The designation of Olukemi Olufunto Adegoke "in" Badenoch, 44 years old,
of Nigerian origin, of Yoruba ethnicity, black and female, as the new
leader of the Conservative Party constitutes the clearest and most
obvious disavowal of the prejudices that animate racists and
misogynists, supporters of male supremacism, since it shows that one can
be black and a woman and yet bear abominable, disgusting, racist and
xenophobic, classist ideas and programs, to be fought strenuously and
with extreme determination.
With the aim of countering the growth of the Reform party, of Nigel
Farage, which in the last elections collected 14% of the votes, despite
electing only 5 deputies to Parliament, due to the British electoral
system with majoritarian and single-member constituencies, the
Conservative Party has decided to implement a decisive shift to the
right, preferring Badenoch to the moderate candidate who opposed her.
Elected with the vote of only 70% of what remains of the party members,
who have significantly decreased after the electoral defeat, Badenoch,
who comes from a middle-class family - a doctor father, a physiology
professor mother - born in England and moved with her family to Nigeria,
returned to the UK at sixteen; today she aspires to present herself as
the new Thatcher, she represents the dark side of white supremacy.
Graduated in computer science at the University of Sussex, before
entering politics, the new leader worked in finance and was digital
director of the "Spectator", the Tory weekly of which Boris Johnson was
editor, who was also her political godfather. It was he who wanted her
in government in various roles, allowing her a meteoric rise that saw
her as Minister of Industry and Trade under Sunak. Badenoch declares
that she has radicalized herself to the right because "... she hated the
sons of rich men who were revolutionaries
at university", she is inspired by the economic liberalism of Thatcher,
with a combative attitude and a language that is a mix of liberal ideals
and pragmatism, she proposes a cultural, economic and social relations
model very close to the "theology of prosperity" that characterizes the
evangelical cults of African and Brazilian origin. For her, who feels
she has overcome the weight of her blackness, poverty is a sin and
economic success is both emancipation and salvation, liberation from the
condition of need and personal fulfillment. Therefore no identity
politics and
above all no gender politics, but lots of competition without any
pretences related to gender belonging, proof of which is that she
proclaims herself a "critical feminist of gender", identifying herself
with the positions of the homophobic writer J.K. Rowlings, particularly
committed to opposing in every way the rights of homosexuals and
especially trans, who she considers a lobby.
This aversion to civil rights is accompanied by a return to the
traditional values of England, when the United Kingdom was great because
- in her opinion - it was animated by the ideals of the Revolution of
1688 which sanctioned the alliance between the Crown and the
aristocracy, laying the foundations of the English constitutional
monarchy. The conservative prime minister calmly bypasses the bloody
history of oppression and colonial exploitation on which the greatness
of the country was built and on which what remains of its wealth still
rests today. Therefore, she responds contemptuously with a no to the
requests coming from the former dominions to be reimbursed for the
damages inflicted on the countries subjugated by the British rulers. We
are not able to hypothesize today to what extent his reactionary policy
will be able to compete with that of Farage and his party, but certainly
his task of rebuilding the Conservative Party, rather than being favored
by his positions of strong support for Brexit - a position supported
with greater conviction by Farage - will be favored by the uncertain and
wavering policies, supported at a social, economic and international
political level by the Labour Prime Minister Starmer, who is forced by
the disastrous state of public finances to adopt restrictive financial
and economic policies, to intervene on taxes, hitting, even if without
much conviction, the highest incomes and without actually managing to
affect the structural situation of the country's economy. Also and
perhaps above all with regard to Great Britain, the considerations that
we have made on other occasions regarding the policies adopted by the
parties of the reformist left in Europe are valid.Their unconditional
support for the war in Ukraine, the choice to dedicate to it a large
part of the economic resources of countries in deep structural crisis,
burdened by the need to intervene on the fundamentals of the economy and
to relaunch development, in need of finding resources to finance a
welfare system in ever greater crisis, especially with regard to health,
education, transport and services, - as is the case in Great Britain -
turns out to be a suicidal choice, which leaves room and offers
opportunities for growth to the populist right, which is an opportunity
to gather consensus from the most disadvantaged and marginalized classes
of the population, who end up weighing on the costs of these wicked
choices. These dynamics are even more burdensome and incisive with
regard to Great Britain, committed to supporting the costs of the debris
of what remains of the empire, deluding itself that it is still a global
planetary power, thanks to the privileged partnership with the United
States. In other words, whether they are in opposition or in government,
the reformist and liberal-democratic parties that made the choice to
support the wicked war in Ukraine are now paying the consequences,
seeing their leadership enter into crisis where they are in government
or systematically losing consensus during elections, where they are in
opposition and aspire to govern. But there is more: in their leadership
crisis, the bourgeois democratic institutions themselves are dragged
along, overwhelmed by the crisis and induced to devolve towards
increasingly reactionary institutional forms of democracy.
G. L.
https://www.ucadi.org/2024/11/23/lanima-nera-dei-conservatori-inglesi/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
of Nigerian origin, of Yoruba ethnicity, black and female, as the new
leader of the Conservative Party constitutes the clearest and most
obvious disavowal of the prejudices that animate racists and
misogynists, supporters of male supremacism, since it shows that one can
be black and a woman and yet bear abominable, disgusting, racist and
xenophobic, classist ideas and programs, to be fought strenuously and
with extreme determination.
With the aim of countering the growth of the Reform party, of Nigel
Farage, which in the last elections collected 14% of the votes, despite
electing only 5 deputies to Parliament, due to the British electoral
system with majoritarian and single-member constituencies, the
Conservative Party has decided to implement a decisive shift to the
right, preferring Badenoch to the moderate candidate who opposed her.
Elected with the vote of only 70% of what remains of the party members,
who have significantly decreased after the electoral defeat, Badenoch,
who comes from a middle-class family - a doctor father, a physiology
professor mother - born in England and moved with her family to Nigeria,
returned to the UK at sixteen; today she aspires to present herself as
the new Thatcher, she represents the dark side of white supremacy.
Graduated in computer science at the University of Sussex, before
entering politics, the new leader worked in finance and was digital
director of the "Spectator", the Tory weekly of which Boris Johnson was
editor, who was also her political godfather. It was he who wanted her
in government in various roles, allowing her a meteoric rise that saw
her as Minister of Industry and Trade under Sunak. Badenoch declares
that she has radicalized herself to the right because "... she hated the
sons of rich men who were revolutionaries
at university", she is inspired by the economic liberalism of Thatcher,
with a combative attitude and a language that is a mix of liberal ideals
and pragmatism, she proposes a cultural, economic and social relations
model very close to the "theology of prosperity" that characterizes the
evangelical cults of African and Brazilian origin. For her, who feels
she has overcome the weight of her blackness, poverty is a sin and
economic success is both emancipation and salvation, liberation from the
condition of need and personal fulfillment. Therefore no identity
politics and
above all no gender politics, but lots of competition without any
pretences related to gender belonging, proof of which is that she
proclaims herself a "critical feminist of gender", identifying herself
with the positions of the homophobic writer J.K. Rowlings, particularly
committed to opposing in every way the rights of homosexuals and
especially trans, who she considers a lobby.
This aversion to civil rights is accompanied by a return to the
traditional values of England, when the United Kingdom was great because
- in her opinion - it was animated by the ideals of the Revolution of
1688 which sanctioned the alliance between the Crown and the
aristocracy, laying the foundations of the English constitutional
monarchy. The conservative prime minister calmly bypasses the bloody
history of oppression and colonial exploitation on which the greatness
of the country was built and on which what remains of its wealth still
rests today. Therefore, she responds contemptuously with a no to the
requests coming from the former dominions to be reimbursed for the
damages inflicted on the countries subjugated by the British rulers. We
are not able to hypothesize today to what extent his reactionary policy
will be able to compete with that of Farage and his party, but certainly
his task of rebuilding the Conservative Party, rather than being favored
by his positions of strong support for Brexit - a position supported
with greater conviction by Farage - will be favored by the uncertain and
wavering policies, supported at a social, economic and international
political level by the Labour Prime Minister Starmer, who is forced by
the disastrous state of public finances to adopt restrictive financial
and economic policies, to intervene on taxes, hitting, even if without
much conviction, the highest incomes and without actually managing to
affect the structural situation of the country's economy. Also and
perhaps above all with regard to Great Britain, the considerations that
we have made on other occasions regarding the policies adopted by the
parties of the reformist left in Europe are valid.Their unconditional
support for the war in Ukraine, the choice to dedicate to it a large
part of the economic resources of countries in deep structural crisis,
burdened by the need to intervene on the fundamentals of the economy and
to relaunch development, in need of finding resources to finance a
welfare system in ever greater crisis, especially with regard to health,
education, transport and services, - as is the case in Great Britain -
turns out to be a suicidal choice, which leaves room and offers
opportunities for growth to the populist right, which is an opportunity
to gather consensus from the most disadvantaged and marginalized classes
of the population, who end up weighing on the costs of these wicked
choices. These dynamics are even more burdensome and incisive with
regard to Great Britain, committed to supporting the costs of the debris
of what remains of the empire, deluding itself that it is still a global
planetary power, thanks to the privileged partnership with the United
States. In other words, whether they are in opposition or in government,
the reformist and liberal-democratic parties that made the choice to
support the wicked war in Ukraine are now paying the consequences,
seeing their leadership enter into crisis where they are in government
or systematically losing consensus during elections, where they are in
opposition and aspire to govern. But there is more: in their leadership
crisis, the bourgeois democratic institutions themselves are dragged
along, overwhelmed by the crisis and induced to devolve towards
increasingly reactionary institutional forms of democracy.
G. L.
https://www.ucadi.org/2024/11/23/lanima-nera-dei-conservatori-inglesi/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten