The right wing conference the entire ALP should attend

Via The Guardian:

The powerful US backers of a conservative conference being held in Sydney next week say they are committed to making the event a “multi-year, forever-type project” aimed at galvanising the right wing of Australian politics.

The organiser of the first Australian Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, says the event will “not be a one-off” and that its US backers, the American Conservative Union, had committed to holding the event long-term.

“We’re all looking at having this event running many, many years down the track,” Andrew Cooper told Guardian Australia, “and we have a vision for this that has thousands and thousands of attendees, not hundreds and hundreds.”

The conference will feature Brexit campaigner Nigel Farage, the former Australian prime minister Tony Abbott, Fox News host Jeanine Pirro and New South Wales’ One Nation politician Mark Latham.

Tickets for the three-day event range from $599 for a “Reagan VIP pass”, which gives attendees access to a speakers room and VIP lunches, an “Iron Lady general pass” for $349, and a “Menzies three-day pass” for $149. All three ticket categories include an “activism bootcamp” on the final day of the conference.

On Tuesday night in the Senate, the event was attacked by Labor senator Kristina Keneally as a “talkfest of hate”, with particular focus on the attendance of one speaker, Raheem Kassam, a former chief advisor to Farage and editor-in-chief of Breitbart.

Even Donald Trump Jnr has chimed in:


The white identity politics of these guys is clearly toxic. But that’s NOT the issue for the ALP.

What is is that these same nationalists are resonating with Labor’s traditional base of working class people, just as they did in the US and the UK. This was in clear evidence in the last federal election in QLD where the ALP was wiped out by One Nation and Clive Palmer, and has dropped 19 seats since 2007, costing it any chance of power.

Keneally is exactly the wrong person in the wrong place at the wrong time. The ALP should force her to attend the conference and absorb the message being sent.

I repeat. There is absolutely no need for the ALP to be racist or sexist nor any other “ist”. But it must reacquaint itself with the language and values of working people or it will not win.

Comments

    • ErmingtonPlumbing

      Is it a sit down dinner gig?
      Maybe we could book a Macrobusiness com.au table.
      Baggs not sitting next to Skip.

      • HadronCollision

        Or Andrew. Jesus, spare me.

        Or Reusa, Too Many Laughs.

        I’d pick Stewie, Mike and Ermo I reckon. And Peachy. And LWSCP. And Mining Bogan.
        No offence to other worthy contribs

        Wait are there any cyclists or golfers here, add them in

      • I’ll sit next to Gramus if we can sit opposite Golden Trumpet and work out tactics to defeat his carrier-killing hypersonic quantum lasers 😱

        Definitely want to go to Reus’s after-party.

      • Stewie GriffinMEMBER

        I don’t think I could fork out $599 for the VIP dinner…. being more of a Prol I’d prefer to duck out for a counter lunch at any nearby pub. But I could probably fork out for the $149 tix…. happy to sit next to anyone who is happy to sit next to me.

        I’d be particularly interested in hearing about Nigel and how his model for bootstrapping up his Brexit party worked.

      • @Hadron. Thanks for the implied thumbs up mate. I reckon I’d be happy to have a beer and a feed with you and that august crew sometime too.

      • @Hadron. There are at least two Andrews here. There is Andrew (member) and Andrew (fvckwit). I have made the mistake of confusing them myself so am trying to undo the wrong I done.
        MB web guys. FFS fix this design fault that allows duplicate screen names

    • The intersectionalists may create the enemy they claim to be fighting? Nah. Too late for that. They have. Its me.

    • The “white identity politics” of Raheem Kassam ROFL! Allegation by (the white) Kristina Keneally of a hate fest. She relies on the intellectually bankrupt method of banning the speaker. His IQ would be far higher than KKs. Perhaps she knows it and doesn’t wish to engage. These people have been systematically taken off social media to help the Democrats next year. This censorship of anyone to the right of the very far left by Big Tech is very real.

  1. “The white identity politics of these guys is clearly toxic.”
    When did MB become left-wing shrills?
    Conservatism has a long pedigree in political thought going back to Edmund Bourke. Look him up.
    Sure some folks on the right go to far but they aren’t conservatives anymore than Antifa and communists represent the progressives.
    Can we have our balanced MB back please.

      • If you want to save liberal democracy from itself, may I suggest you read Viktor Orban’s speech:

        http://abouthungary.hu/speeches-and-remarks/prime-minister-viktor-orbans-speech-at-the-30th-balvanyos-summer-open-university-and-student-camp/

        Excerpts below:

        “In a liberal system, society and nation are nothing but an aggregation of competing individuals. What holds them together is the Constitution and the market economy. There is no nation – or if there is, it is only a political nation. Here in parenthesis we should thank László Sólyom, who during his presidency made a lasting contribution when, in opposition to the concept of the political nation, he elaborated and clarified – in a legal and philosophical sense – the concept of a cultural nation. When there is no nation, there is no community and no community interest. In essence this is the relationship between the individual and society from a liberal point of view.

        In contrast to this, the illiberal or national viewpoint states that the nation is a historically and culturally determined community. It is a historically developed configuration, which must protect its members and prepare them to stand their ground in the world for a common cause. According to the liberal view, individual action and who does what – whether they live a productive or unproductive life – is a purely private matter, and must not be subject to moral judgment. By contrast, in a national system, action – individual action – is worthy of praise if it also benefits the community. This must be interpreted broadly. For example, there are our gold medal-winning skaters. An outstanding sporting performance is also an individual performance that benefits the community. If we talk about them, we don’t say that they have won Olympic gold, but that we have won Olympic gold. Their individual performances also clearly benefit the community. In an illiberal or national system, distinguished performance is not a private matter, but has clearly identifiable forms. Such are self-sufficiency and work, creating and securing a livelihood. Such are learning and a healthy lifestyle. Such is paying taxes. Such is starting a family and raising children. And such is orientation in the matters of the nation and its history, and participation in national self-reflection. It is such performance that we recognise, rank, look up to morally and support.

        So in terms of the relationship between the individual and society, what has happened in Hungary is something quite different from what happened in 1990, when the liberal transformation took place. But similarly to that transformation, we have put our thinking and culture on a new footing – also in terms of relations between individuals. To put it simply, but to the point, in a liberal system the rule is that one has the freedom to do anything, provided it doesn’t violate the freedom of others. This is the compass of individual action. In parenthesis, the small problem is the question of exactly what it is that doesn’t violate the freedom of others. This is something that’s usually defined by the strongest – but let’s leave that in parenthesis. In contrast to this, what we have now, or what we’re trying to build, follows another moral compass. Going back to a known truth, this states that the definition of the right relationship between two people is not that everyone has the freedom to do anything which does not violate the freedom of another; the correct definition is that you should not do to others what you would not want them to do to you. Furthermore, you should do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This is a different foundational principle.

        And here we come to the most politically awkward and sensitive question, which is the word “illiberal”. Whenever I see the miserable, tiptoeing debates surrounding this, I’m always reminded of that iconic film for our generation: Monty Python and the Holy Grail. The knights are wandering in the woods when they come across some giants. It turns out that there is a word which they must not say to the giants; and for a few minutes in the movie, they puzzle about how not to say a word that everyone knows they must say. And in international politics the same is true of the word “illiberal”. The reason for this is that liberals – who have never been untalented – have developed an interpretation for this expression that defines it as nothing more than an expression with aprefix, a sham democracy: a system that disguises itself as democracy, but which in reality is not democracy. And they’ve come up with two propositions: democracy is necessarily liberal; and Christian democracy is necessarily liberal. I’m convinced that these are two misconceptions, because obviously the opposite is true. Liberal democracy could never have come into being without its Christian cultural underpinnings. Because we have the absurd situation, or the seemingly absurd situation, in which when making the most important decision for a country – determining its direction, and who we will trust to take it in that direction – the votes of any two people are worth the same: they’re worth the same even if one of those people didn’t even finish their primary level education, and the other person is the President of the Academy of Sciences. One is more in need of welfare aid, the other is paying huge taxes, yet each has one vote. One understands the world and the other doesn’t care about the world, yet each has the same vote. Such a political construct, which is the foundation of democracy – especially liberal democracy – can only be created if we find a particular point of view in which these apparently completely different people are still equal, and therefore in which their opinions can be taken into account with equal weight. And this point of view can be nothing but the Christian proposition that all of us are created by God in His own image.

        So liberal democracy can only exist in a world in which Christian culture existed before it. This can be demonstrated both geographically and historically. So the propositions that all democracy is necessarily liberal and that Christian democracy must be liberal are simply not true. Liberal democracy was viable up until the point when it departed from its Christian foundations. For as long as it protected personal liberty and property it had a beneficial effect on humanity. But the content of liberal democracy changed radically when it began to break the bonds that bind people to real life: when it questioned the identity of a person’s sex, devalued people’s religious identity, and deemed people’s national affiliation superfluous. And the truth is that in Europe over the past twenty or thirty years this has become the spirit of the age.

        So today, European liberals are the ones who believe that in their hands they have a theoretical system that will bring salvation, peace and prosperity to all humanity. They hold a universal model in their hands. This has been formed into a thesis, and in European politics today this liberal thesis tells us what and how one should think, what is appropriate and to be supported, what should be rejected, and what is incompatible with liberal ideas. It will tell you how to think about the most basic facts of life. And today I can give you a brief sketchy summary of this programme by saying that liberals believe that everywhere in the world – especially in Europe – all human and social relationships need to be transformed on the model of loosely organised business relationships: “If I want it I’ll commit to it, and if I don’t want, I won’t; if I want to enter, I’ll enter, and if I want to, I’ll leave.” From this you can see why liberals support migration, and from this you can see why it is George Soros’s network that organises migration. According to the liberal notion of freedom, you can only be free if you discard everything that involves you in belonging somewhere: borders, the past, language, religion, culture and tradition. If you can free yourself from all this, if you can leave it all behind, then you’re a free person.

        As tends to happen, the antithesis of this has also come into being, and this is what I call “illiberalism”. This way of reasoning states that the individual’s appeal to freedom must not override the interests of the community. There is a majority, and it must be respected, because that is the essence of democracy. The state must not be indifferent to culture, the state must not be indifferent to the family, and the state must not be indifferent to the question of what kinds of people – or who – are within the borders of your country. In other words, today it is the illiberal person who defends their borders, defends their national culture and rejects external interference and attempts at empire building.

        Returning to the woods, and Monty Python and the Holy Grail: should we be afraid to say the word? Well, we have good reason to be, but perhaps cowardice is not recommended. And if we don’t feel strong enough in the present, at times like this it’s always worth recalling the great figures from the past. For example, if you read the Atlantic Charter, which Roosevelt and Churchill jointly created and which laid the foundations for the future of Europe, I can say that it’s a truly illiberal document. In it the Anglo-Saxons affirm that all peoples have the right to choose their own destiny, to choose their own government, no one should interfere in their internal affairs, and their borders should be respected. Or, to quote Schumann, who as one of the founding fathers of Europe is accorded due respect even by liberals: “Democracy owes its existence to Christianity. It was born the day man was called to realise in his temporal life the dignity of the human person, in his individual freedom, in respect for the rights of each and by the practice of brotherly love towards all.” No one could get away with saying that in the European Parliament – with the possible exception of Bishop Tőkés. So the great figures who are regularly cited as the creators of the idea of ​​European unity would in fact not belong among the ranks of what today are called the liberal democrats, but to the illiberal democrats. This is why I think we should not be afraid to go against the spirit of the age and build an illiberal political and state system.

        [Elites] think that humanity is now moving beyond the nationalist or nation-centred and Christian-centred era, and that humanity must be led into a post-nationalist and post-Christian era. Therefore they think that a new universal model of humanity is needed: the model that is found in liberal democracy. The problem is that in politics any such theory promoting universal salvation is only strong and valid if it is absolute. The universal will cannot tolerate a single people that is unyielding – no matter how small that people might be. Therefore, when the ideology of universal salvation and peace encounters resistance, it responds to this conflict not with argument, but with hatred. Because in its way of thinking the model offered to humanity is valid and true only if it is true without exception. This is why – let’s put it this way – its liberal, internationalist programme can only be true if it is true for every nation, for every man, for every woman, and for every age.”

      • ErmingtonPlumbing

        Geez Bjorn1788
        Im halfway through your post but have to go in and pick up the daughter and her friends from “Tumbles”.
        I’ll read the rest at bedtime.
        😂

  2. So the guys mentioned clearly have toxic views based on white identity. check. They labelled themselves as Conservative. check. Nowhere did H&H label them as Conservative. He’s identifying that the ALP has lost its base to these newer political participants – One Nation/Clive Palmer. Nothing unbalanced there, move along please.

    • White identity check..err no

      “Kassam was born in Hammersmith Hospital, London. His parents were Tanzanian immigrants of Gujarati origin from Hillingdon, Greater London.[1] He was raised an Ismaili Muslim, but wrote in 2016 that he had not been a practising Muslim for over a decade. Kassam is an atheist, stating that Christopher Hitchens’ rejection of religious faith (“religions are versions of the same untruth”) inspired him.[4] Kassam was educated at Bishopshalt School, a state comprehensive school in Uxbridge and St Helen’s College, Hillingdon, and then studied Politics at the University of Westminster.[5]”
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raheem_Kassam

      Notice how criticism is based on the skin colour of those that it is sought to denigrate.

  3. From Wikipedia: “[Raheem] Kassam was born in Hammersmith Hospital, London. His parents were Tanzanian immigrants of Gujarati origin from Hillingdon, Greater London.[1] He was raised an Ismaili Muslim, but wrote in 2016 that he had not been a practising Muslim for over a decade.”

    Yep, sounds like a dangerous white nationalist to me. Looks like he’s been living his whole life deep undercover, posing as a Tanzanian ex-Muslim. Sneaky devil!

    • Exactly. Well said.
      Regressive are too quick to lable conservative thinkers right wingers in a pejorative sense. this bloke is hardly that.

    • Also from wikipedia, his current published books… No Go Zones: How Sharia Law Is Coming to a Neighborhood Near You and Enoch Was Right: ‘Rivers of Blood’ 50 Years On. Minorities can still fight against their history as much as you or me. He’s just continuing a fine tradition of class war. Lets blame the foreigners/minorities/different folk while the powers at be rape and pillage.

  4. I feel the risk with this group is that’s it’s mostly a skilled propaganda exercise to fool the public into adopting laws and policies that entrench and increase significant inequality in the country that benefits the political class and the rich. We have see the USA public cheering on tax cuts for the rich and somehow convinced it’s a good thing. The next step is the removal of medicare and other social programs. It concerns me these groups could produce that effect and all the while be cheered on by idiots.

    • Narapoia451MEMBER

      This. The idea that US conservatives care about anything other than further enriching the entrenched special interests is amusing. Dress it up in nationalism, religion, wars against terror\drugs\teh gays it’s funny how all their policies are built from the ground up to strip rights, concentrate wealth and destroy social mobility.

      • Stewie GriffinMEMBER

        This explains a lot about your moroninity “Professor”

        Conservatism is simply the preference to avoid radical change for radical changes sake, particularly in regards to issues that impact on how society behaves and functions.

        Progressiveness simply seeks radical change.

        Do you think Triguboff or Lowy, who are both practically our entire aristocracy are Progressive or Conservative when it comes to something like immigration? Elites will chose whatever action benefits them.

        Normally I’d say “I can’t believe you believe this crap.” but then you are the weakest minded idiout on MB… FFS it even claims George Soros is ‘an excellent citizen’.

        You are doofus.

    • @AngryMan social class is an artificial construct created by Communists so as to divide Western societies.

      • Narapoia451MEMBER

        Can’t quite tell if this is great satire or if you actually believe the construct of social class distinctions did not exist before Carl Marx.

    • Snotty Millenial

      @AngryMan

      I think you’re 100% spot on

      Conservatives end goal is to have a feudal society with an entrenched aristocracy (owners of capital) and peasants (workers). They’ve done a very good job with hollowing out the middle class but theres still some way to go yet and the people are waking up.

      This presents an inherent problem, how do they reach their goal when their interests are completely opposed to that of the middle class and lower majority whose support they need to win government? And thats where trump populism, fox news, alt right comes in. Convince the masses that the very things that have been put in place to help them are actually the enemy. Big government, taxes, regulations, public institutions, it’s all gotta go!

      There is BIG money bankrolling this propaganda campaign, mostly funded the Koch brothers and other mega wealth billionaires. They won’t stop until we are back to a feudal society. There was similar push like this in the US in the early 20th century with the “Red Scare” but the wall st crash in 1929 put a spanner in the works, and Roosevelt rolled out the New Deal which was a huge defeat for the Elites (led by the Du Pont family) who were furious. Then came WW2 and the Elites went silent for a few decades thereafter. It started again in the 70’s with neoliberalism and “trickle down” and it’s persisted to today.

      Scary times ahead

  5. Why do people think you need some sort of banner to unite under whether it be nationalism or multiculturalism or any of the other crap. Society would be fine if you just focused on trying to build a robust economy and weeded out all the corruption.

  6. TailorTrashMEMBER

    Who the fcuk is KK speaking for and signaling
    to …….most labor folk I know would not hold her views by a long shot . Does her electorate have a significant number of others population ? Maybe KK could go back to the US
    and join the Democrat circus .

    • She’s speaking for all of us. Saw part of her whinge and feeble desk thump in the Senate this afternoon. I hope she becomes the ALP leader or even just in a position to have a real influence in their future direction. She’s just insufferable.

  7. ”The conference will feature Brexit campaigner Nigel Farage, the former Australian prime minister Tony Abbott, Fox News host Jeanine Pirro and New South Wales’ One Nation politician Mark Latham.”
    All quality people.

      • Have no idea, do you know any quality right wing nut jobs worth paying to listen too? Farage is a self serving parasite who found a niche in life but has no concept of the common good or public service, ditto Abbot who’s extreme views we are all aware or, eg ” homelessness is a lifestyle choice” and in the very same month his daughter getting a one off never to be repeated scholarship at her chosen venue for higher education (all above board of course), could go on all day but I wont as we all know what Abbot is. and as for Fox news, what would they know about news when it comes to politics and economics, just another taking anus attached to Murdochs backside.