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.

Saturday, December 23, 2017

a better monarchy

I can understand the appeal of the idea of ethnostates. I can understand the appeal of nations bound together by a common culture, history and religion.

The only problem with the idea is that very few of the currently existing nations qualify as ethnostates.

Britain doesn’t qualify, unless you regard Scots and Welsh and English as interchangeable. Italy doesn’t qualify - northern Italians and southern Italians are certainly not ethnically interchangeable. Spain definitely doesn’t qualify. Belgium is most certainly not an ethnostate.

I’m not talking about these nations as they are today - even fifty years ago before the beginnings of mass immigration they were not ethnostates. Germany maybe, but it was divided on religious lines.

As for countries like Australia, maybe up until the 1940s there might have been a chance for a kind of ethnostate except for the fact of the Irish Catholics. Canada never had a chance, unless they were prepared to sacrifice Quebec. There was never the slightest chance in the US.

So the big problem is that the creation of European ethnostates would have required the dissolution of most of the major nation states. That would not necessarily have been a bad thing had the EU been conceived as a loose federation rather a centralised bureaucratic super-state.

It’s understandable that those who dislike globalism tend to lean towards nationalism since nationalism seems like the only viable alternative. But is it? Perhaps we should be looking at other alternatives. Perhaps we should look to the Holy Roman Empire as an alternative. The reputation of the Holy Roman Empire never really recovered from Voltaire’s characterisation of it as neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. But in fact its weakness (or its apparent weakness) was the very thing that was so great about the Holy Roman Empire.

It was also the great strength of the empire of the Habsburgs which overlapped with but was by no means identical with the Holy Roman Empire. There was a strong enough central authority to keep it intact and provide a strong army but it was not string enough or bureaucratic enough to enforce conformity. As a result the Habsburg Empire had lots of diversity. Cultural diversity, ethnic diversity, linguistic diversity, even religious diversity.

How could this have worked? Very simple. It was a monarchy. Unity was maintained by a common loyalty to the House of Habsburg. If you want to maintain a unity based on a concept like shared values you need the apparatus of totalitarianism in order to do it. Unity based on loyalty to the crown does not require totalitarianism.

That’s one of the key weaknesses of the United States. The one thing that might have made America workable was a monarchy.

On paper Australia is lucky. We are a monarchy. But it doesn’t work and we are sliding towards the horrors of the proposition nation nonsense as a result. It doesn’t work partly because the House of Windsor is not our monarchy. An English queen cannot provide a focus for unity and loyalty. What we needed, right from the beginning, was our own monarchy. Our own king. The other reason it doesn’t work is that the Windsors are a truly awful family. They’re basically celebrity trash. They’d provide a great basis for a daytime soap opera but as a force for Australian unity they’re pretty useless.

Our problem is that the failings of the present monarchy are likely to result in a renewed push for a republic and that would be much much worse. We need a monarchy, but we need a better monarchy.

Thursday, December 21, 2017

wars and revolution

Revolutions do not very often break out spontaneously. There has to be a severe crisis first. A very severe crisis. The usual prelude to a revolution is a disastrous war.

I’m speaking here of revolutions in a very broad sense. Not just armed insurrections, but any very rapid and very dramatic and permanent shift in the status quo.

The 1905 Russian Revolution occurred after a series of military disasters during the Russo-Japanese War. The 1917 Russian Revolution followed Russian catastrophe in the First World War. The Chinese Communists gained power after the country had been ravaged and exhausted by years of war against Japan.

It seems quite likely that a successful revolution is simply not possible without a pre-existing crisis, and that nothing short of an unsuccessful war will do.

These were all spectacular revolutions - attempts to overthrow the existing order by force. There have been quieter revolutions as well (although these are often even more catastrophic than the violent ones).

Consider the United States in the 1960s. The anti-civilisational forces that have become so familiar were already present. Hollywood had been spreading its cultural poison for decades. The cultural elite was doing its best to demoralise the nation. The mass immigration of the late 19th century had caused social devastation from which the country had never really recovered. Corruption had always been endemic. And yet somehow the United States was surviving.

Then came the disaster of the Vietnam War, ending in humiliating defeat. And that was the time when the anti-civilisational forces really kicked into high gear. They became much more confident and aggressive, and they gained support from the liberal media establishment. This was the period, from say 1965 to 1975, when second wave feminism raised its depraved head. This was the period when homosexual activists began openly agitating. This was the time when racial hatred was being energetically stoked.

What was really odd was that this was also the period in which the political Left in the US ceased to exist. The Cultural Left took its place.

The usual explanation was that the Left adopted the strategy of cultural marxism - undermining the culture to prepare the way for the Glorious Workers’ Revolution. In fact the Cultural Left were not marxist in any meaningful sense. They had no plans to reconstruct society in order to make it more just. Their aim was simple destruction. Destruction for the sake of destruction. They were fuelled by hate, not idealism.

Of course if you’re inclined towards conspiracy theories you might suspect that the transformation of the American Left from an organised coherent political force into a collection of deranged dingbats who just wanted to destroy society might just possibly have been engineered by an arm of the US Government, like the CIA for instance. That’s just a wild conspiracy theory of course.

The Cultural Left (nowadays funded by bankers and billionaires) has turned out to be infinitely more dangerous than the Political Left ever was.

The question is, could this have happened without the Vietnam War? I think not.

All this has considerable relevance to anyone who hopes for another political revolution, one which will restore sanity and sweep away the nonsense of identity politics, political correctness, feminism and other associated evils. Such a revolution is unlikely to happen, and very unlikely to succeed, unless another military disaster like Vietnam comes along. Of course given the lunacy of US foreign policy another Vietnam War is always a possibility. That is perhaps our only hope.

Saturday, December 16, 2017

the cruel illusion of romantic love

The idea of romantic love as the basis for marriage, and the basis for personal happiness, is so deeply entrenched that it is easy to imagine that it is both universal and eternal. It is neither. It’s a purely western idea and it didn’t get off the ground until around about the twelfth century. That was when the European upper classes discovered courtly love.

Courtly love seems to have been to a considerable extent a literary invention (this proving once again that writers are in general a foolish and empty-headed lot) although the increasing feminisation of the Church and the rise and rise of the cult of Mary may have played a part. In any case courtly love spread like wildfire through the upper classes. Or to be more precise, it spread like wildfire among the women of the upper classes.

At the time it was perhaps not entirely a bad idea, or it didn’t seem like such a terrible idea. Life was still somewhat brutal and the upper classes were still to a large degree a warrior aristocracy and they were a little unpolished (although it needs to be emphasised that the Middle Ages were never as barbarous or uncivilised as hostile propaganda has led us to believe). Still, life wasn’t as much fun for the ladies as they would have liked. Courtly love sounded wonderfully exciting to them.

Marriage at the time was basically an economic contract. Your parents selected a prospective spouse for you (and this applied to young men as much as to young women) on the basis of the degree of advantage it would bring to the family. As long as you didn’t find the person repulsive the marriage would go ahead (actual forced marriages were always forbidden by the Church). It was a sensible system that worked but it was also a system that put the interests of family and society ahead of the interests of the individual. Marriage was about responsibility and duty. That’s not to say that marriages were loveless. If both parties accepted the situation and made the most of it strong bonds of affection could and did develop. And if those bonds of affection failed to develop and either party decided to seek emotional or sexual solace outside the marriage it was not considered to be the end of the world as long as it was done discreetly.

The new concept of love changed all this. Now the idea was that you would fall in love with someone before you married them. There was also a very strong emphasis on sex, and especially on women’s sexual pleasure. There was a simple way to know if you had found True Love or not. If your emotions were not coupled with sexual lust it wan’t True Love.

The writers of romances who promoted courtly love, writers like Chretien de Troyes, were not unaware of the dangers and Chretien certainly seems to have nourished the fond hope that couples would satisfy their emotional and sexual appetites within the safety and sanctity of the marriage bed. Of course in the real world that was never going to happen, and it didn’t always happen in the romances either (adultery makes for more exciting literature than faithful marriage).

For a long time the old and the new concepts of marriage co-existed and balanced each other out. The quest for True Love was important but responsibility and duty still mattered. You could choose your spouse, but you were expected to choose sensibly and to consider family and economic interests.

It all started to go wrong after the First World War. Responsibility and duty were now very old-fashioned notions. They were positively Victorian. And in the 1920s everything Victorian was of course assumed to be hopelessly bad, stupid, oppressive and worst of all old-fashioned.

And at around this time Hollywood came along. Romantic love was made to order for Hollywood. It provided exciting plots that women loved and it proved to be an ideal weapon with which to undermine marriage (Hollywood was fanatically devoted to sabotaging our civilisation right from the start). Romantic love was soon to reign supreme.

There are several major problems with the romantic love ideal. The biggest problem is that it implies that marriage is only really valid as long as True Love still flourishes. If True Love starts to fade, or if the sexual passion that is the unfailing indicator of True Love starts to falter, then marriage becomes oppressive. And surely it’s wicked to expect people to stay married if there’s no True Love any more? Romantic love therefore, in practice, implies that marriage is temporary and that it should be approached from a purely selfish perspective. It’s all about feelings. It’s all about me!

Romantic love is also quite useful from the point of view of social control. Our lives might be empty and meaningless and we might be just nameless faceless consumers but that’s OK because one day True Love will come along and then everything will be hunky dory. We won’t even notice the atomisation and alienation of modern society, or the crassness of our culture, or the way we’re lied to and manipulated. Because Love Conquers All.

Wednesday, December 13, 2017

unlocking the power of hate

Never underestimate the power of hatred. Or more specifically, never underestimate the positive effects of being hated.

Take the Jews. How on Earth could they have survived as a distinct ethnic/religious/cultural group through the 2,000 years of the Diaspora? The answer is simple. They survived by being hated.

The Jews maintained their own traditions and beliefs and ethnic identity because they were regarded as outsiders, and regarded with suspicion and dislike. Most of the time they weren’t actually persecuted or even hated but simply looked upon with suspicion. But there were times when they were actively hated and persecuted and this proved to be their salvation as a people. They were not only considered to be outsiders, they thought of themselves as outsiders.

This was a powerful incentive to avoid what was in fact the greatest threat to their survival - marrying outside their own community.

It strengthened their faith and it made their traditions seem very precious indeed.

Other cultural groups have benefited from being hated, although none so spectacularly as the Jews. For centuries the Irish Catholics maintained their faith and jealously preserved a distinctive cultural identity. The force that bound them together was the oppression they suffered at the hands of the English. Then in the latter part of the 20th century the English did something very terrible. They gave up oppressing the Irish. The Irish response was immediate. They abandoned their faith, they abandoned their identity and they set about committing national suicide. Within a few decades from now the Irish will have disappeared as a distinct people.

It’s not necessary to be oppressed to enjoy these benefits. Having an external enemy who hates you and wants to destroy you can be almost as good.

It’s worth taking a bit of a look at the history of Christianity. In its early centuries it suffered sporadic persecution at the hands of the Romans. These were boom times for Christianity.

By the 4th century AD Christianity was the official religion of the Empire but luckily there were still plenty of enemies. Most of Europe was still pagan. Even within the Empire paganism was down but not out. When the Empire in the West collapsed it was by no means certain that Christianity would triumph. The surviving Empire in the East had plenty of very real non-Christian enemies. And would soon have a new and very formidable enemy in the shape of Islam. Islam would even threaten the territories of the now-defunct western Empire.

For centuries to come Christianity would have real enemies and Christians with a taste for martyrdom could find endless opportunities for indulging that taste.

The boom times came to an end at the end of the seventeenth century. The Islamic threat to Europe was over. European Christianity had no viable enemies. And Christianity began its long slow decline.

The interesting bit is that the boom times might soon be back. Liberals (and I use liberals as shorthand for the globalist elites and their SJW foot soldiers) have hated Christianity for a long long time but up till now they’ve been content with harassment. This is clearly going to change, probably within the next decade. They’re going to move towards full-blown persecution.

This may be the salvation of Christianity. Being a persecuted minority once again might lead to a Christian revival. At the very least it should eliminate most of the mainstream churches, and that would be a very good thing indeed for Christianity.

Sunday, December 10, 2017

losing touch with reality

My recent post how dumb do feminists need to be? and a recent post at The Knight and Drummer, The Survivability of Men and Women both deal with the issue of feminists being hopelessly out of touch with reality. It’s not just a problem with feminists though. It’s more and more a problem with our whole society.

As an example, there has always been a city-country divide. City dwellers have always despised rural folk. And city dwellers have always been a little vague as to how reality actually works. They have a vague notion that food comes from farms but they’re pretty sketchy on the details. They probably know that milk comes from cows, but they’ve almost certainly never seen an actual cow. The fact that farming is hard work undoubtedly never occurs to them. It is very unlikely that any city dweller realises just how dangerous an occupation farming is.

That city-country thing has always existed of course. But there are other divides that are just as dramatic, and becoming more dramatic. Middle-class urbanites generally have no notion whatsoever that they are dependent on nasty horrid working class people for their very existence. They assume that when you flick a switch you get electricity, and when you turn the tap you get clean fresh water. They do not comprehend that such miracles only occur because blue-collar workers labour night and day to keep them happening.

Middle-class urbanites also never stop to wonder how all that food and other stuff gets onto the shelves at the supermarket. They remain blissfully unaware that some dreadful working-class man drives the truck that brings those things to the supermarket.

They have no comprehension of the full extent of their dependency. If those blue-collar workers weren’t there for even a brief period it would be more than just an inconvenience. Within a few days people would start dying, In large numbers. Middle-class city dwellers would start dying. A city without electricity, running water and trucks to deliver food would become a very very unpleasant place very quickly.

The things that blue-collar workers do for a living tend to be the things that keep us all alive. The things that a large proportion of those urban middle-class people do for a living are often entirely useless. What would happen if all the sociologists, psychologists, investment counsellors, financial advisors, insurance brokers, diversity officers, advertising execs, aromatherapists, interior decorators and social workers disappeared? The answer is that it would have no effect on society whatsoever. Life would go on. The same applies to the majority of bureaucrats.

It’s not just that women in the workforce generally contribute little or nothing productive to society. A very large chunk of middle-class males don’t contribute anything either.

This has become more pronounced as we have moved towards being a service economy, as distinct from an economy that actually makes stuff. The great thing about a service economy is that you end up with a situation where the majority of people do entirely useless jobs. They are mere drones, supported by a small number of men (yes, men) who do the work that keeps everybody else alive.

And the drones develop an extraordinary detachment from reality. They don’t even know of the existence of the people keeping them alive.

Saturday, December 9, 2017

how dumb do feminists need to be?

Are we really getting dumber? It’s difficult to know because often we’re dealing with a mixture of stupidity and craziness, but it’s hard to resist the conclusion that intelligence is in increasingly short supply.

Feminists are an interesting case in point. Just how dumb do you need to be in order to be a feminist? The answer is, very dumb indeed.

Recently I came across yet another feminist spouting the line that if only all men could be removed from the planet women would be able to live in a safe peaceful Garden of Eden.

Apparently it had never occurred to this woman that a world free of men might not be so wonderful. For instance, there would be no electricity. No running water. No internet. No telephones. All these things have been built and are maintained by men. There would be no fire brigade so if your house caught fire you could be in trouble. There would be nobody to collect the rubbish.

In fact women probably wouldn’t live long enough to have to worry about most of the consequences because within a few days there would be no food in the stores. Farming, fishing and all forms of food production are done by men. Of course even if there was food it wouldn’t help since there’d be nobody to drive the trucks to deliver the food to the stores.

This is all pretty obvious. Civilisation was created by men and it’s men who keep it running. And women are absolutely dependent on civilisation. I don’t believe any woman in the 1950s (or any earlier period in history) would have been dumb enough to think that women could survive more than a few days in a world without men. But today our universities are full of women who believe such nonsense. They really are completely unaware of how the world actually works.

Of course if you’re a feminist today such mind-boggling ignorance is not enough. You also have to believe that a man wearing a frock is just as much of a woman as any actual woman, and is entitled to all the privileges that go along with being female.

Is it stupidity or craziness? Like I said earlier, it’s difficult to tell. Maybe a bit of both.

I suspect that most older feminists don’t believe this kind of silliness. They believe some of it, but not all of it. At the very least, they have some serious doubts about the magical power of a frock to transform a man into a woman. They don’t say anything because they’re afraid to. The younger feminists really do seem to believe the whole insane package. If they’re college-educated they believe it, without any doubts at all.

The obvious conclusion is that universities make people dumber. Much dumber. They’re not the only factor making people dumber, but there’s a certain level of stupidity mixed with insanity that can only be attained through a university education.

All this is worrying enough, but even people who don’t identify as feminists are inclined to believe this kind of madness. Such beliefs are common among the sad pathetic creatures known as male feminists.

The interesting and amusing thing is that while the world would collapse with terrifying rapidity without men, if you somehow removed all the feminists from the world civilisation would suffer no adverse effects at all. The contribution of feminists to civilisation is zero. The contribution of male feminists to civilisation is less than zero.

Wednesday, December 6, 2017

Christianity and capitalism

Of all the enemies that have combined to bring about the downfall of Christianity in the West none has been more deadly or more relentless than capitalism. The fact is that it is impossible to imagine two systems more completely incompatible than Christianity and capitalism.

Capitalism is the most thoroughly materialistic ideology that can be conceived of. Capitalism is interested only in things that can be objectively measured, and in the capitalist system there is only one standard of measurement - money. More money is good. Less money is bad. This standard applies to people as well as things. A person’s success in life is measured by how much money he has. Nothing else is relevant.

The incompatibility between Christianity and capitalism should have been obvious from the start. And it was obvious to some Christians. Unfortunately most Christians chose to shut their eyes to the contradictions. Even worse, many American Christians convinced themselves that capitalism was Christian. This is why American Christianity has failed so spectacularly. American Christians have embraced an ideology that was always inevitably going to destroy them.

There is no room for morality in capitalism. You can’t measure morality in monetary terms so therefore morality has no validity. More seriously, morality interferes with profits. Profits are good. Therefore morality is bad.

The big mistake Christians (especially in the US) made in the culture wars was to think that they could fight moral issues as individual battles. They focused on specific attacks on Christian morality, such as abortion and homosexuality. They were certainly correct in seeing abortion and homosexuality as evils, but they failed to see the big picture. They failed to see that they weren’t dealing with isolated attacks on Christian sexual morality. They were dealing with a system, capitalism, that was hostile to all Christian morality and all Christian values. And they were dealing with a system that was not going to compromise. This became (or should have become) clear with the emergence of globalist capitalism. The globalist capitalists intended to remove every obstacle in their path.

A major potential obstacle was Christianity. The idea that money is the measure of the good was obviously in pretty serious conflict with Christian teachings. The idea that the only motivations anyone should have were the accumulation and spending of money was not exactly in harmony with Christianity.

Global capitalists today are intensely hostile to Christianity but even without this overt hostility capitalism would still have the effect of undermining and eventually destroying Christianity. It’s simply in the nature of capitalism.

American Christians made another catastrophic mistake. Back in the 50s they convinced themselves that the real enemy was communism. They became obsessed with the communist threat. This led them to a tragically mistaken conclusion. Since communism was bad, capitalism must be good. Since communism was ungodly, capitalism must be godly.

Communism was a threat, but it was never anywhere near as serious a threat as capitalism.

Christianity can survive under communism. Communists might not approve of Christianity but they have no absolute need to destroy it. It’s not really particularly incompatible with communism. On the other hand Christianity cannot survive under capitalism.

Unfortunately Christians have made yet another strategic error, getting distracted by the social justice nonsense. Again they’re wasting their energies and failing to see the big picture. They’re putting themselves in a no-win situation. If they oppose the SJWs they’ll be painted by the media as nasty meanies. If they support the SJWs they’ll simply look weak and pathetic, and showing weakness to SJWs is a fatal mistake. Christians should focus on the real enemy, the globalist capitalists. Defeat them and the social justice nonsense will simply evaporate.

Monday, December 4, 2017

can liberalism ever be stopped?

In a reply to my previous post, Accepting the consequences of the red pill, бармаглот makes a quite valid point:

"The question is, why care so much about the names? I believe as long as the system is alright, it doesn't matter whether it can be considered liberal or conservative. Edwardian Britain, the US before 1950s, First Czechoslovak Republic, Poland, Hungary, and Romania of the 1920s and 1930s, pre-WWII Yugoslavia, France, Austria, and Italy, the Russian Empire between 1906 and 1914 - who cares whether these systems were liberal or conservative as long as they're, well, not too bad (but not perfect by all means)?"

This is a valid point. And I agree that the societies listed above were all quite civilised. If those societies had stayed as they were then everything would have been fine.

The problem is that liberalism (in the form of both liberal institutions and liberal ideas) is a kind of self-destruct mechanism. Liberalism is not static. A conservative (an actual conservative) would look at any of those societies and think this is pretty good, what we need to do is to make sure it stays that way. We need to be incredibly reluctant to change anything. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

A liberal on the other hand would look at such societies and exclaim, “We have so much work still to do.” And would immediately start demanding change. A good society is not enough. It has to be made perfect. Their efforts to achieve perfection always end in destruction.

Liberalism therefore creates ever-increasing instability.

Liberal institutions and beliefs are by their very nature sources of instability and social decay. Representative democracy is inherently corrupt. It’s political prostitution. And it always tends to ever-greater corruption and cynicism. Liberal scepticism will always lead to despair and nihilism. Liberal tolerance always leads to degeneracy. The mild forms of feminism that existed in those societies ends with the toxic feminism we have now.

And the dishonesty of liberals posing as conservatives fools voters into thinking they're voting for stability when they're actually voting for the opposite.

I guess the big question is whether there is anything to stop a liberal society from destroying itself? Was there ever a point at which the march of liberalism could have been halted? Is liberalism unstoppable once it gets going?

I do have a suspicion that it was the Second World War that changed everything. Prior to that our civilisation had not quite developed a full-blown death wish. After that war it seems like it was just downhill all the way. There was a complete loss of civilisational confidence. Taken in conjunction with the First World War there was also the total discrediting of the established order and established authority. It became very easy to sell people on the need for drastic change, sweeping reforms, a major assault on injustices and oppressions. Everything old became bad, because it was supposedly the old ways of doing things that had led to disaster.

Of course it’s questionable whether WW2 could have been avoided. It’s possible that the First World War made the second inevitable.

The world wars may well have caused conservatives to lose faith in conservatism. They started to speak the language of change and reform as well. Whatever actual conservative principles they may have had were abandoned.

The trouble is that once our civilisational confidence and our belief in any kind of traditions was shaken the process seems to have built up an unstoppable momentum. Our obsession with trashing the past becomes ever more extreme. Liberalism hasn’t merely continued on its course, it has steadily accelerated.

Sunday, December 3, 2017

accepting the consequences of the red pill

Being red-pilled is a disturbing experience. In some ways the most disturbing moment is when you realiser that all the traditional conservative values and beliefs that mainstream conservative political parties and pundits and think tanks have been trying to sell you are actually not the least bit conservative or traditional. They are liberal beliefs and values. The very values and beliefs that have destroyed our civilisation.

I’m not suggesting that political conservatism has been infiltrated by liberal ideas. I’m saying that political conservatism has been entirely and thoroughly liberal right from the start.

There is really no such thing as political conservatism.

This is disturbing because when you’re a liberal or a leftist who has lost faith in those ideologies your natural first impulse is to drift towards political conservatism. It comes as a shock when you discover that political conservatism is just liberalism under another name.

Once you do make this discovery your next natural impulse is to drift towards the strange archipelago of the alt-right and all the other weird and wonderful alt movements. The problem is that many if not most are still liberals at heart. They have internalised a great deal of the liberal propaganda. There are always the neo-reactionaries of course, some of whom are quite sound.

The intellectual class has been solidly liberal since the Enlightenment, even before liberalism had been given a name. The only real challenge to liberalism among the intellectual class has been Marxism. Marxism enjoyed great success among intellectuals from the 1930s up to the 1970s. Most of the Marxist intellectuals have now died off and sadly most of the survivors have sold out to liberalism. Intellectuals understand very few things but there is one thing they understand very clearly - they know which side their bread is buttered.

The ruling political class has been liberal since the early 19th century. That’s the secret to understanding the cuckservative mindset. Cucks are not weak or silly. They haven’t betrayed their conservative principles. They never had any conservative principles to start with. They are, and always have been, liberals. They push the liberal agenda because it’s their agenda.

If you want to find actual traditional values and beliefs you have to go back to pre-Enlightenment days.

This argument also applies to a lesser extent to social conservatism. Most self-described social conservatives are essentially liberal in outlook. Many if not most do not even realise the degree to which they have accepted core elements of the liberal agenda. It applies very strong to socially conservative Christians. These people want a softer milder version of liberalism. The Christians want a moderate liberalism that will tolerate Christianity. They can’t comprehend the fact that there’s no such thing as moderate liberalism. And there’s no such thing as a liberalism that will tolerate Christianity.

The Enlightenment was an anti-Christian movement. The driving force was a virulent hatred of Christianity. All the offspring of the Enlightenment, including especially liberalism, share this anti-Christian hostility.

The difficulty of course lies in persuading people to accept the full consequences of the red pill.

Wednesday, November 29, 2017

sex, feminism and liberalism, part two

Part one can be found here.

Female sexuality is an absolute nightmare for feminism. It all but tore feminism apart during the feminist sex wars. The feminists who started spouting their slogans about all men being rapists, all sex being rape, about pornography being exploitation of women, about the wickedness of awful things like BDSM (bondage dominance and sado-masochism) that the patriarchy imposes on women. They naturally expected their pronouncements to be met by a chorus of praise from women.

Much to their horror many women, even fully paid up members of the feminist sisterhood, violently disagreed with them. These women objected that they actually liked having sex with men, many of them had no real issue with pornography (some of them enjoyed pornography). Even worse, it transpired that there were women who were happily engaging in consensual BDSM sex (even more embarrassing was the revelation that BDSM was incredibly popular among lesbians).

The stage was set for the bitter long drawn out war between the anti-sex feminists and the sex-positive feminists. It ended with a virtually complete victory for the sex-positive feminists.

This might sound like a happy ending. The anti-sex feminists like Andrea Dworkin were a crazy miserable lot and totally out of touch with the reality of female sexuality. Unfortunately we’re talking about feminists here so it goes without saying that there was and is lots of craziness on both sides. The sex-positive feminists can be pretty loony as well, and they’re the ones who’ve been supportive of much of the trans madness.

And being feminists even the sex-positive feminists tend to be control freaks. It’s not enough for them to be tolerant of outright perversions - they have to force everybody else to celebrate those perversions.

The problem of female sexuality remains unresolved for feminism. One problem is that for most women sex means sex with a man. The danger in that is that the man might enjoy it. Feminism can just about deal (with certain very stringent limitations) with the idea of a woman enjoying sex, but a man enjoying sex is definitely problematical.

Much more problematical is the feminine desire for dominant men. The reality is that lots of women actually enjoy feeling dominated, at least to a limited degree, in the bedroom. And some women take that desire to its logical conclusion and enjoy sexual practices that feminist theory simply cannot cope with. Feminist theory tells feminists that all that nasty stuff used to be forced on unwilling women by the patriarchy. There’s no room in feminist theory for women who think that the beastliness and aggressiveness of male sexuality is incredibly exciting and they want it. And feminists cannot abandon their theories - that would be terrifying.

Pornography was the main battlefield of the feminist sex wars. The total victory of the sex-positive feminists has to a large extent ended the debate on pornography. There are still Christians who are opposed to pornography but no-one listens to them.

One other thing that needs to be remembered is that male sexuality as it exists could not have survived the process of evolution unless it had a great deal of appeal to women. Sexual selection is a very potent evolutionary force. And female sexuality as it exists could not have survived unless it had a great deal of appeal to men.

An essential tenet of both feminism and liberalism is that men and women are basically interchangeable. Sex presents them with an enormous problem. No matter what they do they can’t eradicate the profound differences between male and female sexuality, and no matter what they do neither male nor female sexuality will conform to good liberal principles. Women will continue to want strong masculine men and men will continue to want pretty feminine women.

Tuesday, November 28, 2017

sex, feminism and liberalism, part one

There’s an extremely good post over at Oz Conservative, Accepting our monstrosity?

Canadian writer Stephen Marche, clearly a whiny male feminist, is aghast at the reality of male sexuality. Nothing unusual about that. Anything pertaining to reality always surprises liberals. But rather than merely mocking and laughing Mark carefully unpicks Marche’s babblings and in the process makes some very good points. And he demonstrates that Marche, in his own way, has uncovered some unpleasant truths. Being a liberal Marche naturally cannot deal with these truths or accept any of the conclusions they might lead to.

Marche is very upset over the brutality of male sexuality. Being a good male feminist he is ashamed of being male. Men are so beastly!

Mark quite rightly makes the point that

“there is an element in sex of men as the active and aggressive part and women as the responsive and receptive part.”

This is true, and of course it’s obvious to anyone with experience of the real world.

But the thing that really really upsets liberals, the thing they really will not face, is that on the whole women want sex to be this way. They like it. The big problem for liberals is female sexuality. Female sexuality just doesn’t work the way liberals want it to work. Amazingly enough most women are nauseated by the idea of having sex with whiny male feminists. They want to have sex with virile masculine men. No matter how virulently and enthusiastically they espouse feminist principles, no matter how bitter and angry they might be towards men, when it comes to the nitty gritty it is to a very large extent those beastly brutal masculine men who get women sexually aroused.

Women might like nice guys, but that doesn’t mean they want to sleep with those nice guys. Women might in an intellectual sense strongly disapprove of bad boys but they still get sexually excited by them and they still sleep with them.

None of this is surprising. Our survival as a species depended on having effective mating strategies. Women being attracted to the strongest most aggressive members of the tribe was a very effective mating strategy. Those were the men who could, if necessary, defend them. Men being attracted to the prettiest and most feminine females was an equally effective mating strategy. They were the females most likely to be fertile and most likely to be capable of successfully raising offspring.

The unpleasant truths (unpleasant for liberals and feminists) are that it’s perfectly normal and perfectly healthy for men to be masculine, that masculinity does indeed contain an element of aggressiveness, and that the aggressive element in masculinity is part of male sexuality. The other unpleasant truth is that it’s perfectly normal and perfectly healthy for women to respond sexually to this.

Liberals and feminists have now created a world in which the expression of masculinity has been all but outlawed. What this means in practice is that normal healthy masculinity has been repressed, so women in search of masculinity go looking for any kind of masculinity they can find. They usually find it in the sort of men who are obviously men they should have nothing to do with but the women can’t help themselves. Fundamental biological urges cannot be denied.

part two will follow

Friday, November 24, 2017

conservative delusions - the War of the Cradle

Conservatives like to think that liberals live in a world of fantasy and theory while conservatives are hard-headed realists. Unfortunately that’s only partly true. Conservatives cling to all sorts of delusions. One of the most persistent is the War of the Cradle delusion.

The idea is that conservatives must triumph in the end because they have more children than leftists. A variation is that Christianity must triumph because Christians have more children than atheists.

Unfortunately there’s a huge flaw in this argument. Liberals don’t need to have children. They know they’re going to get the children of conservatives and Christians. Conservatives and Christians still don’t really get this. Once their kids go to school they’re lost. You might delay things by home-schooling but not every conservative and/or Christian home schools. It doesn’t matter anyay, because once their kids to to university, even if they’ve been home-schooled, they’re lost. They’ll turn into blue-haired freaks screetching about social justice. And no matter what you do, if your kids are exposed to mass media and/or social media you’re going to lose them.

It’s no good thinking you can get around the problem by sending your children to a Christian school, or a Christian college. Many of these are worse than state schools, and even more infected by social justice ideology.

Let’s say that for every fifty children born to liberal parents there are a hundred born to conservative and/or Christian parents. Of those hundred children liberals only to need capture thirty. If they do that then out of the total of 150 children born 80 will end up as liberals and liberals will continue to win the numbers game. In reality they’re more likely to capture more than 30 of the hundred kids, so the liberals end up even further ahead.

That’s how liberals reproduce. It’s a very effective reproductive strategy. It’s why they’re winning.

Of course homosexuals reproduce in the same manner, which is one of the reasons why they’re so extraordinarily interested in children and the education system. You’d think that the education system would be of no interest to people who can’t have children but you’d be wrong. They’re very interested indeed. The schools are where the next generation of homosexuals will come from.

Conservatives and Christians surrendered control of the schools and universities to liberals at least half a century ago. That’s when the Culture War was lost.

Wednesday, November 22, 2017

intellectuals and their delusions

One of the most amusing thing about intellectuals who identify as being on the Left is their sense of their own importance combined with a startling degree of naïvete and outright delusion. They are all convinced that once the Glorious Socialist Revolution is achieved that they will be leaders or, at the very least, high-ranking commissars.

In fact of course as far as the people pulling the strings are concerned intellectuals are disposable. They have their uses in creating the instability that makes revolution possible but once a revolution actually succeeds those intellectuals become not merely useless but a positive embarrassment.

The problem is that once a revolution succeeds instability is no longer a desirable thing. The aim of all revolutionaries is power. Achieving power, and then maintaining it. The last thing they want once they have power is people who create instability. Once the revolution succeeds the intellectuals are most likely to be the first people lined up against a wall and shot.

Back in the 1930s effete western intellectuals were hopelessly in love with communism. They looked forward eagerly to the coming of communist revolutions in the West. Their admiration of the Soviet Union was embarrassingly adolescent. What they failed to understand was that if they had been in the Soviet Union during the 30s the best fate they could have hoped for was to be sent to a labour camp. Far from being welcomed as leaders these intellectuals would have found themselves cowering in cells in the Lubyanka, begging for their lives, followed shortly thereafter by an appearance at a show trial in which they would have been making grovelling apologies for counter-revolutionary crimes and facing the prospect of a bullet in the back of the head as a reward for their loyalty to the revolution.

What intellectuals always fail to understand is that actual revolutionaries, or at least the successful ones, are hard-headed practical and unsentimental. Successful revolutionaries recognise that intellectuals are a menace. Successful revolutionaries are concerned with power, not ideology.

The globalist elites are no different. Once their aims have been achieved they will have no further use for the hordes of worthless academics with professorships in gender studies. At the moment the globalist elites want instability, but they want instability as a means to an end. Once their power has been established beyond question then instability will no longer be a desirable thing. That’s when the purges will begin, and those being purged will be professors of gender studies and other similarly worthless academics. Those further down the food chain, the armies of paid activists and agitators, will be seen as not just expendable but dangerous. A potential threat that must be liquidated.

The most extraordinary thing about intellectuals is their complete incapacity for learning from experience. Reality always surprises them because reality plays no part whatever in their theories. They never learn, and they never will learn.

Saturday, November 18, 2017

the case for Christian Wahhabism

You might think that for an atheist I’m a bit obsessed with Christianity. And you’re probably right. The thing is I really do believe that secularism is a dead end. I believe that the greatest enemy that the West has ever faced is liberalism and I don’t see any way to fight liberalism by purely secular means.

The only secular alternatives to liberalism that ever seemed viable were communism and fascism. They weren’t terribly pleasant and they certainly don’t look viable any longer.

The only way to combat liberalism is, I believe, some kind of religion. There are several alternatives but most seem very unpromising, or unpalatable, or both. The least unpalatable alternative would be a revival of Christianity. The question is, is such a revival possible?

It’s instructive to take a look at the history of Islam over the past hundred years. A hundred years ago nobody took Islam seriously. The Ottoman Empire seemed to be tottering towards destruction and the universal view in Europe was that quite naturally the European great powers would carve up the corpse of that empire between them. The idea of Muslims putting up any kind of resistance seemed too fantastic even to consider. And in fact when the Ottoman Empire did collapse most of it was carved up by the great powers. The European powers pursued a policy towards the Middle East that was cynical, hypocritical, vicious, short-sighted and foolish. After the Second World War the Americans naturally assumed that the Middle East would be within their sphere of influence, and they proceeded to pursue policies that were even more cynical, hypocritical, vicious, short-sighted and foolish.

Much to the surprise of the great powers there was a reaction within the Islamic world. In fact there were two responses. One was the growth of Arab nationalism, but the Americans were determined to put a stop to that. The other response was the explosive growth of a new kind of Islam - the kind of militant radical Islam with which we are now familiar. This didn’t really exist to any great extent a hundred years ago. Wahhabism existed but was confined almost entirely to what is now Saudi Arabia. The spectacular growth of movements like the Muslim Brotherhood and Wahhabism was a response to what many Muslims saw as an existential threat.

There’s no question that the West in the 21st century faces an existential threat at least as serious as that facing Islam in the 20th century. Christianity as it currently exists is not going to be any help. In fact mainstream organised Christianity is part of the problem, not part of the solution. It is merely secular liberalism with a feelgood gloss. It’s a more emotional, more effeminate, secular liberalism.

Of course I am aware that Not All Christians Are Like That. Of course there is still a very small minority who still follow the teachings of actual Christianity, and a small number of Christians who are still prepared to fight for their faith. However the sad truth is that most of the people who currently identify as Christians are secular liberals, and globalist SJWs.

If Christianity is to play a part in defending the West it will have to reinvent itself the way Islam did. It is significant that Wahhabism started as a movement to purge Islam of what were considered to be un-Islamic innovations. A viable Christian revivalism requires a similarly ruthless purging of non-Christian innovations, and that means it must be purged of liberalism. Purged thoroughly and completely. No compromise is possible with liberalism. No compromise at all. A pre-Enlightenment Christianity is what is needed. I do not believe that any existing mainstream Christian church can be reformed sufficiently to be able to play a useful role. A new Christianity will have to be built, from scratch. The existing churches need to be consigned to the scrap heap. They are too thoroughly infested with liberal ideas to be saved.

The new Christianity will need to be a radical militant Christianity, somewhat on the lines of radical militant Islam. Many Christians (and many on the right) are not going to like the idea of learning from Islam. They are also going to be reluctant to abandon many of their cherished liberal ideals, ideals that they often do not recognise as the liberal poison that they are (I enumerated many of these ideals in a previous post on conservatives and Christians defending liberal ideals).

The struggle against liberalism is a war, and it’s a war to the death. It’s about time we accepted that reality. A Christian wahhabism may be our one slim chance of survival.

Friday, November 17, 2017

urbanisation, decadence and western decline

An overlooked factor in the decline of the West over the past two hundred years is urbanisation.

Urbanisation lowers inhibitions. You can get away with degenerate behaviour that you could never get away with in a small rural community. The anonymity of urban life makes it easy to abandon all the time-honoured rules of decorum. Adultery and other sexual misconduct will earn social disapproval in a small town or village. In a city no-one will care.

And no matter how esoteric your perversion might be you’ll find someone in a big city with whom to share it.

Now of course we have the internet, and social media, so urban degeneracy is available to everyone. The entire world is now effectively urbanised.

City life is remote from unpleasant realities. In a rural community it’s difficult to avoid manual work, and a good deal of rural work is dangerous. In the city it’s easy to avoid getting your hands dirty.

Cities turn men into soy boys. The lowering of inhibitions turns women into sluts.

The more urbanised a society is the more decadent it will become. It’s no coincidence that we’re approaching peak decadence at the same time that we’re approaching peak urbanisation.

Thursday, November 16, 2017

conservatives and Christians defending liberal ideals

A major obstacle confronting anyone trying to promote social conservative or traditional values, or Christian values, is the extraordinary extent to which liberal values permeate our society. These liberal ideals are so all-pervasive that we often do not even recognise them as being fundamentally liberal.

It is common to encounter people who describe themselves as conservative who really do seem to believe that concepts like freedom of speech and freedom of religion are core conservative values. I have even come across Christians who think that freedom of speech and freedom of religion are the foundations of white Christian society. They also tend to be people who think that openness and tolerance are compatible with social conservatism. And it goes without saying that these “conservatives” take the same view of democracy.

In fact of course these are all core liberal values.

They date back to the Enlightenment, the most disastrous episode in the history of the West. Liberalism is the political child of the Enlightenment.

These concepts were all devised by white European liberals (or proto-liberals) who had one thing in common - they despised and detested European Christian society. They wanted to destroy European Christian society. They then intended to build Utopia on the ruins. They were especially hostile to Christianity.

As Mark at Oz Conservative is constantly pointing out (quite correctly) modern mainstream conservatives are actually liberals. They are right-liberals, the most dangerous kind of liberals.

The greatest danger currently facing the West is (as Mark has also pointed out) that the dissident right is going to be hijacked by right-liberals.

There is at the moment a great deal of disenchantment in the West with the existing political order. There is also a great deal of anxiety about population replacement, this being quite clearly the objective of the globalist class. My great fear is that naïve well-meaning people with genuine concerns about immigration are going to be persuaded to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with liberals in defence of liberal values. These liberal values (the ones enumerated above) will be sold to us as being the essential foundations of western civilisation. And a great many people are going to fall for this con.

And it is a con. These liberal ideals are the very things that have brought our civilisation to the brink of disaster. They are the very things that have weakened our society to the point where invaders no longer have to invade, they can just walk in and take over.

Any realistic hope of saving the West depends upon a categorical rejection of these pernicious liberal ideals. We must recognise these ideals for what they are - mechanisms for undermining social stability and for destroying Christianity.

Don’t be foolish enough to be persuaded that your bitterest enemies, liberals, can ever be allies. Liberals are the enemy, and right-liberals are the most dangerous enemy of all.

Wednesday, November 15, 2017

making traditionalism fun

A major problem facing traditionalists today is that we naturally tend to regard the past fairly favourably, but liberals and the cultural left have had a century or more in which to paint the kind of  distorted picture of the past that suits their agenda. The Narrative applies as much to the past as it does to the present. And a negative view of the past has now been well and truly ingrained in the minds of most people.

That negative view has been propagated through schools and the news media and through books but most of all through movies and TV programs. It is important to remember that most people do not distinguish between fiction and non-fiction. If they watch a movie they might understand that the actual story itself is fiction but they assume that the background to the story is basically factual. If the movie is set in the 1930s then they assume that it’s giving them an accurate and faithful picture of life in that decade. Of course nothing could be further from the truth but the average person has a touching belief in the basic honesty of people who make movies and TV shows.

This makes it incredibly difficult to persuade people that perhaps the past wasn’t so bad, that perhaps the beliefs and values of the past were as valid as the beliefs and values of today, and most of all it makes it near-impossible to persuade people that life in the past may actually have been pretty good, and even fun.

If you suggest to anyone under the age of 40 that maybe life was a lot more pleasant in the 1950s they’ll look at you as if you’re mad. They know that in the 50s in the American South blacks were being lynched by the hundreds every year, they know that homosexuals were brutally persecuted, they know that women were not allowed to leave the kitchen, they know that liberals were thrown into prison just for being liberals, they know that teenagers were forbidden to have fun, they know that life was grim and miserable and oppressive. They know all these things because their teachers have told them that’s how it was and they’ve seen modern movies set in the 50s and those movies have confirmed everything their teachers tell them. The fact that none of these things are true makes no difference. The cultural left controls the megaphone and their view of the past prevails.

If you try to suggest that perhaps the Victorian age wasn’t so bad and that the Victorians weren’t all  vicious capitalist robber barons, that not all eight-year-olds were sent to work in coal mines  or that the Victorians were not hopelessly sexually repressed you just are not going to be listened to.

If you’re unwise enough to put forward the notion that the Middle Ages might not have been a constant nightmare of filth, squalor and violence then again you’re not going to be believed. People today know how brutal that era was, they’ve seen it in movies. They know for example all about the droit de seigneur, the right of the local lord to have sex with any young unmarried girl under his dominion. The fact that this right didn’t exist doesn’t matter - their teachers will have assured them that it was true.

If we are to have any success in promoting the idea that traditional values, traditional lifestyles, traditional sex roles, are worth emulating we have to be able to sell those ideas. We have to make such ideas sound not just reasonable but desirable and attractive. We have to convince people that traditionalism isn’t just good for society but that it promotes individual happiness. We need to sell the idea that traditionalists have more fun. That’s very difficult to do when the megaphone is in the hands of those who are determined to convince people that the past was a horrible nightmare and that today we live in the happiest most enlightened period in all of human history.

We also need to distinguish traditionalism from puritanism. Puritanism was a destructive religious heresy and, in a mutated secular form, it is very much with us today. It still exists to some extent as a religious heresy. Puritanism has always been unhealthy. The Cultural Left never misses an opportunity to paint traditionalists, and especially Christian traditionalists, as grim humourless puritans.

In fact puritanism has been a major strain in many destructive leftist ideologies, especially feminism. And the mindset of the modern SJW is to a large extent a puritan mindset, obsessed with sin.

Given that traditionalists are not likely to be granted any access to the megaphone I really don’t know how we’re going to promote the idea of traditionalism as the secret to happiness. But I do know that our biggest problem is that it has been so easy for our enemies to portray us as miserable oppressive killjoys.

Tuesday, November 14, 2017

Biological Leninism and the Coalition of the Fringes

There’s a truly excellent post at Bloody Shovel on Biological Leninism that explains, fairly convincingly, why the Left relies on women, homosexuals, sexual deviants and minorities for its power. It’s all about loyalty and building a stable ruling class. The more useless someone is as an individual the more valuable he is as a member of the ruling class - if you want reliable and loyal foot soldiers you pick people who are entirely dependent on you.

This goes far to explain why what Steve Sailer calls the Coalition of the Fringes is so powerful, and why (despite its apparent weakness) it isn’t going to break up any time soon. The fact that the various groups that comprise the Coalition of the Fringes appear to have no actual interests in common (what possible genuine community of interests can there be between blacks and homosexuals for instance) is irrelevant. They are united by one thing. They have no choice. They are entirely dependent for their livelihoods on the largesse of government and of people like George Soros. Have you ever come across a lesbian feminist or a trans-whatever or any kind of “activist” who held down a real job in the real world?

Any deviation from orthodoxy means the end of the gravy train for these people. Any threat to the Coalition of the Fringes means the danger that the gravy train will be cancelled altogether. Thus they remain loyal, because they have no other options.

There’s an interesting struggle going on at the moment between the TERFs (trans exclusionary radical feminists) and the trans activists (see feminists losing the terf war). The TERFS subscribe to the heretical belief that there’s a biological difference between men and women. This struggle can only end in one way - with the complete surrender of the TERFS. Radical feminists are not exactly people who are likely to be success stories in the real world. They have pretend jobs in academia, or pretend jobs in women’s health centres or similar sheltered workshops for women. If they refuse to recant their heresies they will be purged. Not purged in the way Stalin purged his enemies. Such methods are unnecessary in our Brave New World. They will simply be informed that if they persist in their heresy they will lose their nice safe comfy jobs. There is no doubt of the outcome. The radical feminists will confess their counter-revolutionary crimes. They will therefore keep their nice safe comfy jobs. What else can they do? In the real world they would starve.

And that’s the point. The storm troopers of the cultural left can be trusted to do what they’re told to do because without the Coalition of the Fringes they’re just unemployable low-status drones. They will do nothing to threaten that coalition, because their survival depends on it.

The optimistic belief on the right that the incoherence and contradictions of the Coalition of the Fringes will eventually destroy it is likely to turn out to be a fantasy. Once the first purges take place, once the first show trials are held, the members of that coalition will become even more fanatically loyal and even more determined to maintain that coalition.

Sunday, November 12, 2017

virtue signalling or status signalling?

A comment on a recent post at Vox Popoli caught my eye. It suggested that a great deal of SJW virtue signalling is actually status signalling. It’s actually a way to demonstrate that the person in question belongs to a high enough social class to be immune from the consequences of the social justice agenda.

This seems very plausible to me. I have never bought the idea that SJWs are self-hating. Maybe some of the sad male SJWs are actually self-hating but I don’t believe for one moment that female SJWs hate themselves. If they’re white they may claim to hate white people but you can be sure they don’t include themselves in the category of white people it is acceptable to hate. They hate working class and lower middle class white people certainly but they don’t hate upper-class whites (and let’s face it the true believer SJWs are overwhelmingly upper-class).

Subscribing to certain dogmas, such as man-made global warming, welcoming refugees, affirmative action, Black Lives Matter, etc, is a good way to signal your membership of the ruling class. The secret to this is that if you’re wealthy and high-status you’ll never have to suffer the consequences of your ludicrous beliefs. Ever-increasing electricity prices as a result of the global warming scam don’t affect rich people. Rich people don’t have to live in diverse neighbourhoods (and they never do). Rich people are pretty much unaffected by the social decay caused by feminism and homosexual activism.

This is something that is particularly attractive to women. Status signalling is immensely important to women. And never underestimate the enthusiasm women have for humiliating their social inferiors.

If you’re white then subscribing to unworkable SJW fantasy ideas is a powerful way to signal that you’re not one of those awful working class or lower middle class white people (and of course those white people are completely evil). SJW ideas are a kind of luxury good. Believing in them is a form of conspicuous consumption, a way of making one’s elite status clear and a wonderful way to express contempt for the lower orders.

The great thing is that it’s a socially acceptable way of saying that you’re rich and you hate poor people.

Friday, November 10, 2017

sleeping her way to the top

The recent scandals in Hollywood have highlighted something that everyone used to know but these days no-one is supposed to talk about - women sleeping their way to the top.

This has been going on from the first moment that women started entering the workforce, or more particularly since women started working in areas that were previously male-only. It is of course absolutely inevitable. If you have a mixed-sex workplace then women will figure out that they can trade sex for career advancement.  Not all women will do so, but a lot of women will.

In Hollywood it arguably doesn’t really matter. If an actress is willing to follow the time-honoured practices of Hollywood, in other words if she’s willing to have sex with producers in return for getting a shot at good rôles in good movies, then she may get plum rôles that really should have gone to other, more talented, actresses.  But Hollywood only makes movies so it’s not a serious problem for society as a whole.

On the other hand when women start doing the same thing in business, politics, the military, the police force, etc (which they do) it can have very serious consequences. In these fields it really does matter that the top jobs go to people with genuine ability, rather than just a willingness to spread their sexual favours around. It does matter if women who use sex to further their careers take jobs away from better qualified men or women.

When you look at women who do reach the top you can’t help wondering how many have in fact slept their way to the top. It’s extraordinary how many of these women seem quite unable to cope with the demands of the top jobs once they get them.

It’s absurdly unrealistic to think that there’s any way you can stop this from happening. Mixed-sex workplaces simply do not work, and never will. It’s not just the problem of unscrupulous women doing so consciously. There’s also the uncomfortable fact of female hypergamy. Women are attracted to powerful high-status men. A woman is going to want to sleep with her boss even if she doesn’t intend to use this circumstance to further her career. She’ll want to sleep with him simply because he has status and power. And it’s not terribly realistic to believe that he won’t then do things to help her career along.

It’s not just women sleeping their way to the top. There’s also the related issue of women marrying their way to the top. There have for example been plenty of instances of women basing careers on particularly favourable marriages. There is the case of a certain woman who almost succeeded in getting to the very top of the political tree in the United States, merely by virtue of being married to a man who had occupied that very job.

There are many reasons why women should not be in the workplace. The “sleeping her way to the top” phenomenon is just one of them.

Saturday, November 4, 2017

the Hollywood sex scandals

I’ve avoided the subject of the recent sex scandals in Hollywood involving Harvey Weinstein and others but since I have a particular interest in the nexus between popular culture and politics I probably do need to address this issue. It’s actually a rather complicated issue which sheds some fascinating light on the sorry state of our culture in general.

The first point to be made is that it’s absurd for anyone to pretend to be surprised by any of this. This is how Hollywood has always worked. If you want a part in a movie you have to be nice to powerful people like producers and everyone in Hollywood has always known exactly what that means. Any aspiring actress (or actor) who arrives in Tinsel Town hoping to be a star knows what he or she will have to do to achieve that aim. If the price is unacceptable then the smart move is to forget being a star and keep away from Hollywood. In the unlikely event that you are really are naïve enough to be unaware of this reality then within about ten minutes of getting off the bus you’re going to figure it out. If you don’t like the idea, get back on that bus.

As 1940s Hollywood star Hedy Lamarr put it, “The ladder of success in Hollywood is usually a press agent, actor, director, producer, leading man; and you are a star if you sleep with each of them in that order. Crude, but true.”

Obviously it’s a different situation with child actors, and one of the reasons the allegations of homosexual predation in Hollywood are more disturbing is that they do involve children. In these cases it’s a matter of parental responsibility. If you want your kid to be a star then unless you’re prepared to watch him like a hawk it’s almost certain he’ll attract the attention of these predators. Of course these days parental responsibility is pretty much an unknown concept.

I’m certainly not trying to get sleazy Hollywood producers off the hook. There’s no doubt that Hollywood is, and always has been, full of sleazebags who use their power to have sex with pretty starlets. It’s totally reprehensible and obviously morally wrong. It is however worth bearing in mind that where such incidents involve actresses who are legally adults then there is highly likely to be fault on both sides. Hollywood attracts sleazy men but it also attracts women who are willing, sometimes even eager, to trade their sexual favours for career advancement. We need to be wary of falling for the feminist line that women have no agency. If an actress is of legal age and she’s willing to have sex with a producer to get a film role then she must accept her fair share of the responsibility. The trouble with Hollywood is that it’s corrupt all the way through and it corrupts everybody, literally everybody, that it touches.

It’s noticeable that actresses who make accusations of sexual harassment usually seem to do so only years later when it’s becoming obvious that their careers are fading. As long as they think there’s still a chance to hang on to their dreams of stardom they tend to keep their mouths shut. One can’t help suspecting that at the time of the alleged events they were in fact perfectly willing to trade sex for stardom. We need to keep in mind that in spite of the lies of feminists it is extremely common for women to sleep their way to the top (and not just in Hollywood).

The other important point to remember is that at this stage what we have are a great many allegations of the he said/she said variety. Such allegations are by their very nature unprovable. Unfortunately in most cases in which allegations are made against public figures they are of this type. Even more unfortunately it is by no means unknown for people to be convicted of an offence even when it is a matter of one person’s word against another’s. There have been cases in which convictions have been obtained on the basis of very questionable evidence.

It is particularly dangerous to accept accusations in situations where no charges have even been laid. It’s sad that many on the Right have been so excited by the prospect of watching the suffering of Hollywood liberals that they have lost sight of the importance of the presumption of innocence. Even Hollywood scum are entitled to the presumption of innocence.  It’s quite possible that most of the accusations are actually true, but it’s equally possible that many are quite untrue. We live in a society that offers generous rewards to anyone making accusations of sexual misconduct against public figures. It is all part of the corruption of our society.

Obviously anything that makes Hollywood look bad is to be welcomed but we must be aware that this situation is going to be spun in a way that supports the narrative. In this case it’s going to be spun to support a particularly vicious part of the feminist narrative, that women need never take responsibility and that everything is always the fault of those evil patriarchal white heterosexual males.

Sunday, October 29, 2017

in praise of patriarchy

A commenter at The Knight and Drummer recently accused me of wanting to restore patriarchy. I have to say that I plead guilty as charged. I do indeed want to restore patriarchy.

Until western society decided to commit suicide all human societies had been patriarchal. I know that feminist scholars (and I always chuckle at the concept of feminist scholarship) make claims for certain societies in the dim dark past having being matriarchies, and for a handful of remote tribes being matriarchal until modern times. In virtually every case this is nothing but wishful thinking on the part of woolly-minded academics. Successful societies have always been patriarchies.

I define a patriarchy as a society which accept two things - that men and women are profoundly different and have different social roles to play, and that final authority must rest with men. It’s important to remember that you can’t have one without the other. If men surrender their authority traditional sex roles will be overturned. If traditional sex roles are not respected men’s authority will vanish. If either of those things happen then that society is doomed.

Very few people today are prepared to nail their colours to the mast and embrace patriarchy. Most self-defined conservatives (including most so-called social conservatives and traditionalists) have surrendered completely to feminism. All mainstream conservative parties have made the same surrender, as have all mainstream Christian churches (with the possible exception of the Orthodox churches). Some of these “conservatives” will bleat about feminism having gone too far but in fact they are happy to accept 90% of the feminist agenda. If you’re a conservative and you believe in “equality” or “fairness” or “justice” then you’re a feminist and you’re part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

The fact is that we have all been so thoroughly indoctrinated by feminism that we think that admitting to being a supporter of patriarchy is a bit like admitting to being a member of the Ku Klux Klan. This is of course arrant nonsense. Patriarchy is not only the only workable way to run a society, it is also the only system that is capable of making both men and women happy.

But what exactly are the ramifications of accepting patriarchy?

Obviously we need to ask what place, if any, women should have in political life. Female leaders have always been disastrous. Of course we also need to reconsider the whole question of representative democracy, a system that guarantees corrupt, vicious and inefficient government. It’s not a question of whether women should be allowed to vote. It’s a question of whether voting is a good idea, for anyone. Every time the franchise has been extended the system has become more unworkable and more corrupt.

Secondly, women should accept the authority of their fathers, and after marriage they should accept the authority of their husbands. This is what women actually want. Women despise men who allow themselves to be dominated by women. The thought of having sex with such men nauseates them. Women have always sought men who can protect them and that implies authority. It’s a matter of biological reality. Fairness doesn’t come into it. Biological reality isn’t interested in fairness. Reality isn’t interested in fairness. Reality just is.

Thirdly, we need to carefully consider whether higher education for women is really a good idea. Of course we also need to think about higher education in general - we need to slash the number of university students overall by at least 80%. We need doctors and engineers. We don’t need gender studies majors or film studies majors or any similar nonsense. We also don’t need the absurd number of lawyers being churned out by our universities.

And unfortunately it’s the nonsensical courses to which women are attracted, and all these courses do is to make women angry and confused. If you have any doubts about this, try having a conversation with a female student doing one of these courses - they are incapable of doing anything other than getting angry and mouthing slogans that they don’t even understand. Their ignorance is exceeded only by their arrogance.

Of course by now all true conservatives are wringing their hands in horror that anyone would dare to express such wicked forbidden sentiments. But as I tried to point out to the commenter mentioned earlier, patriarchy is coming whether we like it or not. Within a few decades western Europe will be Islamic and it will be patriarchal. There aren’t going to be any gender studies courses taught. There isn’t going to be any feminism.

The irony of course is that women, and feminists in particular, have created the situation that is going to lead inevitably to the resurgence of patriarchy, of one form or another. Feminists have weakened our civilisation  to the point where invaders can simply walk in and take over. Which is exactly what they are going to do. Feminists can celebrate their triumph over Christian patriarchy but their celebrations are likely to be short-lived. Patriarchy will reassert itself one way or another because there is no viable alternative.

Friday, October 27, 2017

the battle for our children

An important recent post at The Knight and Drummer raises an issue that I’ve been concerned about for some time now. It is now obvious what the ultimate objective of the homosexual lobby is. It is unrestricted access to children for male homosexuals. This has always been the final objective, the only difference now is that they’re no longer making any secret of it.

In fact they have been pursuing this objective for decades. The sexualisation of children has been aggressively pushed in schools over a period of many years. Children have been exposed to sexual concepts at wildly inappropriate ages. And the sexual concepts to which they have been exposed have become steadily more sinister.

Over the past few years the gender identity nonsense has been used as a way to further advance this process. Extremely young children who have absolutely zero understanding of sex have been persuaded that they can change their gender. In many cases the parents have been pressured to go along with this. Most worrying is that many parents have been happy to do so - in our modern world a transgender child is a major status symbol.

A sexual interest in young boys has been a key part of the male homosexual sub-culture for at least two thousand years. We should not be surprised that they now intend to find ways to satisfy this interest without the inconvenience of being sent to prison. The homosexual lobby has taken an extraordinary interest in the education system and it’s no coincidence that they have done so.

Sceptics might object that they could not possibly get away with this. In fact they are getting away with it. And they have strategies which will help them to do so. The most successful is likely to be based on the idea that current age of consent laws are oppressive to children and repress childhood sexuality. It’s an evil strategy but that’s not going to stop them. We can also expect to hear sob stories (all of them phony) in the media about thousands of homosexual children committing suicide because their sexuality has been repressed.

It will be interesting to see which way women jump on this issue. Lesbians don’t share the obsessive sexual interest in children that male homosexuals display but they are always keen to make converts, and the best way to do so is to get them young. I imagine lesbians will mostly support male homosexuals on this issue.

But what about heterosexual feminists? Surely they won’t go along with any of this?

Much depends on whether heterosexual feminists are prepared to confront the homosexual lobby on this subject. These days very few people have the courage to stand against the homosexuals so I’m not hopeful. I do expect some major splits among feminists though, with many older feminists being appalled by the idea of children being turned into objects for the gratification of sexual lusts. Younger feminists will fully support the homosexuals. They’ve been thoroughly indoctrinated in homosexual and gender identity propaganda.

Christians as usual will wring their hands and start mumbling about fairness and equality and love and will do nothing of any consequence.

So far every single battle in the culture wars has been lost by Christians and social conservatives. We had better hope they don’t lose this one.

Saturday, October 21, 2017

liberalism is colonialism

An amusing detail in a recent post at Nourishing Obscurity caught my eye. At a conference an anti-free speech protestor shouted, “liberalism is white supremacy.”

What’s really amusing about this is that it’s true. Liberalism is the ultimate white people ideology. Non-white people aren’t into liberalism at all. They may make tactical political alliances with liberals but non-white people do not have any real belief in liberalism.

And liberalism is not only a white person’s ideology, it is being forced on everybody on the planet. This is an example of extraordinary arrogance and insensitivity and it truly can be described as ideological white supremacism.

Worse even than that, liberalism is the new colonialism. Remember when people of the left used to tell us how evil colonialism was, how it was paternalistic and degrading and it destroyed other cultures. Well folks that’s exactly what liberalism is doing right now.

For all the talk of diversity it is quit obvious that the final objective of the liberal globalist establishment is to destroy every culture but one. No diversity will be permitted in the liberal globalist Brave New World. Everyone will be the same shade of brown. Everyone will speak the same language - English, with an American accent. Everyone will share the same culture. And that culture will be American culture.

Even the European colonial powers in the bad old days showed more respect for other cultures. Liberalism is the most intolerant ideology that human beings have so far managed to devise. The idea of respecting other cultures does not even occur to modern liberals. These fanatically politically correct liberals are engaging in the greatest cultural genocide of all time.

And who are these fanatical liberals? For the most part they are white and middle-class. The liberal true believers are almost entirely white and middle-class.

Liberalism really is white supremacist, and neo-colonialist, and racist. Life is full of little ironies isn’t it?

Thursday, October 19, 2017

the mangina plague

One of the most distressing, and disgusting, features of modern life is the male feminist. The level of self-loathing necessary to be a male feminist seems only to be found among white European men.

The big question is, what do these loathsome half-men get out of the deal? Do they really imagine that their pathetic grovelling is going to persuade a feminist harpy to give them regular sex? Perhaps they just enjoy being humiliated. Perhaps there really has been a precipitous decline in testosterone levels in the West.

Male feminists seem to be worryingly common among Christians. Although this is probably not surprising, given that Christianity’s surrender to feminism has been total. Christian manginas probably aren’t too concerned that their ritual self-abasement is unlikely to get them sex since they probably don’t think they’re worthy of sex anyway. Christians today seem more intent on worshipping women than God.

Superficially it’s easier to understand why women are happy with the situation. A mangina can be relied upon to pay the bills and be obedient and docile and he doesn’t even need to be rewarded. Just an occasional pat on the head is enough. Male feminists are like dogs but they’re better because dogs don’t support you financially.

But it doesn’t really work for women because the truth is that women are revolted by the idea of having sex with manginas. Feminism has succeeded in emasculating men but emasculated men don’t turn women on.

The mangina plague is bad enough but the sad truth is that there’s a little bit of mangina in all western men these days. Even men who think they’ve been red-pilled have often internalised an enormous amount of feminist propaganda. The worst thing is that men aren’t even conscious of this. We’ve been so successfully brainwashed that we don’t know we’ve been brainwashed.

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

the culture war as class war

I speak in my previous post about the rise of the intellectuals as a self-conscious class. This has had serious consequences as far as the culture war is concerned. To a considerable extent the culture war has been a class war. It’s been rather different however from the kind of class war Marx envisioned. This has been a class war launched by the ruling class against the lower classes who were already disenfranchised and powerless.

The motivation is partly class interest. It’s in the interests of the ruling class to keep the masses docile and demoralised. But it’s more than that. A good deal of the motivation seems to be pure hatred. This is particularly true of the intellectual sub-class of the ruling class. They have a visceral loathing for working-class people.

A large part of the culture war has been an attack on the values of working-class people. And on the symbols that are important to working-class people. Even just the ordinary day-to-day habits of working-class people are enough to enrage intellectuals.

This is not just a class war for dominance. It appears to be a kind of war of annihilation, with the objective being to destroy the working class utterly.

It’s important to understand that this is not a rational response on the part of intellectuals. It’s pure emotion.

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that intellectuals live in a fantasy la-la land of theory and working-class people tend to regard the theories of intellectuals with scepticism. Some ideas are so crazy and so obviously wrong that only people with a university education can convince themselves to believe in them. The main purpose of a university education is to deaden the mind in order to allow people to believe in things that are clearly false. Working-class people, lacking the advantages of university educations, tend to rely on common sense. And nothing makes intellectuals more angry than common sense.

Intellectuals get very upset if anyone disagrees with their oh-so-clever theories. One of the driving forces of the culture war is to create an environment in which such disagreement will no longer be permitted. The very existence of people who disagree with them triggers intellectuals. Since working-class people tend to disagree with intellectuals on most subjects then obviously the working class must be eliminated.

Sunday, October 15, 2017

intellectuals and the other class struggle

When we hear the term class struggle we think of the rich vs the poor, capitalists vs workers and so forth. Discussions of this topic often involve the concept of the ruling class. In fact class struggles are often much more complex and much more interesting. The really bitter struggles often take place within classes.

The idea of a monolithic ruling class that has always exercised power is clearly nonsense. Ruling classes evolve. And evolution can be a brutal process. The survival of the fittest and all that.

In the Middle Ages power was based on the possession of land. This was the age of the aristocracy of land. Even that is an over-simplification since there were often bitter struggles between large land owners and smaller ones and there was very often conflict between the crown and the large land owners so it wasn’t really a monolithic ruling class. Nonetheless it was a ruling class and it was based on land.

The Industrial Revolution changed all that. It created a new aristocracy, the aristocracy of money. Naturally this set off a bitter conflict within the ruling class and of course the aristocracy of money won.

In the 18th century another new aristocracy was emerging. This was the aristocracy of ideas. The intellectual class. Intellectuals in the modern sense hardly existed prior to that time. In the 18th century they emerged and grew and prospered. You could find them in the universities, attending elegant soirées, in coffee houses, anywhere that was safely sheltered from the real world. Intellectuals like theories and the annoying thing about the real world is that it rarely conforms to the theories of intellectuals. As a result intellectuals shun the real world.

There was one thing that really frustrated these intellectuals is that they had no real power. They wanted to run things. They wanted to run everything, including the government.

The intellectuals were part of the ruling class in the broad sense but they also had their own distinct class identity. Their primary loyalty was to their own intellectual class.

This meant that the old aristocracies, of land and of money, were an obstacle. This partly explains the enthusiasm of intellectuals for left-wing political ideas (an enthusiasm that was already becoming evident even before the rise of classical marxism). The intellectuals didn’t care about the working class but they did have an interest in overthrowing the existing order, or at least destabilising it in order to take power themselves.

Intellectuals were also somewhat internationalist in outlook right from the start. They tended to be  rootless cosmopolitans. Not all of them. In the 19th century some were attracted to nationalism. By the mid-20th century however virtually all had adopted some form of internationalism.

Of course the big problem was that intellectuals loved theory and despised reality. There has never been a class with such a lust for political power combined with such a total incapacity for exercising it sensibly. No-one should ever take intellectuals seriously. Unfortunately we have taken them seriously, with catastrophic consequences.