas
A racist retreat to sentimental and dysfunctional pre-civilised values has been fostered by government action. The Maori have been persuaded by anti-British intellectuals in the schools and universities that they are no longer British, with all the rights and responsibilities that this entails.
Nearly all Maori are descended from a mixture of British and Maori ancestors yet they are being pressurised to completely reject the British side of their inheritance. They are, moreover, being led to believe that they are the only people in New Zealand with any real culture, everyone else is "multicultural", a mixture of European, Polynesian and Asian. When told that they are "New Zealanders" and should integrate with the majority of the population naturally enough many of them object.
The non-Maori ruling elites in New Zealand have begun to refer to themselves as "Pakehas". This is most revealing. Since the word Pakeha simply means non-Maori, they regard themselves as people with no cultural identity at all! The majority of the people in New Zealand have become a residual category.
I hope the reader has taken my point. This is alienation on a really disastrous scale. Use of the word "Pakeha" should only be tolerated on maraes or as an informal slang term, like "Mick","Pom", "Jock", "Whitey" or "Darkie". It should never be used in schools, universities, churches, government publications or the mass media.
he Politics Of Alienation
The names of the parties in New Zealand are almost completely empty of meaning. "New Zealand First" and "National" suffer from not knowing what "New Zealand" means in terms of culture, its history, religion, customs, laws and so on. "Labour" and "New Labour" are not organisations run by and for British working men and women but by professional ideologues with no culture themselves except discredited economic master-plans for running other people's lives.
"Green" values seem both sentimental and inextricably mixed up with materialistic beliefs. I will outline a more rational approach to conserving the environment in the third and last part of this article when I will give my reasons for choosing the word "Conservative".
y Thesis Confirmed
Both capitalists and socialists believe in the absolute good of economic development, they only squabble on the best way to achieve a materialist utopia. It is fairly obvious that the socialists lost the battle for finding the best way to make everyone better off in purely material terms.
ocialism Still Fights On
These adolescents are urged to rebel against their parents’ generation out of sheer resentment and, regardless of the economic consequences to their society, to ‘empower’ themselves at the same time. If it were not for these tax-payer-funded institutions, socialism as an influencial creed, and its associated inquisitorial campaigns to enforce political correctness, would vanish overnight.
apitalism Given a New Lease of Life
But for the failed utopias of the socialists pure capitalism would never have been embraced. Prior to the 1980s pure capitalism had never existed. No country before this had ever abandoned all values other than economic ones. There were still traditional religious values in all countries, even though these were losing legitimation with the growth of the rational-scientific world view. They had been producing far better goods and services than the earlier feudal societies though at the dangerous cost of gradually weakening social cohesion.
As the manufacturing industry grew the proportion of the population engaged in agriculture shrank rapidly, yet at the same time agricultural production increased dramatically.
With the coming of the postindustrial society the proportion of the population engaged in the manufacturing industry is rapidly shrinking and that in the service and information sectors is increasing rapidly.
Our ideological (educational) and political institutions have not changed significantly in over a hundred years and the values that worked for an industrial society simply do not work for a world where wage-slavery and property owning are losing their attraction to the majority of people.
Politicians, once revered as champions of the people against the traditional land-owning aristocracy, are now universally despised and in the absence of any radical policies to argue about political campaigns have reverted to mutual recriminations of corruption and sleaze. This further weakens their credibility and makes a truly radical change inevitable.
ost Greens are 'Water Melons'
Religious fundamentalists, whatever their religion, hate Satan far more than they love God and are capable of great evil in their obsession with destroying evil. Socialists have shown that their hatred of the rich is far greater than their love for the poor, with the result that the poor become even poorer as a result of their destruction of the entrepreneurial spirit.
Most of the greens come from the suburbs, have studied life sciences and are obsessed with confronting commercial firms who pollute the environment. Much of their propaganda is socialist if not Marxist, as their solution is an egalitarian utopian commune run by greenies. If taken seriously the green movement would lead to massive unemployment of industrial workers and its associated psychological depression.
he Problem and The Solution are Not Just Biological
The greens are not radical enough to realize this since, like the industrialists they are at war with, they are still living in the rational-materialistic world view of the Eighteenth Century.
I am not arguing for a “great leap backwards” to feudalism but for a great leap forwards to a non-puritanical love of things as they are and might become if treated with love and wisdom. By ‘things’ I don’t just mean biological phenomena but all the non-economic traditions and practices which give people their meaning and locate them in loving and playful relationships to each other.
eligion and Conservation
Allowing for the fact that, as Marx pointed out, religion can legitimate the authority of wealthy and powerful elites, the rich and powerful are never able to demonise the poor and loving as ‘failures’ or ‘Uncle Toms’ for not becoming pushy and ambitious as they can today. The ‘deserving poor’ can have more self esteem than those rich who break the religious sanctions that hold the society together.
n The Name of God and in The Name of The People
elf Interest and Political Action
ristocrats and Peasants Unite Against the Bourgeoisie
Their engrained ‘stewardship’ attitude to the land, that it should be seen not as private property that can be sold to the highest bidder but as something that should be passed on to their descendants, gives them an identity which is completely at odds with the ideology of the market place.
he Heartless Marketplace