Wednesday, March 20, 2019

patriotism and conflicting loyalties

These days words have a way of changing their meaning to suit the politics of the speaker. We need to know exactly what we mean by a particular word as used in a particular argument.

Nationalism and patriotism are words thrown about by liberals, by conservatives and by traditionalists. To liberals nationalism is just another generic insult - calling someone a nationalist is like calling him a fascist. Conservatives (who are merely right-leaning liberals) sometimes try to distinguish between nationalism (which is evil and basically nazi) and patriotism (which is good and honourable).

Nationalism gained a bad reputation because it was responsible for the horrors of the two world wars. Of course those wars actually had more to do with clashes between competing empires than nationalism but a scapegoat had to be found and once nationalism was cast in that rôle it was always going to be pretty much impossible to rehabilitate the concept.

The problem is that even if patriotism is possibly a good thing it’s not so easy to define. OK, it’s love of one’s country, but what does that mean? What does it mean if you live in an artificial country like Belgium, or Canada, or the United States? Or Australia? If you’re an Australian of entirely British stock should your patriotic feelings be directed towards Australia or Britain? And if you’re lucky enough to live in a nation of immigrants what exactly is the nature of any patriotic feelings those immigrants might feel?

Tony Abbott used to waffle on about Team Australia. Apparently to a modern conservative patriotism is a bit like choosing which football team you support.

Americans often go on about the proposition nation idea but the first problem with that is that the original proposition has now changed radically. If the proposition can keep changing then the nation has no actual existence, no actual identity. It’s just a temporary political allegiance. Politicians have also been known to resort to the shared values argument, the problem there being that there is no evidence that these shared values actually exist. The shared values are imaginary items manufactured by opinion polling.

There’s also the question of distinguishing between loyalty to the nation and loyalty to the regime (there used to be another option, loyalty to the monarch, but there are no monarchies any more). The French are rather big on the idea of loyalty to the ideals of Republicanism which it seems to me is putting loyalty to regime and to ideology before loyalty to the nation.

Even assuming that we should put loyalty to the nation before loyalty to regime or ideology  there is the question of whether an evil regime should cancel our loyalty to the nation. Were those Germans (clearly the majority) who remained loyal to Germany even under the Nazis right to do so? Can we justify treason to the nation because we don’t like the regime? Many traitors do in fact believe, quite sincerely, that loyalty to their principles overrides loyalty to their country. I think it’s probably fair to assume that Kim Philby believed he was doing the right and honourable thing by putting his loyalty to communism ahead of his loyalty to Britain. I am not certainly not suggesting that he was right, but I do think that he felt that he was right.

And given the fact that today in the West we live under a corrupt, degenerate hostile regime do our patriotic feelings towards our nations compel us to serve such an evil regime?

I’m not claiming that I have the answers to these questions. But the questions do worry me.

Tuesday, March 12, 2019

women and alpha and beta men

There’s an excellent comment (left by a woman) on the recent (extremely good) post We are playing by girl's rules at Oz Conservative.

The post concerns the destructive effects of the sexual strategies pursued by modern women. The commenter notes that the average woman is sexually attracted to dominance in men and goes on to point out that the collapse in masculinity in the West has led women to look for the wrong sort of dominant men.

I think this is absolutely spot on. We hear a lot about alpha and beta men but these terms often mislead people.

Women are attracted to dominant men because they’re supposed to be. It’s basic biology. It’s human nature (and whether you believe that human nature is the result of evolutionary pressures or God’s wisdom doesn’t really matter here). The survival of society has always depended on traditional sex rôles and the maintenance of those rôles requires that women should choose men who are capable and decisive. Dominant men.

The dominant men to whom women are attracted are not necessarily men who wrassle gators bare-handed. A woman wants a man who is strong emotionally, forceful, decisive and confident. A man who can assert his authority. Including his authority over his woman. That doesn’t mean slapping her around. A man who does that is demonstrating his weakness and lack of authority. A strong man asserts his authority without the need for such things.

But there aren’t any such men any more. Feminism has thoroughly emasculated western men. Women can no longer find genuine dominant men so they choose what appears to be  the only viable option. They go for allegedly alpha men - men who are bad boys, men whose selfishness and duplicity pass for strength and confidence, men who seem sexually potent but are really just overgrown teenagers. These fake alpha men have neither the inclination nor the ability to hang on to a woman so the women drift from one man to another. Feminism tells them that being a slut is empowering and the fake alpha men do nothing to discourage them from such behaviour.

Then the woman sees the wall approaching. She’s in her late twenties or early thirties and the sexy bad boys aren’t interested any longer - they can get younger female flesh. And the biological clock is ticking. Suddenly marriage, a home, security and children seem more important than sexual pleasure. So the women go looking for a beta male. The stereotype of the beta male is the decent hard-working responsible man prepared to be a good provider. The sort of man women used to see as ideal husband material.

But even the beta men today are emasculated. They’re the ones that fully internalised decades of feminist propaganda. They believe the whole liberal agenda. They are doormats just waiting for a woman to step on them. Women of course despise weak men. And they feel zero sexual attraction to weak feminised men. So as soon as they’re in a financial position to do so the woman gets a divorce, and goes back to trying to chase the hot alpha men who no longer want them.

The beta males of the 1950s were a different story. They may have been responsible and hard-working family men but they had not had their masculinity stripped from them. Women who married such men were generally pretty happy.

So the alpha and beta males of today are both in their own ways less than men. It’s no wonder women end up regarding all men with contempt.

Of course feminism is to blame for all this. More importantly it is the fault of everyone who has advanced or enabled the feminist agenda. Including Christians. Especially Christians, who have responded to the mortal threat posed by feminism with grovelling and surrender.

What can be done about this? I honestly don’t know. The feminist agenda is now so firmly entrenched that it seems unchallengeable. It’s been pushed so far that even the mildest criticisms are greeted with outrage. There’s certainly no way that the basic biological fact that being dominated by a man is sexually and emotionally exciting to a woman and will in the long run make her happy is going to get listened to.

Saturday, March 9, 2019

conspiracy theories, history and the need for meaning

I was both amused and slightly horrified by a recent comment thread elsewhere on the subject of conspiracy theories. I was particularly struck by the vehemence with which so many people hold such theories, and the savagery with which they defend them.

Now I can understand why people are reluctant to believe the official version of events. Politicians do lie to us. Civil servants lie. Journalists lie. We should be sceptical of anything these people tell us.

I’m inclined to be supportive of mild historical revisionism. History is mostly interpretation and it’s good to see interpretations other than the conventional long-accepted ones. That doesn’t mean we should accept every alternative interpretation. Some alternative interpretations are complete poppycock. But some are plausible. A few are even fairly convincing. Undoubtedly in some cases the alternative interpretations are correct.

But many conspiracy theorists go beyond merely doubting. They not only consider alternative explanations for events, they adopt those explanations with religious fervour. Anyone who doubts their conspiracy theory is dismissed as a fool who believes everything the media tells him.

More dangerously they often get to the stage of abandoning the idea of relying on evidence. If you point out that there is no evidence to support their theory they’ll tell you that such evidence certainly exists but it’s been suppressed by the government. If you point out that there is evidence contradicting their theory they’ll tell you that it must have been faked. The problem here is that they end up believing things out of pure emotional conviction rather than evidence. Of course when it comes to political beliefs we’re all inclined to do that but it’s still a dangerous tendency.

What’s more interesting to ask is why have conspiracy theories become so popular?

Of course it’s partly because these days politicians, journalists, etc are more obviously dishonest. I don’t think that’s the complete explanation though.

I suspect that like so much in our modern civilisation it’s at least partly the collapse of religious faith. People don’t want to believe that history is random and meaningless. They don’t want to believe that wars happen because politicians simply bungle their way into them. They don’t want to believe that major historical events occur due to chance, or to mistakes. History should make sense. It should mean something. Millions of people should not die in a war, as they did in the First World War, for no good reason whatsoever.

In the past few decades we’ve also seen the collapse of one of the more fully developed secular religions, Marxism. Religion makes history meaningful because it’s the unfolding of God’s plan. Marxism makes history meaningful because it’s (allegedly) scientific and it sees history as being the result of vast and important social and economic forces at work. With Marxism now pretty much dead how can history be made to make sense?

Conspiracy theories provide an answer because paradoxically it’s more comforting to believe that disasters are caused by satanic conspiracies, or communist conspiracies or fascist conspiracies or whatever rather than by bad luck and bad management.

Of course it’s possible that some conspiracy theories are true. I’m inclined to think most are mistaken. Bad things really are happening and our leaders really are betraying us but mostly they’re doing it pretty openly. In the majority of cases there’s no need for elaborate conspiracy theories to explain why the world is going to Hell in a handbasket.

Sunday, March 3, 2019

modern politics and the new class

Post-World War 2 politics seems bewildering. The old political divisions such as left and right don’t really seem to explain any of it satisfactorily. Perhaps the answer is that we need to think sociologically rather than politically.

Of course sociology is a dirty word to most self-styled conservatives but it can offer us some useful insights.

Post-WW2 politics is quite different from the politics of the preceding century. It’s just as class-based but what has changed is the nature of the classes. For Marxists there was the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Class membership was based on power and wealth and was strongly hereditary. Most people were born into their class and remained there.

A new class took power after the Second World War. They were the spiritual descendants of the intellectuals who who worked so hard to destroy civilisation in the 18th and 19th century but with some crucial differences - they were now much more numerous and they were no longer obscure professors, penniless students or failed writers. They had gained access to power. They were now senior bureaucrats, influential journalists, lawyers and career politicians. Some sociologists refer to them as the new managerial class. They saw society as something that needed management, and if necessary micro-management. And not just economic management, but social management.

They were not like the old bourgeoisie. They were not necessarily rich. They did not necessarily own factories.

Importantly, they were not born into this new class. Membership was gained  by going to the right universities and doing the right sorts of degrees and by subscribing to the right kind of thinking.

These are people who, whether they were born in a mansion or a hovel, now see themselves as belonging to a superior class. The class markers now are not wealth or birth but membership of a class that sees itself as an intellectual elite. They believe they are set apart from the masses by superior intelligence, education and virtue. In fact they see themselves as an Elect, predestined to rule.

What is important in political terms is that for the past half century or so virtually every politician regardless of supposed party allegiance has come from this new managerial/intellectual class. We no longer have different parties representing different class interests We now have different parties that all represent the same class interest. Which explains why the policies of the major parties are more or less interchangeable. It explains why there is no discernible difference between Tony Blair and Theresa May, or between Bill Shorten and Scott Morrison. It explains why Americans keep electing different presidents but end up getting the same misgovernment.

The nature of this managerial/intellectual class has other consequences. These are people who believe they have a duty to manage other people’s lives. They also believe they have a duty to police public opinion. They are the superior people and they know what’s best for the rest of us. If we don’t agree then we must be made to agree. It’s for our own good.

Tuesday, February 26, 2019

we’re all rootless cosmopolitans now

There was an interesting remark recently on A Political Refugee From the Global Village about the displacement of Europeans from their ancestral lands. Now I don’t want to see that happen either but I think you have to ask yourself whether people in the West today even have ancestral lands.

If you have no knowledge of the traditions of your own society, no culture and no sense of history (which is the case for most westerners today) can you be said to have any actual ancestral lands? If you have no actual home town, no sense of community and no sense of a link to the place you were born (which is also the case for most westerners today) then do ancestral lands have any meaning for you?

Until a hundred years ago most people in the West still felt an emotional and even to a certain vague extent a spiritual connection to the place in which they were born and grew up. I’m not talking about ethnic identity. Just a sense of having a particular place which is home and having some link to one’s own past, one’s family’s past and the past of a community.

Today we are all rootless cosmopolitans.

Which explains why Europeans don’t care about being displaced from their ancestral lands. They don’t even understand the concept of ancestral lands. They don’t know about their ancestors. They have no past. More often than not they have no children, so they don’t have a future. What they have is an eternal present of consumption, hedonism and mindless entertainment.

The question is - if Europeans don’t care about their home and have no past or future why should anyone care about their fate? Europeans themselves don’t care about it.

The problem is that rootless cosmopolitans aren’t worried about losing their homes. They have no homes. If things go bad in one place they’ll just move somewhere else. It doesn’t matter. One place is the same as everywhere else. They’re not ever going to fight to hold on to what is theirs because they can’t even comprehend the concept. It’s not that they’re not materialistic. They’re materialistic to an extreme degree. But the material possessions that matter to them are infinitely portable. You sell your house in one city and buy a house in another city. You sell your consumer goods and buy new ones in your new city. You still have your bank account. You still have everything that matters to you on your smartphone.

To a rootless cosmopolitan home is anywhere that has a wifi connection.

Wednesday, February 20, 2019

hope, alternatives and Jeremy Corbyn

I’ve been spoken before about my theory that in order to have hope people need to believe that viable political alternatives exist, even if those alternatives are rather unattractive. During the Cold War people disgruntled by life under communism could console themselves that a viable alternative existed in the West. And people disgruntled by life under capitalism could console themselves that a viable alternative existed in the Soviet Union.

Brexit was largely motivated by Britons’ belief that a viable alternative to the EU was possible. That’s why the political establishment has worked so tirelessly to destroy Brexit - in order to teach the British voters that they are not ever going to be given an alternative. That’s why so much effort has been put into opposing Trump. The fact that Trump has achieved nothing doesn’t matter - what matters is that Americans must be taught the lesson that real democracy means you get to choose between two candidates approved by the Establishment, two candidates whose policies are in fact pretty much identical. Americans most learn that an alternative is not permitted.

Which brings us to the current well-funded campaign to destroy Jeremy Corbyn. Now I’m not suggesting that Corbynite Labour is a great alternative, or even a good alternative, but it does at least represent some alternative. Which is why powerful interests have decided that Corbyn must go. It is unthinkable that British voters should be offered anything resembling an actual alternative.

Once Corbyn is destroyed the Labour Party will return to Blairitism, which is of course in every way indistinguishable from modern Toryism. Once again Britain will be a genuine democracy with two absolutely identical parties alternating in power, and with the British people properly trained to vote the way they’re told to vote.

the TERF wars continue

The war between the trans mob and the TERFs (trans-exclusionary radical feminists) continues to provide amusement. Martina Navratilova, having been savaged already by a Twitter SJW mob for daring to suggest that women’s sports should be for, you know, actual women, has decided to double down. She has now suggested that having “women” who were born male competing in women’s sports is cheating.

It’s actually very amusing to see Navratilova, who has been for years an ardent SJW and a zealous persecutor of those like former tennis star Margaret Court who have refused to bend the knee to SJWs, suddenly realising that the latest manifestation of the LGBT agenda is going to destroy women’s sports such as tennis. This means that lesbians will suffer!

Personally I’m looking forward to seeing women’s professional sports destroyed. Women have enthusiastically supported the LGBT agenda. It would be very useful if they were brought face to face with the reality of the hostility of the trans crowd to actual women.

I can’t wait for the day when every single major women’s tennis tournament is won by men masquerading as women. I can’t wait to see every single major women’s golf tournament won by blokes in dresses. Best of all will be seeing every single Olympic gold medal for women’s events won by men in skirts. I have no doubt that all these things will come to pass within a decade at the most.

Feminists have been overjoyed by the prospect of infiltrating and destroying male leisure activities. Now they’re going to get a taste of the same medicine. Perhaps women will start to realise that feminism and LGBT activism are anti-women.