Thursday, October 27, 2016

homosexuality is a learned behaviour

Another story the mainstream media will do its best to ignore - an interesting scientific study by Lawrence Mayer and Paul McHugh on sexuality and identity. 

Here are the key quotes. 

“The understanding of sexual orientation as an innate, biologically fixed property of human beings — the idea that people are ‘born that way’ — is not supported by scientific evidence.”

and

“The hypothesis that gender identity is an innate, fixed property of human beings that is independent of biological sex — that a person might be ‘a man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’ — is not supported by scientific evidence.”

Which is pretty much what I’ve always suspected. Homosexuality is a learned behaviour. Transgenderism is unscientific nonsense.

This is of course why the LGBT lobby is so anxious to spread its propaganda far and wide - they know that if homosexuality can be learned then it can be taught. And they would very much like to teach it to our children.

selling the nationalist brand

If we’re going to defeat globalism we need to take a look at the things that have made certain ideologies popular and successful. The popularity of an ideology has never had anything to do with the ideology itself. It’s the way the ideology is sold. It’s the marketing.

Look at marxism. Marxism became extremely popular among the young and fashionable in the 1930s. Why did this happen? It happened because if you were a marxist you could pose as a fashionable rebel. You were one of the cool kids. And you could portray yourself as being virtuous. You could claim the moral high ground.

Remarkably enough, even after the horrors unleashed by Stalin and Mao, Marxism was remarkably successful at maintaining the moral high ground. After all marxism sounds virtuous. It’s all about justice and fairness and equality isn’t it? What could be more virtuous than that?

Marxism is now all but dead but in the 90s another ideology took its place - the twinned ideology of globalism and social justice. Like marxism it sounds very virtuous in theory. It’s all about justice and fairness and equality isn’t it? What could be more virtuous than that? 

It was always difficult fighting against marxism, especially among the young, because the alternatives seemed a lot less cool and a lot less virtuous. And that’s the problem we have in fighting globalism/social justice. The alternatives won’t get you accepted by the cool kids. And you won’t get the same opportunities to virtue-signal (something that is incredibly important for women and young people). Being a nationalist will get you labelled as being Literally Hitler. Being a social conservative will get you labelled as a hateful bigot.

In an age of social media this becomes even more crucial. Everyone wants to be invited to join the cool kids and no-one wants to be Hitler or a hateful bigot.

Somehow we need to turn this around. We need to make nationalism cool and we need to capture the moral high ground.

One way of making nationalism more attractive would be to portray globalists as being on wrong side of history. Nobody wants to be on the wrong side of history.

Capturing the moral high ground should be easy. We have the advantage that globalism/social justice really is evil and unworkable. However that’s not enough. We need to be a lot  better at marketing. We need to emphasise that nationalism is a good thing for everyone. We need to make it clear that fighting for the well-being of one’s own race, one’s own ethnicity, one’s own nation, is good for everyone. White people should be proud of being white. Black people should be proud of being black. The French should be proud of their French cultural heritage. The Poles should be proud of their Polish cultural heritage. The Vietnamese should be proud of their Vietnamese cultural heritage. Bolivians should be proud of their Bolivian cultural heritage. Globalism is a threat to everybody’s culture.

Immigration should be opposed not because it’s bad for white people but because it’s bad for everyone. You can’t solve the problems of Somalia by resettling the entire Somalian population in Minnesota or Sweden. Syrians are better off in Syria and Syria is not going to be helped by having the best and the brightest Syrians moved to Germany. Refugee problems would be best solved if western nations stopped destroying other people’s countries. And it’s the globalists who promote the wars that cause the refugee problems.

We also need to point out that social conservatism is good for everybody. Feminism should be opposed because feminism is anti-woman. Sexual promiscuity is bad for women. We do homosexuals no favours by encouraging their unhealthy self-destructive lifestyles. We do confused unhappy people no favours by pretending that they can magically change their sex or choose from 57 different genders. Abortion is not only morally wrong it is psychologically damaging to the woman.

Sadly up to now the anti-globalists have made few efforts to take back the moral high ground. The alt-right has in some ways made things worse by indulging in childish shock tactics and by not distancing itself from its lunatic fringe. Every political movement has its lunatic fringe. The alt-right’s lunatic fringe is in truth more harmless than most (it’s a handful of nutters who live in their parents’ basements) but the trouble is they don’t sound harmless and they provide a very convenient stick with which SJWs can beat everybody who opposes their agenda.

Marxists enjoyed so much success because they were focused, they were disciplined and they were good at selling their ideology. We need to be prepared to learn from their success.

Monday, October 24, 2016

the 19th century roots of our cultural malaise


The great tragedy of western civilisation is that its very strengths are its fatal weaknesses. Openness, innovation, science, democracy and freedom are all no doubt wonderful things but they seem to lead inevitably to corruption, degeneracy, nihilism, despair, a loss of faith and finally cultural suicide.

Cultural marxism is often blamed for undermining the foundations of our civilisation but the process was already under way before cultural marxism began. By the time cultural marxism was in a position to exert any real influence the undermining was well advanced. 

One of the early manifestations of decline was the rise of modernism in art and literature. The exaltation of ugliness and squalor combined with an extreme hostility to traditional values made modernism a potent if subtle engine of destruction. Our cultural dynamism led to art and literature that corrupted and demoralised. Art and literature headed for the gutter, where they have remained ever since. Modernism produced music that was unlistenable, novels that were unreadable and art that was impossible to look at without being appalled. And modernism had already begun to exert its pernicious influence in the late 19th century, long predating cultural marxism.

Science has brought many benefits but it gave rise to a bleak inhuman and mechanistic worldview devoid of hope. It led us inexorably down the path to nihilism.

The growth of capitalism gave us prosperity but it destroyed communities. Rural areas became relatively depopulated while urban areas became hotbeds of crime and degeneracy.

Feminism in the 19th century promised to emancipate women but it enslaved them while destroying families.

Medicine made many advances in the 19th century but the medical profession developed delusions of grandeur, thinking that every social problem could be turned into a medical problem. As a result it gave birth to pseudosciences like psychiatry and psychology.

Democracy was supposed to usher in an era of unparalleled freedom. It has slowly but surely destroyed our freedoms and corrupted our governments. Democracy and corruption are like inseparable twins. 

The rise of mass media began in the 19th century with the explosive growth of newspapers. There were fond hopes that this would lead to healthy open debate. It led to propaganda and manipulation. Democracy and mass media were to a large extent responsible for the increasing madness of politics, as governments became steadily more short-sighted, cynical and reckless. This madness led to western civilisation’s first serious suicide attempt in 1914.

Cultural marxism succeeded so well because it took advantage of weaknesses and vulnerabilities that were already all too apparent. Cultural marxism could not have destroyed a healthy civilisation. The seeds of destruction were already present in the West. Cultural marxism did not plant those seeds although it certainly cultivated them assiduously.

If the remnants of our culture are to be saved we will need to address its inherent weaknesses and tendency to self-destruction. 

Thursday, October 20, 2016

the war on masculinity

The Social Justice war on masculinity continues unabated. Jim Goad has a good article on this subject at Taki’s Magazine, Reclaiming Toxic Masculinity. I liked his point that we hear so much in the media about “toxic masculinity” but we never hear about toxic homosexuality” or “toxic bitchiness.”

The war on masculinity doesn’t just destroy families and ruin the lives of both men and women. It destroys other things. One of the things that it has utterly destroyed is Christianity. No religion can survive once it has been entirely feminised. Not only are men driven away from the faith - without men (actual masculine men rather than emasculated girly-men) the women become increasingly prone to wallowing in emotion, and increasingly totalitarian. It’s an often overlooked point that totalitarianism is often driven by emotion rather than reason.

Politics becomes entirely driven by feelings. We have, unfortunately, already reached the point at which politics is nothing but feelings.

And just when you think our civilisation can’t sink any lower, two New York lesbians are outraged that a magazine aimed at toddlers doesn’t have enough pro-homosexual propaganda - Nothing is sacred. nothing is safe

This is why homosexuals should never be allowed to adopt children or to act as parents. They only care for their kids insofar as they can use them to advance their political agenda.

Also worth reading is the latest post at Upon Hope about the many and various ways in which liberals engage in direct and indirect child abuse.


unanticipated costs of the Cold War?

I’ve recently seen the interesting idea put forward that many of the follies that currently threaten the very survival of the West were actually misguided Cold War policies. It’s an idea that is worth some thought.

One element of this theory is that western countries were sensitive to communist propaganda that the West was a hotbed of racism and colonialism. Throwing open the borders to Third World immigration was a way of refuting these claims. It’s notable that the United States, Britain and Australia all moved towards liberal immigration policies in the 1960s. These three countries all felt themselves to be particularly vulnerable to charges of racism and colonialism (Britain because of its imperialist past, the United States because of its imperialist present and Australia because of the White Australia Policy). 

The move towards open borders was also a means of furthering western propaganda about the virtues of the Free World and also as a means of trying to cement various defence alliances in Asia, Africa and elsewhere.

There’s no question that “victory” in the Cold War came at a substantial price. The dangerous growth of the military-industrial complex (that President Eisenhower tried unavailingly to warn the US against) was one of the big costs. Is it possible that the foolish enthusiasm for open borders was another cost of the Cold War? 

Of course this begs the crucial questions - was the Cold War necessary and was it worth the cost? 

I think that while Stalin was still in power some kind of confrontational posture, or at least an aggressively defensive posture, probably was unavoidable. The Soviet Union under Stalin really was an Evil Empire and while Stalin’s foreign policy was often cautious there’s no doubt that his long-term intentions were pretty sinister. In the Khrushchev era the Soviet threat was still pretty real, this being as much as anything a product of Khrushchev’s unpredictability. 

I’m not really sure that the Soviet Union under Brezhnev was quite such a mortal threat. The success of Detente in the 70s tends to indicate that a live and let live policy was quite feasible. I’m not suggesting that the Soviet system under Brezhnev was either admirable or benign (far from it) but much of the anti-Soviet hysteria was overblown. 

In any case whether the Cold War really was or was not a confrontation between good and evil isn’t really the point. The point is that the Cold War caused a substantial deformation in western foreign policy, and perhaps domestic policy as well, and we may be still paying the price.

Of course what all this means is that we should be incredibly careful about being drawn into another Cold War with either Russia or China. The West has its own problems to solve and a Cold War 2.0 may well make it impossible for us to confront our very real current problems. We need to be particularly careful about falling prey to the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Bob Dylan, Nobel laureate

I have to say I have somewhat mixed feelings about Bob Dylan’s Nobel Prize for Literature. On the other hand the Nobel Prize has been pretty much a joke for decades and this can’t really make things any worse.

What is amusing is watching the reactions of Social Justice Warriors to the award, with accusations of white privilege being hurled at the one-time darling of the Left, and with feminists chiming in with hysterical attacks on his supposed sexism. These things make me feel much more positive towards the new Nobel laureate.

And whatever his faults Dylan is hardly a conventional leftist. He’s never really been a conventional anything. He’s always been too restless a figure to be neatly pigeonholed. This is a man whose political hero is Barry Goldwater, and who has released several albums of Christian gospel music. Dylan in fact has always come across as being a guy with a deep (if perhaps sometimes confused) affection for traditional America. It’s actually rather surprising that the Nobel Committee chose somebody who is, by their notoriously left-wing standards, so politically unreliable.

In any case if the decision has upset SJWs so much then upon reflection I’m rather happy with it!

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

an unbiased online encyclopedia

For those who despise the SJW-riddled mess that is Wikipedia there is now an alternative. There's Infogalactic, which is a fork of Wikipedia, and which aims to offer a genuinely unbiased source of information. It's new so it's still a bit slow at times but it's worth taking a look at.

Also worth checking out is Gab, an alternative to Twitter based on the revolutionary concept of free speech.

Monday, October 17, 2016

globalists - the new oppressed victim class


We’re all familiar with the various protected victim classes and the fact that even the mildest criticism of these classes is enough to provoke a firestorm of liberal outrage. 

It now appears that there is a new oppressed victim class to add to the list - globalists. Even to use the term globalist may soon be forbidden. Apparently globalist is an evil racist anti-semitic codeword for Jewish. 

Naturally it follows that if the very word globalist is forbidden then it means that any debate on the issue is shut down. Which is of course the object of the exercise. And so the world becomes a little bit more Orwellian every single day.

Friday, October 14, 2016

identity and ideology

The 20th century has been described as an age of ideology. In the past few decades ideology seems to have been become less important. Identity politics has become the dominant theme. Politics is no longer a clash between believers in competing ideologies but a clash between competing identity groups. People vote for parties and candidates that will advance the interests of their identity group (be it feminists, homosexuals, blacks or other ethnic groups) - the actual policies of the parties and candidates are no longer relevant. In most cases elections are contests between parties whose policies are more or less identical anyway.

There are those on the alt-right who believe that whites should adopt identity politics. The idea of white nationalism has been gaining ground among alt-righters in the United States. 

Personally I’m a bit sceptical, for several reasons. I’m all in favour of nationalism but I’m dubious about a nationalism based on something as vague and as broad as race, or even ethnicity. It concerns me that it’s the sort of woolly thinking that led to the nightmare that is the EU. It’s also the sort of thinking that led Winston Churchill to come up with his ludicrous idea of some kind of brotherhood of all the English-Speaking Peoples, blithely ignoring the fact that the various English-speaking nations had no actual interests in common.

My second reason for scepticism is that I simply cannot bring myself to consider all white people, or even all Anglo-Celts, to be somehow “my people.” I can’t even consider all white Australians to be my people. I find it impossible to feel any sense of solidarity with white Australian feminists, white Australian LGBT activists or white Australian environmentalist extremists. I feel no solidarity at all with liberals. I’m afraid that I can’t really accept the idea that identity trumps ideology. Call me old-fashioned, but ideology matters to me. 

I don’t want my country overrun by immigrants but I also don’t want my country trashed by feminists, homosexuals, environmentalists and other assorted liberals. The threat to our civilisation posed by liberalism in all its myriad manifestations is far greater and more far-reaching than the threat posed by immigrants. Without liberalism there would be no immigration menace.

My third reservation is this - has identity really superseded ideology? I’m not so sure. It’s true that the major political parties are now more or less interchangeable. It’s true that politicians talk about identity politics more than they talk about ideology. But then anyone who believes what politicians say is pretty naïve - politicians always lie. Ideology does still matter, it’s just that the major political parties all share the same ideology. Their devotion to that ideology is as absolute as the devotion of the most devout Marxist. The ruling ideology  is free trade, global capitalism and open borders combined with social radicalism and identity politics. The social radicalism and identity politics are needed to ensure that the population remains divided and demoralised and thus unlikely to challenge the rule of the elites. 

This globalist ideology has nothing to do with traditional notions of left or right but that should not lead us to make the mistake of thinking that it is not a political ideology. The age of ideology has not ended.

Thursday, October 13, 2016

How the Left Won the Cold War

This is an old article (dating from 2010) by Paul Gottfried but still well worth reading, How the Left Won the Cold War.

Gottfried provides a fascinating perspective on the Cold War, arguing that, “The Soviets left the stage of History after a more radical Left had taken over.” Gottfried also chronicles the decay of “conservatism” as it came increasingly to embrace cultural marxism and he believes this started happening in the 1960s.

He also points out that what passes for leftism today bears no resemblance whatsoever to leftism as it was understood prior to the 1960s, and that similarly what passes for conservatism today bears no resemblance whatsoever to conservatism as it was understood prior to the 1960s.

when did we take our fatal wrong turning?


The latest post at Upon Hope is an interesting defence of the Middle Ages. I have considerable sympathy for the view that the medieval period was not an era of ignorance and backwardness. 

This raises the question - at what point did western civilisation make its fatal wrong turning?

Mark suggests that it was the Enlightenment. I think there’s no question that the Enlightenment had a baleful influence on our civilisation. But why was the Enlightenment so successful in undermining traditional values and more particularly in undermining Christianity? Could it be that Christianity had already been fatally weakened by the Reformation? The Reformation destroyed the concept of Christendom. It destroyed the idea of a universal church. Henceforth there would be dozens of Christian sects. Surely all these competing sects can’t all be right? And once you accept the idea that they can’t all be right it’s only a small step to accepting the idea that maybe all of them are wrong. The Reformation made the growth of scepticism inevitable and scepticism slowly but surely ate away at the foundations of Christian belief.

Once you are prepared to accept that everyone has the right to follow their own conscience when it comes to choosing a church then logically you must accept that they also have the right to choose no church, in other words to choose atheism.

Without a concept of Christendom and without a universal church western civilisation was poorly placed to fight off the challenge of the Enlightenment.

Once Christianity was dealt its fatal blow (and I believe Christianity was already doomed by the early 19th century) then all the other pillars of traditional society that Mark mentions in his post - hierarchy, monarchy, a sense of permanence - were similarly doomed. The Enlightenment prepared the way for democracy and socialism.

Was there any way western civilisation could have saved itself? By the 19th century the forces that would ultimately destroy us were already well established - capitalism, democracy, mass media and government involvement in education. These forces would in turn produce the most malevolent civilisational disease of all - liberalism.

Unfortunately while the 20th century would see liberalism seriously challenged it would also see liberalism’s challengers totally discredited. Liberalism not only emerged triumphant but with a halo of entirely undeserved sanctity. 

Is there any way we can rebuild the traditional values that we have lost? To do so we would have to reject the false god of liberalism. It is possible that this might happen, but unfortunately it’s not likely unless things start to get very bad indeed. Of course it’s entirely possible that things will get very bad indeed.

Sunday, October 2, 2016

Christianity, paganism and the alt-right

There’s been some discussion recently on various alt-right sites about the future of religion in western society. It seems to boil down to four questions.

Can western civilisation survive without religion?

If not, can secular religions take the place of real religion?

If the answer to both these questions is no, can Christianity be revived?

And lastly, can some kind of paganism fill the void?

There have been attempts to create purely atheistic societies but in most cases (such as the Soviet Union) religion was repressed rather than destroyed. The territories encompassed by the Soviet Union remained fundamentally religious. 

The most determined attempt to create an atheistic society has been our own, over the past half century or so. So far the results have not been inspiring. In fact if it appears to have been a partial success that is only because a large of the population has been pumped full of Prozac and similar drugs, this being the only way people can cope with the emptiness of modern life.

Substituting secular religions for actual religions has been tried, with dismal results. In our own case environmentalism and liberalism have been the most popular substitutes and they seem to make people less happy than outright atheism. These secular religions offer none of the comforts of real religion but you do get guilt. Lots and lots of guilt. This is the irony - secular religions are much more guilt-ridden than real religions. Even worse, the guilt seems to escalate remorselessly as we find more and more things to feel guilty about and so the general level of unhappiness also increases remorselessly. 

And the guilt leads people to be more and more irrational and to support more and more societally destructive policies. If we choose this option the chances of survival for our civilisation are so slim as to be almost nonexistent.

So can Christianity be revived? It’s possible but I personally think there is absolutely no chance that such a revival could come from the established mainstream churches. They are so hopelessly corrupted by the social justice agenda that nothing can be hoped for from that quarter. The Canadian United Church for instance is so “inclusive” it has openly atheist pastors. The established mainstream churches would have to be swept away. They are enemies of Christianity.

Is it possible that a genuine Christian revival could take place outside the established mainstream churches? I think the answer is yes but I’m not particularly optimistic that it will happen. Any form of Christian church will attract SJW entryists. And Christianity seems to be peculiarly vulnerable in this respect. My fear is that a new revived Christianity would be overrun by SJWs within a generation.

So what about paganism? At first glance it seems a very remote possibility. Modern neo-paganism is hopeless feminised and warm and fuzzy and filled with somewhat unstable personalities (to put it mildly). Neo-paganism is also all too often merely a front for hedonism and libertinism. Of course the alt-righters who cherish the pagan option are not really thinking about neo-paganism. Or even the Graeco-Roman paganism. They’re thinking of resuscitating the Old Religions. The Norse and German pagan religions. The worship of Wotan (or Odin as the Norse called him). The attraction of this (to some alt-righters) is the blood and soil element. They see this kind of paganism as an ideal vehicle for nationalism.

I can understand (up to a point) the attraction. And the worship of Odin does seem superficially masculine and likely to repel SJWs (which is a bonus). On the other hand there’s something fundamentally artificial about trying to revive a dead religion. It’s perhaps an appealing fantasy but I’m sceptical as to whether it would ever amount to much. For social conservatives like myself it doesn’t have much appeal.

Options three and four seem like the only viable choices. Option three, the revival of Christianity, is the most attractive but in some ways the most dangerous. Christianity was conquered once by liberalism and it would require constant vigilance to prevent the same thing from happening again. Option four seems terribly unlikely and it carries with it its own dangers.

If we can’t make either option three or four work we may by default find ourselves left with option five - Islam as the only viable bulwark against liberalism. Not a very happy thought.