Tuesday, January 23, 2018

Catholic converts vs cradle Catholics

There’s an interesting post at A Political Refugee From the Global Village, Anthony Burgess on Catholic converts, on Catholic converts vs cradle Catholics. I’m not a Catholic so I’m not really in a position to have any kind of dogmatic opinion on this subject. I was intrigued though by the suggestion that cradle Catholics tended to react to Vatican II by shrugging their shoulders and accepting it, while Catholic converts like Evelyn Waugh saw it as an unmitigated disaster.

My instincts tell me that the Catholic converts were probably correct in this case.

Converts do seem to be generally speaking more zealous than those raised in a particular creed, whether that creed is a religion or a political ideology. Converts to communism back in the pre-World War 2 period tended to be very extreme, sometimes even to the extent of becoming Soviet spies. Were they more zealous than the so-called “red diaper” babies of the postwar period, who absorbed communism with their mother’s milk? I’m not quite sure.

Converts to cults and fads (such as veganism) are of course usually very gung-ho.

And social justice warriors are often converted to the cause at university so that might explain some of their fanaticism.

The various dissident right groups (alt-right, neo-reactionaries, whatever) are of course comprised entirely of converts, which might have interesting consequences.

Getting back to religion, perhaps one reason for the weakness of modern Christianity is that it’s just not making converts on a large scale any longer. Perhaps a religion needs the zeal of converts to keep it vital and alive?

Saturday, January 20, 2018

the dangers of IQ fetishism

I occasionally read various HBD blogs and I’m always bemused by the IQ fetishism. Now I’m not denying that IQ is important and I think it is likely that genetics is the major (but not sole) factor in determining a person’s IQ. I just don’t think it’s as all-important as the HBD crowd thinks.

On such blogs you will always find commenters solemnly intoning the mantra that only a high IQ population can create and maintain a functional society. Now it’s certainly true that high IQ populations have been quite successful in building functional societies. Western Europe, North America, Japan, Australia are obvious examples. The problem is that once they’ve built those functional societies high IQ people seem to be overcome by an overwhelming desire to destroy them.

So what is going on? My personal belief is that part of the explanation is that that IQ tests do measure something real but the quality that they measure is only a component of overall intelligence but not the totality. To be a “smart” person requires more than just IQ. Unfortunately the other components of “smartness” are not easily measurable. Those other components include what is usually referred to as common sense. And there is not necessarily a correlation between IQ and common sense.

There’s also the problem that a high IQ can be an actual disadvantage. It seems to make people more inclined to believe things based on theory rather than experience, and often to believe things based on fanciful theories that make no actual sense.

The other part of the explanation is that maintaining functional societies requires a lot more than just being smart. An instinct for self-preservation is necessary. Some degree of self-confidence is required as well. For a society to survive the members of that society have to believe that they have a right to survive and that their society is worth preserving.

Some moral sense is required. Without that moral sense civilisation soon declines into decadence. The family decays. Degeneracy becomes more and more the norm. Society rots from within.

It’s unfortunate that these other very necessary qualities do not seem to be at all well correlated with high IQ. In some cases there may well be a negative correlation.

When you look at countries like Sweden, Germany, the United States and Britain (all countries bent on self-destruction) it becomes painfully obvious that high IQ is not much help in maintaining functional societies in the long term. Japan, with an average IQ slightly higher than those countries, seems to be much less interested in destroying itself. On the other hand Taiwan, with about the same average IQ as Japan, seems to be enthusiastically embarking on a program of national self-destruction. Russia, with average IQ comparable to the US, seems to have very little interest in destroying itself.

China’s average IQ seems to be roughly equal to that of Japan and they have no interest whatsoever in national suicide.

When it comes to national survival IQ does not seem to be terribly important.

Sunday, January 14, 2018

the rise of SJWism in eastern Europe

There’s a very interesting recent piece by Anatoly Karlin at Unz Review, Poland Will Legalize Gay Marriage Within 10 Years.

He argues that SJWism already has an almost unstoppable momentum in Poland and indeed in most of eastern Europe (but not in Russia).

I fear that he is almost certainly correct. American popular culture is a poison to which white people seem to have no resistance. And of course there are also the deliberate nation-wrecking policies of western NGOs and the western media.

American popular culture has been the biggest single factor contributing to the destruction of western Europe and of countries such as Canada and Australia. American popular culture is pure evil. All of it. It’s not just the overt SJW propaganda contained in Hollywood movies, American television, pop music, etc.. It’s more basic than that. It’s the promotion of a materialistic, hedonistic consumerist worldview.

Some social conservatives like to imagine that Poland will have some immunity to this due to the supposed strength of Polish Catholicism. Anatoly points out that the facts do not support this belief. The sad truth is that organised Christianity is now part of the problem. It is part of the globalist/SJW axis of evil. I personally incline to the view that it’s an inherent weakness in Christianity. Christianity’s universalism makes Christians particularly susceptible to the siren call of globalism, and Christianity’s basic touchy-feely obsession with the virtues of niceness makes it almost impossible for Christians to resist the lure of Social Justice.

It’s clearly much too late to save western Europe, so what can be done to save eastern Europe? Anatoly suggests that the promotion of cultural anti-Americanism is essential. I agree entirely. The problem is, how can such a thing be done?

Russia has resisted because the American desire to destroy Russian civilisation and Russian society is so painfully obvious. The Americans also intend to destroy all eastern European societies but this is not yet quite so obvious to Poles, Czechs and other eastern Europeans.

It’s probably not too late to save Australia but it soon will be. And while the promotion of cultural anti-Americanism is the only way we can save ourselves it is difficult to see any prospects of this happening.

One of the chief difficulties is of course the fact that Americans are not evil people. They are in fact quite pleasant people on the whole. American culture is however a different matter. The old American culture, the one that generations of Americans cherished, has been destroyed. Those who currently control American culture hate ordinary Americans with a burning passion. They hate the old American culture and the old American values. Ordinary Americans and the culture they cherished were the first targets of the new American elites. It’s the US cultural establishment that is the problem.

Being anti-American culture is very different from being anti-American. Being anti-American culture is necessary for survival but there’s a lot of money behind the US cultural establishment.

Monday, January 8, 2018

economic apartheid

What is the future for the West? It seems to me that it’s more and more likely to be apartheid. Not racial apartheid, but economic apartheid.

It’s not just that the gap between the elites and the non-elites is widening. There’s also the elephant in the room, by which I mean automation. Now people have been saying for decades that automation is going to have grim consequences. It already has. Countless jobs have disappeared. That’s nothing compared to what we can look forward to in the next twenty years or so.

Of course there are other factors that are going to make the problem worse, immigration and outsourcing being the obvious ones.

There are going to be more and more people with no prospect of decent employment. No prospect of well-paid or meaningful employment. What exactly are the elites going to do with all these people?

Most will exist on welfare. They will still have some usefulness for the elites as consumers.

It is quite likely that the elites will want to employ more and more people as domestic servants. At the moment they prefer immigrants for this because they can pay them less. Pretty soon that won’t be a problem. They’ll be able to pay pleasingly low wages to anybody seeking such work, immigrant or not.

We may even see people forced into domestic service as part of “work for the dole” schemes. A very attractive proposition for the elites - they get servants at rock-bottom prices plus they get the pleasure of humiliating those forced to do such work. The media will applaud such schemes.

Of course the non-elites will be increasingly dissatisfied but that’s not going to be a problem. The elites will be living in well-guarded compounds. The non-elites will be confined to townships where they can’t cause any trouble. They can easily be bussed to the elite compounds to perform their menial chores and then bussed back to the townships at night.

Economic apartheid seems to be the best description for such a future.

But it won’t be so bad for the non-elites. They’ll be given enough money to buy cheap smartphones so they’ll still be able to access social media, there’ll still be lots of porn on the internet and superhero movies in the theatres. They’ll be happy with that.

Saturday, January 6, 2018

victimhood rankings and the Cultural Revolution

It’s interesting to see the way victimhood rankings seem to change over time. It wasn’t that long ago that women were considered to have victimhood status merely for being women. That no longer seems to be the case. And blacks seemed to be pretty comfortably ensconced at the top. Many blacks are learning that it’s no longer quite so simple.

An interesting recent case was the social media Two Minute hate unleashed against black British Formula One world champion Lewis Hamilton. His crime? He told his nephew that boys don’t wear princess dresses. He quickly discovered that if you offend the LGBTQwhatever lobby then being black won’t save you.

Other blacks have also discovered that being Christian cancels all your Victimhood Points.

There is also of course the ongoing war between the TERFs (trans exclusionary radical feminists) and the trans lobby, which seems likely to end in utter defeat for the TERFS.

It would be tempting to see these things as signs that the Coalition of the Fringes is breaking down. I think it’s more likely it’s the beginning of vicious internal power struggles within that coalition.

The globalists have the SJWs as their loyal foot soldiers but these foot soldiers are not disciplined revolutionary cadres. They are in many (or even most) cases people who are inherently unstable and unpredictable. A certain degree of in-fighting is inevitable and when you’re dealing with unstable people that in-fighting is likely to be quite messy and quite bloody.

The question is whether the globalists can prevent the in-fighting from spiralling out of control. The Cultural Revolution in China was stopped cold when the Communist Party had had enough of it and said it was going to be stopped. It stopped. Immediately. The Cultural Revolution in the West may be more difficult to control.

Sunday, December 31, 2017

popular culture and kids

I’ve just been reading a discussion thread at Steve Sailer’s iSteve blog on the latest Star Wars movie and I find myself filled with dismay. It’s not the fact that the movie itself is apparently virulent anti-white pro-liberal propaganda, That goes without saying. What I find dismaying is the number of commenters who tell us that they have just taken their children to see this movie and they were appalled by the propaganda and by the fact that the propaganda was just as bad as that in the previous Star Wars movie. They admit that they knew the movie would be politically correct propaganda and yet they took their kids to see it.

These are people who for the most part not only identify as conservatives, they identify as belonging to the dissident wing of conservatism. They have contempt for mainstream conservatives. And yet they are simply unable to comprehend the blindingly obvious fact that all movies today are social justice propaganda. Every single movie. They still think that if they keep going to the movies eventually they’ll come across a few good movies that aren’t social justice propaganda. Which is not going to happen. Movies that do not support the social justice narrative do not get made these days.

So if you know that this movie is going to be poisonous, why on Earth would you take your children to see it?

Now I do understand that it’s easy for me to say that I find no problem at all avoiding modern popular culture. I don’t have children. I do understand that for people with kids it’s a real problem. But we’re talking about movies that are genuinely evil, movies that preach out-and-out hate for white people and for all the traditions of western culture and for all the norms of civilised society. This is a Disney movie and Disney is a studio that pushes the homosexual agenda even more aggressively than the other studios.

Of course the problem is that your kids are not going to be very happy if all their facebook friends and all their friends at school have seen the new Star Wars movie but they’re not allowed to see it. On the other hand if you’re allowing your children to use social media like facebook it could be argued that you’re already failing in your duties as a parent. It could even be argued that if you’re sending your kids to school you’re already failing them.

The real challenge is to find alternatives, and find ways to persuade children to accept those alternatives. There are thousands of wonderful children’s books and “young adult” books that were published in the pre-PC days. There are hundreds of excellent movies for kids that were made in happier times. There are extremely good TV series from the past that were aimed at kids. All this stuff not only still exists, it’s remarkably easy to access. Getting kids to accept the older stuff will be very challenging but the alternative is exposing them to cultural poison.

Friday, December 29, 2017

crybullies and the New Victorianism

One of the more spectacular current misunderstandings of the world is of the oft-expressed idea that feminism is turning the clock back to Victorian times, with women cast as delicate little flowers who can’t handle the real world. This idea has resurfaced in the wake of the latest sexual harassment witch-hunts. This whole idea is entirely false.

The women who scream and cry and stamp their feet about their feelings getting hurt are not delicate little flowers. They’re vicious bullies who are out to destroy anyone who dares to disagree with them or who is unwilling to grovel to them. They’re crybullies. Their feelings are not hurt. It’s all an act, and a very successful one. Feminists have figured out that pretending to be reduced to tears by nasty misogynist men is an incredibly useful and effective tactic for getting what they want. It’s a tactic that women discovered quite some time ago. Probably around 100,000 years ago.

They are not turning back the clock to Victorian mores. Nor do they have any intention of doing so. This is the age of slut culture and slut culture is one of the products of feminism. The objective is not to resurrect traditional sexual morality. The objective is to demonstrate their power.

It’s a tactic that has been adopted by most so-called victim groups although none of them do it quite so effectively as the feminists.

Women being women and therefore complicated and contradictory it is of course likely that other things are going on. Recently we’ve seen the phenomenon (chronicled with gleeful amusement by Steve Sailer) of women complaining because they were not being sexually harassed. Never underestimate the bitterness of women who find that they are not the object of male sexual attention, either because they’re too fat or too ugly or they’ve hit the wall.

Women also get angry when they find they’re not being sexually harassed by the right men. If for example the men concerned are not hot billionaires. It’s also quite probably that some women start throwing harassment allegations around when the sex turns out to be not as good as they’d hoped. Or when the sex turns out to be too good, which makes them feel too much like sluts. Or when they’ve basically behaved like whores and they’re afraid that people will notice.

The lesson is that nothing said by a feminist can be taken at face value. There are always wheels within wheels.