Saturday, September 23, 2017

a woman's world

A recent post at Oz Conservative, Why can't male sacrifice be acknowledged? included a quote from a post, Appreciation, at The Rational Male.

Even the most enlightened, appreciative woman you know still operates in a feminine-centric reality. 

For me this opens up an interesting line of thought. The observation is obviously correct. In fact it has always been true that women operate in a feminine-centric reality. Why wasn’t this a problem in the past and why is it a problem now? The answer is that the problem has been caused by the collapse of traditional sex roles.

Men and women are profoundly different. And to a large extent women should live in a feminine-centric reality. That’s the way they’re wired. They don’t view the world the way men do, they don’t want the same things out of life that men want, they don’t think or feel the same way men do, they don’t approach sex the way men do. They should not have to do any of these things. They are being forced into living their lives as if they were men. It doesn’t work.

The fact that women operate differently compared to men is not a flaw but an asset. Women operate psychologically, emotionally and sexually in a way that is ideally suited for their intended roles as wives and mothers. In a sane society based on traditional sex roles women would be allowed to live their lives in a manner to which they are biologically suited, and living their lives in that way would bring them happiness and fulfilment.

Women encounter problems because they cannot change the way they are wired but they insist on (or in many cases are pressured into) living as pretend men. They try to have high-powered careers and they end up being stressed and unfulfilled. They then try to combine their unfulfilling careers with marriage and motherhood and of course their marriages fail and their kids turn out badly because the woman is wasting her energies on her career. They then end up being bitter, angry and miserable.

They generally only succeed in their high-powered careers because they get favoured treatment. They are not equipped to be politicians or CEOs. They don’t have the cool analytical intelligence, they don’t have the mental toughness. They’re not supposed to have those qualities. Women make decisions based on emotion. That’s what they are supposed to do. It makes them good wives and mothers.

The idea of strong empowered women is a myth. Women are strong and empowered only to the extent that they have the apparatus of the state to back them up, with force if necessary. Which means that their strength and empowerment is in fact provided by men. When their feelings get hurt they stamp their feet and cry and expect a policeman to come along and arrest the bad man who made them cry. In actual fact women are supposed to get upset when their feelings are hurt. They’re supposed to be emotionally sensitive. There’s nothing wrong with a woman crying if her feelings are hurt. In a sane with traditional sex roles women are protected from situations that are likely to upset them. The problem today is that women put themselves in situations where it’s practically guaranteed that their feelings will get hurt.

Women are natural control freaks. This is a good thing. If you’re going to be a mother being a control freak will keep your kids from harm. In business or politics it’s a disaster. Women try to run corporations, and run the country, they way they’d run the nursery. Theresa May being a fine example.

The post at The Rational Male also states

I think what most men uniquely deceive themselves of is that they will ultimately be appreciated by women for their sacrifices. Learn this now, you won't. 

This is true, but again it comes down to the abandonment of traditional sex roles. There are things that women should expect men to do without making a song and dance of it. There are certainly things a wife should expect her husband to do automatically. He should protect her, not just from physical harm but from emotional harm. He should support her financially. She should expect him to be faithful and she should not expect him to abandon her when she’s no longer young and hot. The reason for the problems today is that women have been taught that they have no reciprocal obligations whatsoever. In the saner world of the past women understand that there were certain things that a husband was entitled to expect from a wife. She should provide emotional support, she should provide sex, she should not denigrate him publicly and she should keep house for him. Neither sex considered these things to be unreasonable. Perhaps they were sacrifices in some cases but since they were reciprocal both parties ended up winning. Both parties derived a great deal of emotional satisfaction from the arrangement.

Women not only did not expect men to do housework, they would have been horrified by the idea. It meant you were a failure as a wife, and a man who agreed to do so was considered (quite rightly) to be an emasculated weakling.

As long as men and women stuck to their traditional roles there was mutual respect as well as love and affection. The mutual respect is gone. The result can only be disaster.

Thursday, September 21, 2017

victory or survival?

I am not suggesting that the war is lost or that we should give up the fight. I believe we should continue to look for strategies for victory, but I also think that we need to start considering strategies for survival. It is possible that in the short to medium term survival will be the critical question.

This is particularly true for Christians. The war on Christianity is heating up. It is obvious that the objective is now the complete destruction of Christianity.

It is vital for Christians to realise that it is not just the unholy triumvirate of government, academia and the media that they are up against. The corporate world is every bit as hostile to Christianity. The corporate world wants Christianity destroyed. There are various reasons for this but it needs to be understood that there is a fundamental hostility at work here. Capitalism wants tame workers and most of all capitalism wants willing and compliant consumers who accept that their only role is to consume. The existence of any institution that encourages people to be anything other than consumers is no longer going to be tolerated.

Christians need to realise that by and large their own church hierarchies are now firmly in the enemy camp. Perhaps that is not entirely true of the Catholic hierarchy but even in the Catholic Church resistance is crumbling at an alarming rate.

I’m not a Christian so the war on Christianity really doesn’t affect me personally but it is becoming more and more obvious that anyone who is a dissident of any description is going to have to start looking at survival strategies.

One crucial survival strategy is to learn to regard the entire state apparatus and the entire corporate world as actively malevolent. It’s not paranoia when your enemies are real and they really are out to get you. Being afraid of the secret police in the totalitarian societies of the 1930s  wasn’t paranoia, it was common sense. We live in a society today that is moving towards totalitarianism at a terrifyingly rapid pace.

If you talk to the police without a lawyer being present you are putting your own head on the chopping block. Not matter how innocuous the questions, no matter how trivial the matter seems to be, it is unbelievably foolish to answer even a single question unless your lawyer is with you. It is equally foolish to volunteer any information to any government or quasi-government body, or to any large corporation. Do not participate in any surveys or polls or academic studies. Do not reveal unnecessary personal information on social media.

It is a wise idea to minimise your interactions with government agencies.

Christians need to be exceptionally cautious about these things. If you’re a Christian and you broadcast the fact on social media without the cloak of anonymity you are giving your enemies a weapon which they will use against you, and against your family.

I have spoken in the past of the need to avoid modern popular culture. This is now more vital than ever. All modern popular culture is propaganda. All of it. Every single movie. Every single TV show. All of pop music. All fiction writing. The propaganda may be blatant or it may be subtle but you can be absolutely certain it is always there. You need to be especially vigilant in shielding your children from this poison. Thinking that you can avoid the danger merely by minimising the exposure is sheer folly. Modern popular culture is not just poison, it is a cumulative poison.

We also need to consider very carefully our attitude towards society. If society is hopelessly corrupt and vicious do we owe it any loyalty? We cannot avoid living in the society in which we find ourselves but there’s no point in deluding ourselves. Western civilisation is diseased. The main priority is to protect ourselves and avoid becoming infected.

Yes, this is a very depressing post and I will doubtless be castigated for being black-pilled but I do think we need at least to consider the possibility that the worst may come to pass. Maybe it won’t. I hope it won’t. But being prepared for it if it does happen is surely not a bad idea.

Sunday, September 17, 2017

sheltered from the real world

I’ve come to the conclusion that there are two types of people in society, those who live in the real world and those who live entirely sheltered from the real world. The big divide is not between liberals and conservatives or between Christians and atheists. The big divide is in people’s experience of the real world.

Living in the real world generally means having a real job. A job in which you actually do something useful and productive. That immediately excludes everyone in politics and the bureaucracy, and everyone in the media and academia.

The real jobs category also excludes most female jobs which are generally hobby jobs rather than actual jobs. It does not exclude motherhood. Motherhood is most definitely a real job.

Those who have to confront the real world on a regular basis tend to view life very differently from those who are sheltered from reality. Their opinions on social issues are usually very different. Most of the beliefs that we think of as coming under the umbrella of cultural marxism, social justice or social liberalism cannot survive contact with the real world.

Those who live sheltered from the real world live are usually financially privileged. They don’t see the problems with things like immigration because they don’t have to face those problems. They almost certainly live in nice safe comfortable overwhelmingly white neighbourhoods where they are not directly affected. Money is a formidable cushion against unpleasant realities.

If you have first-hand contact with reality you know that immigration is a bad thing. You’ve seen the social devastation it causes and you’ve seen what overcrowding and the overloading of infrastructure does. Anyone who has had any contact with reality knows that feminism does not work and never can work.

The real world/sheltered world divide explains why so many people believe so many crazy things. It explains why women in particular believe crazy things. Most women these days are to some extent sheltered from unpleasant unrealities. If they engage in sexual promiscuity society will rescue them (which means ultimately that men will pay the bills for them). If they engage in foolish risk-taking activities society will rescue them (in other words men will rescue them).

The real world/sheltered world divide also explains that otherwise inexplicable phenomenon, the male feminist (that most contemptible of all human creatures). If you meet a male feminist you can be pretty much guaranteed he won’t be a truck driver or a farmer or an engineer or a plumber. He’ll inhabit one of those sheltered privileged little enclaves in which reality never intrudes. He’ll “work” for the government or he’ll be a lecturer in media studies or something equally useless.

The best antidote to crazy social beliefs is a good dose of reality but we live in a society in which a large proportion of the population will never have the slightest contact with the real world.

Friday, September 15, 2017

the culture war accelerates

Those of us who deplore the social decay of the West have for many decades now become accustomed to the basic strategy of the Cultural Left. It’s been a strategy of gradualism. Push for radical social change but do it slowly enough that nobody really notices what’s happening, and ordinary people don’t get scared enough to resist. The boil the frog slowly approach.

All that has changed in the past few years. We’re now seeing a whole new strategy. It’s a strategy of pushing radical social change as far and as fast as possible. The Cultural Left no longer cares if the frog notices how hot the water is getting. It’s a strategy of relentless all-out attack on every front.

This change really became obvious when, with the homosexual marriage issue still not quite decided in their favour they were prepared to launch an all-out offensive on the trans front. The usual expectation would have been that they would wait and consolidate their victory in World War G for a few years before launching World War T.

Partly this is because the Cultural Left believes (correctly) that they are very close to final victory in the culture wars. There is no longer any need for caution. Now is the time to press home their advantage. Now is the time to crush the last few isolated pockets of resistance.

Of course another reason is that Brexit, the jump in support for the Front National in France and the Trump election win revealed the existence of pockets of resistance that were slightly larger than the Cultural Left/globalists had suspected. Their obvious intention now is to crush this resistance mercilessly, to ensure that such annoyances as Brexit and Trump can never happen again.

While the culture war accelerates we’re also seeing an extraordinary quickening in the pace at which western “democracies” are embracing totalitarianism. The major political parties (all of them) no longer even pretend to believe in actual democracy or any semblance of freedom of thought. In alliance with Big Business they are moving with terrifying speed to destroy any hint of opposition to the globalist/SJW agenda.

Time would seem to be running out rather quickly for the West.

Tuesday, September 12, 2017

democracy, morality, war and totalitarianism

One of the problems with democracy is that it tends to make everything everybody’s business. And if everything is everybody’s business then everything is the state’s business. As a result there is a slow but inexorable drift towards soft totalitarianism.

Democracy inevitably extends the range of things with which government is concerned. Everything becomes a political issue (today even marriage and the weather are political issues) and if something is a political issue then the government is supposed to do something about it.

Democracies also make everything into moral issues. The government is not only supposed to do something about everything, they’re supposed to do something which will make us all feel more virtuous.

Before democracy it was considered desirable that governments should govern wisely but nobody really expected the government to be a force for morality. Morality was the province of churches, and of the family. Morality was mostly enforced by social pressure. If you ran off with another man’s wife you could expect a great deal of social disapproval but you didn’t expect the government to have you arrested. Governments did enforce some moral rules but it was not really regarded as a core function of government.

Today’s morality is political correctness and there is a terrifying acceptance of the idea that governments have not merely a right but a duty to enforce that morality. But it’s not just political correctness - increasingly we accept the idea that the government should regulate every area of our lives, even down to what we eat.

Bizarrely, today even foreign policy is supposed to be moral. If you had suggested back in the 18th century that foreign policy should be conducted on moral lines people would have thought you were a lunatic. Even war is now supposed to be moral. Wars have to be moral crusades. Of course if a war is a moral crusade then any methods are acceptable (since the enemy is regarded as being evil), which is why democracies tend to be quite brutal when waging war.

This comes about because foreign policy and war are now everybody’s business. That’s the democratic way. Therefore the objective must be to make us feel virtuous. In fact of course there is no way that foreign policy can be both effective and moral. And in the course of human history very very few wars have ever been waged for moral purposes. Unfortunately when you turn wars into moral crusades you end up with more wars, and more vicious wars.

One of the reasons I tend to prefer monarch (real monarchy not silly pretend constitutional monarchy nonsense) is that kings have never been overly worried about imposing morality. As long as his subjects pay their taxes and obey the law he’s not usually interested in prying into their lives.

I’m no libertarian but there is something to be said for governments that concentrate on sensible policy rather than moral policy.

Saturday, September 2, 2017

towards a racial politics?

Race is very much in the news these days and on the right one of the burning issues is whether some form of white nationalism is possible. There are those on the right who believe that politics is going to become purely race-based and that whites will have to accept and embrace this.

I remain very sceptical, for several reasons.

First off, politics is about differing views on the kind of society in which we want to live. Democracy has certainly become a sham (or perhaps more of a sham) and party politics has become largely irrelevant. On the other hand there are still absolutely fundamental differences among ordinary people on the issue of the kind of society at which we should be aiming.

There is no common ground between traditionalist Catholics and Kumbaya Christians. Militant atheists are barely willing to acknowledge the right of Christians to exist. The libertarian is not going to learn to lie down with the big government progressive. Feminism is absolutely incompatible with a belief in family life. The views of LGBT activists cannot be reconciled with the views of those who believe in marriage and the family. Greenies are hate-driven fanatics who cannot even be reasoned with by normal people. These are all massive differences between the beliefs of white people. White people are not going to put aside these disagreements for the sake of race. It just isn’t a workable proposition.

The chances of forging a viable alliance of white people based solely on race or ethnicity are zero. Even forging an alliance based on a common culture would be formidably difficult. White people do not have a common culture. Maybe they did once but they don’t now. Not only is there is no white common culture, there is not even a common culture between whites of the same ethnicity. Rural Australians might belong to the same ethnicity as sandal-wearing tofu-munching environmentally conscious inner city lesbian feminist lecturers in women’s studies but the two groups have zero in common.

There is also the question of class interests. Anyone who thinks class interests don’t matter any more hasn’t been paying attention. Class hatred is more virulent today than at any time in history. White elites would be totally delighted if every working-class white person just died. The average working-class white person would be equally delighted to hang members of the white elite from the nearest lamp post.

It’s also vital to remember that immigration has no downside whatever for upper middle class and upper class whites. Such people will always be able to live in comfortable safe overwhelmingly white neighbourhoods. Money insulates people completely from the dire effects of diversity. Wealthy white people like diversity because it doesn’t affect them.

The irony is that because ideological differences are irreconcilable the best way to forge effective political alliances among white people is by avoiding ideology and focusing on bread-and-butter issues. So the best likely way to build a groundswell of opinion against immigration is by not fighting it as a race or ideological issue. Fight it as a bread-and-butter issue.

Inner city lesbian feminists and wheat farmers might not agree on much but they might agree that affordable health care is a good thing. A stock broker with multiple mistresses and a strongly family-printed professional fisherman might disagree on most things but they’re likely to agree that aged care is important. Both are going to grow old one day. A Christian truck driver and an atheist interior decorator might have little in common but neither wants to live in an overcrowded city. Immigration means affordable health care goes out the window. Immigration means not enough money to provide aged care. Immigration means cities become overcrowded. Too many people means society starts to collapse.

If you fight immigration as a bread-and-butter issue you not only have a chance of gaining wide support, you also make it more difficult for the open borders crowd to do what they want to do, which is to make it all about race and ideology.

Sunday, August 27, 2017

the white people problem - narcissism

We have a white people problem. The problem with white people isn’t self-hatred. It’s narcissism.

It’s not that white people hate themselves or think they’re evil. They think they’re the most enlightened and virtuous people ever to walk the Earth. They’re so enlightened that they’ve created the most fabulous religion in history, the religion of self love. They’ve created the Church of Virtue Signalling and it’s so much better than all those awful old religions, many of which include irritating things like rules and morality. The Church of Virtue Signalling doesn’t need any of that. All it requires is Virtue Signalling. It’s Justification by Virtue Signalling alone.

A while back Godfrey Elfwick rather memorably trolled Chelsea Clinton, claiming that his career as a political activist began at the age of two as the leader of Babies Against Bedtime. As so often Godfrey was eerily close to the mark. Modern political activism for white people essentially is Babies Against Bedtime. It’s spoilt rich children throwing their toys out of their pram. Because when you’re two years old throwing your toys out of the pram seems very clever. This will teach Mummy a lesson. Unfortunately white people no longer seem to grow out of this phase.

John Lennon ends the Vietnam War
It’s not as if these privileged white people actually think white people are inferior. Quite the reverse. They’re quite happy to bomb the crap out of non-white people, mostly for offending their tender sensibilities. If only those non-white people would learn to do what they’re told! Don’t they realise how virtuous university-educated middle-class white people are?

And so these white people gave us the modern Left. What distinguishes the Modern Left is not politics, but the absence of politics. This is a political movement for people whose political comprehension is on the level of the average twelve-year-old’s understanding of the world. It’s not politics, it’s applied narcissism. These are people who don’t have the stomach for an actual political struggle, even if they understood actual politics which they don’t. They don’t want a political struggle because such political struggles are hard work, and often dangerous. And politics is so confusing! We know capitalism is evil and the Left is virtuous but it’s capitalism that finances the modern Left. This is upsetting and confusing. Best not to think about it. Best not to think at all. Narcissism means never having to think.

The  patron saint of narcissism is John Lennon, that most hypocritical and empty-headed of white celebrities. You remember John Lennon, the man who ended the Vietnam War by refusing to get out of bed. That was Lennon’s idea of a political struggle. Ideal for fat lazy people who don’t want to get hurt.

Identity politics is great for white people because it’s the negation of politics. It’s pure Virtue Signalling. It requires no thought whatsoever. You don’t even have to worry about other people’s feelings. You just need to worry about your own feelings. Luckily that’s what narcissists like to do. We live in a society in which white people do nothing but indulge their narcissism.

White people live in a post-political age. Feminists used to say that the personal is the political. How right they were. What they didn’t get was that when the personal is the political then politics ends. Only narcissism remains.

Monday, August 21, 2017

confined to bed

I've been confined to bed for the past week, with the worst case of flu you could imagine. A real killer flu. Hopefully normal service will be resumed fairly soon.

Sunday, August 13, 2017

the law exists for the purpose of social control

One positive thing that might emerge from the recent events in Charlottesville is a realisation by those on the dissident right that the police are not only not our allies, they cannot even be relied upon to be neutral. They are firmly in the enemy camp.

The truth, which mainstream conservatives have never been able to accept, is that the law exists for the purpose of social control. The police and the courts do not exist in order to serve justice. They are there to preserve the existing social order. Conservatives live in a fantasy land in which law and order is a conservative value. It isn’t. The law serves the existing social order, whatever that might be. Policemen and judges are not inherently conservative. No communist regime has ever had a problem recruiting police and judges loyal to the regime.

And the existing social order today is firmly and unequivocally liberal. Liberals are the establishment. Liberals like to pretend that they are the brave rebels battling the evil conservative establishment but nothing could be further from the truth.

Policemen and judges also have a very strong loyalty to those who pay their salaries and their pensions. They are therefore instinctively and fanatically loyal to the government. Whatever their personal views might be they know who pays their salaries.

And the police and the courts are now ideologically committed to the liberal establishment as well. Conservatives need to abandon their delusion that the average cop is sympathetic to conservative values. Liberals have not only captured the bureaucracy, the media, academia and the schools they have also captured the police. The average cop actually believes that the alt-right is made up of dangerous violent Nazis. They have been indoctrinated to believe this and they are no more immune to propaganda than anyone else. They see us as the enemy.

The law has always existed in order to protect the interests of those in power. The law is there to protect the government, not to protect ordinary people. It has always been this way.

It might also be time to abandon any fantasies we might have about the military being made up of natural conservatives, but that’s possibly a subject for a future post.

Wednesday, August 9, 2017

the social function of the church

Churches in the modern world are irrelevant. They’re just social clubs. They perform no useful social function. They exist in order to provide a warm fuzzy feeling of self-righteousness and niceness. 

This might seem paradoxical since churches today appear to be obsessively concerned with their social rôle. This is an illusion. They are serving the liberal agenda, not a Christian agenda. They are merely acting as another propaganda arm of the state. They are serving the state and the corporate interests that control our society. They do not promote Christian values. They promote the values that the state and the corporate interests wish to impose on us. They have abdicated their actual social rôle.

Churches are not guided by scripture or by their own teachings. They are guided by opinion polls and by the media. They have become political entities (it’s a major feature of our society that every aspect of life is politicised). The churches do not lead. They follow. They follow the power and the money. 

They decided back in the mid-20th century that they needed to become more relevant. In fact they’ve become entirely irrelevant. They’re not much more than a branch of the entertainment industry. They sell good feelings.

The churches have abandoned actual religion and they have abdicated their function of providing a moral framework by which to live. They promote whatever values happen to be popular, which are of course the values of the state and corporate interests.

Christianity has become a purely personal thing. The churches have forgotten that they have a rôle to play in promoting an actual Christian society. If a religion does not provide a moral framework by which to live then it’s difficult to see what purpose it does serve, other than making people feel smug and self-righteous.


There are still Christians who desire to follow Christianity as an actual religion but there is no place for such people within modern institutional Christianity.

freedom of speech and ideological warfare

Those with conservative leanings (and especially those with cuckservative leanings) put great store in freedom of speech. The trouble with this is that it’s essentially a defensive strategy. It means accepting the liberal paradigm, and then begging for permission to express the occasional dissenting viewpoint. It’s tantamount to asking to be allowed to argue for minor adjustments to a system that is corrupt to the core.

What we’re seeing is a clash of ideologies. It’s an ideological war to the death.

We need to forget freedom of speech and other liberal fetishes, all of which are basically misguided Enlightenment nonsense. We need to attack the entire structure of liberalism. The objective should not be freedom of speech, which is merely the right to write indignant letters to The Times. The objective should be to replace the entire liberal paradigm.

Conservatives like to argue that a healthy democracy depends on tolerance of noxious opinions. This is nonsense. For half a century we have tolerated noxious viewpoints such as feminism, the absurd notion that homosexuality is natural and healthy and the even more ludicrous notion that “gender” is a social construct (in fact gender is merely a grammatical term - people don’t have gender). We have tolerated these poisonous views and they have destroyed our civilisation. Societies that tolerate noxious viewpoints are doomed societies.

The truth is not a matter of opinion. It’s not like expressing a preference for French food in preference to Italian food. That there are profound differences between men and women is not an opinion. It is a fact. That homosexuality is unnatural and unhealthy is not an opinion. It is a fact. That biological sex is unchangeable is not a matter of opinion. It is reality.


Freedom of speech is and always will be a recipe for chaos and societal breakdown. It's a refuge for those who don't have sufficient confidence in the truth, and for those who don't understand the nature of ideological warfare.

Monday, August 7, 2017

the woke, the deniers and the uneasy ones

When you spend a lot of time in those parts of the internet where the alt-righters hang out it’s easy to get the impression that victory is not only assured, but it’s just around the corner. When you’re focused on the fight to save western civilisation it’s easy to forget that most ordinary people don’t even know that civilisation is under threat.

You can divide people into several categories. The first category could I suppose be described by the terribly ugly but somewhat useful term “woke” - these are the people who not only know how bad things are, they know how and why things got to this pass and they know what needs to be done to avert disaster. Unfortunately this category amounts to a very small fraction of the population. Maybe one percent.

There’s a second category (we could call them the “deniers”) and it’s divided into sub-categories. These are the people who know how bad the problems are and they also know the hows and whys of the situation but although they know the truth they won’t admit it, not even to themselves. The first sub-category is composed of people who can’t admit the truth because it’s too upsetting to them. They want diversity to be a good thing and even though they know it’s been a disaster they still want to believe in it. They know that feminism has caused misery but they can’t accept that feminism is unworkable in its entirety.

The second sub-category is made up of people who know the truth but are too scared to admit it, to themselves or anyone else. Admitting the truth could tempt them into speaking the truth and that could cost them their jobs, their marriages, their children, their chances of ever getting another decent job. Their fears are by no means irrational.

These two categories might perhaps amount to five percent of the population, maybe slightly more, maybe even ten percent, but that’s only a guess. They’re a small but not entirely insignificant minority.

The third major category might encompass anywhere from a third to two-thirds of the population. They’re the “uneasy” ones. They know that something has gone horribly wrong with society but they don’t know how it happened or why.

The tiny minority of the “woke” is just too insignificant to make a real difference. Somehow we have to reach the people in those other categories. Unfortunately it’s easier said than done. Those who won’t accept the truth because of their fears really do have valid reasons for those fears. 

Those who won’t accept the truth because it would upset them too much present a difficult problem. People show remarkable stubbornness in clinging to beliefs that are untrue but emotionally satisfying. If those beliefs also involve major opportunities for virtue-signalling then the stubbornness becomes even more determined. It’s particularly difficult to reason with Christians who have embraced bleeding heart feelgood causes (in other words the majority of Christians). They just won’t let go of those goodfeelz. Women in general also cling tenaciously to emotionally gratifying beliefs. And so many men these days are so feminised and emasculated that they’re terrified of the very idea of considering forbidden thoughts.

Self-identified conservatives are an even bigger problem since most conservatives these days are in fact cuckservatives, or (even worse) neocons. Both are treacherous and cowardly, and thoroughly corrupt..

The uneasy ones, the ones who know society is going down the tubes but don’t know why, may be easier to reach. They’re starting to become vaguely suspicious of the media and they’re starting to suspect that maybe all the major political parties are equally bad. It’s no use trying to get them to accept the whole truth in one go. That’s scary for any body. But it might be possible to slowly and subtly undermine their faith in diversity (and many of them are already not entirely thrilled about it), and feminism, and in the goodwill and honesty of the homosexual lobby. The idea is to just chip away at these beliefs.

Of course the big problem is that the globalist liberals have the megaphone, they have not only the old media totally tied up but they have social media largely tied up as well. Reaching any of these people is not an easy matter. But somehow it has to be done.

Thursday, August 3, 2017

why feminism is fundamentally wrong

In the light of the discussion that my previous post, the myth of moderate feminism, kicked off I feel I should clarify my views on feminism.

Feminism is not like political ideologies such as communism or fascism or even liberalism, all of which are based on ideas that have some merit. Those ideologies do not work in practice but they are not inherently unreasonable. It is possible to engage with such ideologies on rational grounds. Feminism is not like that.

Feminism is based on ideas that are entirely false, mistaken and inherently unworkable and unreasonable. Thinking that it’s possible to engage with feminism in a rational manner is like thinking that it’s possible to engage in a rational manner with Flat Earthers.

Feminism is based on a belief that the differences between men and women are so insignificant that they can, and should, be made to disappear. This is entirely false. The differences between men and women are fundamental and profound. Men and women do not see the world the same way. Male intelligence and female intelligence are different. The emotional differences between the sexes are profound. Women are ruled by their emotions to a much greater degree than men. These are not weaknesses. If men and women stick to their traditional sex roles these differences are assets, not liabilities. 

Men and women differ in their experience of sex and their approach to sex. Men can to a large degree separate sex from emotion. Women in general cannot. For a man a one night stand is about sex. For a woman it is not purely about sex. 

The demands that feminists originally made sounded reasonable, but they were not reasonable because they were based on a complete misunderstanding of both men and women. The demand for equal pay was absurd. Women do not do the same work as men. This is partly because there are jobs that are suitable for men and other jobs that are suitable for women, and women have no desire to do many of the highly paid jobs that men do. Many of these jobs are highly paid because they are dangerous and unpleasant. Women do not want to do jobs that are dangerous and unpleasant.

Women should not receive the same pay as men because it is the duty of men to provide for their wives and children. A man needs to be paid enough to enable him to support a family. This is not the role of women.

Feminist wanted women to have equal access to higher education. Higher education is very expensive and it is not efficient to spend a fortune educating a woman for a profession that she will most probably practise on a part-time basis and with lengthy gaps for child-rearing. Women in general do not require expensive higher education.

A woman’s role is mainly to be a wife and mother. Feminists have managed to devalue these roles, which has been tragic for women.

The feminist demand for an end to the sexual “double standard” was equally wrong-headed. The double standard was there to protect women. Women face more serious consequences from living a promiscuous lifestyle. The idea that those consequences cannot be evaded by means of contraception and abortion is false - the contraceptive pill has severe health consequences and abortion has serious emotional consequences. Promiscuity is harmful for both men and women, but it is more harmful to women. The sexual double standard was simply a recognition of reality.

Feminism is also based on a deep hostility to femaleness. Feminists worship masculinity. They believe that women are worthless unless they turn themselves into pretend men.

Traditional sex roles existed because everyone used to understand that men and women were different. The things that make men happy are not the things that make women happy.

Feminism is an ideology that is based entirely on false premises. There is nothing reasonable about it. It’s wrong all the way through. It’s wrong for women. It has made women angry, dissatisfied and miserable. It needs to be rejected in its entirety.

Sunday, July 30, 2017

the myth of moderate feminism

Some interesting feminism-related stuff on the web at the moment. Much of it concerns Jeanette Kupferman, a radical feminist in the 1960s and now a woman in her 70s. She’s now a grandmother and wondering if the world feminism has created is really going to be good for her granddaughter. 

Her doubts on this subject prompted these questions at The Knight and Drummer - Can a feminist be redeemed? Can a feminist  eventually turn out to be a good woman after all?

Reading what Kupferman has to say, I think we can answer those questions in the negative. 

The story has also been noted at Oz Conservative where it’s been pointed out that Kupferman still clings tenaciously to her core liberal and feminist beliefs. 

A feminist cannot be redeemed unless she is prepared to abandon feminism in its entirety. The truth is that there is no such thing as a moderate feminist, or a reasonable moderate feminist. Feminism is based on a fundamentally mistaken view of human nature. It’s wrong right from the get-go. There’s no way to do what Kupferman would like to do, to salvage the good bits of feminism. What she sees as the good bits are actually the very things that make it an unworkable and catastrophic ideology.

Also of interest in this context is this piece by Roosh V, Why The Female “Anti-Feminist” Is A Feminist In Disguise, in which he warns that women who claim to be anti-feminist should not be taken at face value.

I also read Dalrock’s blog fairly regularly. The comments are interesting as they provide a window into what really goes on inside mainstream American Protestant churches. The extent of the surrender to feminism is terrifying. The churches have made the classic mistake - they have assumed that with feminists they’re dealing with reasonable people. They have deluded themselves into thinking that there can be such a thing as a Christian feminist. It’s nonsense. You cannot be a Christian and a feminist. It simply isn’t possible. Women who claim to be Christian feminists are certainly feminists but they aren’t Christians.


Moderate feminists, like moderate liberals, are extremely dangerous because they can easily fool naïve conservatives into believing that feminists are capable of being reasoned with.

So can a feminist be redeemed? Yes, if she is prepared to admit that feminism is thoroughly and completely wrong from start to finish and if she is prepared to reject feminism totally and completely. Very very few feminists will do this. 

Can a feminist  eventually turn out to be a good woman after all? No, not so long as she clings to any part of the feminist ideology.

Thursday, July 27, 2017

freedom - a good thing or a bad thing?

Everybody seems to agree that freedom is a very fine thing. “Conservatives” love talking about it. Libertarians get terribly excited by the idea. But what exactly does freedom mean, and are we quite sure it’s always a good thing?

If freedom means being able to do whatever you want then it seems to me that the only people in our modern world who are completely free are the billionaires. They are not constrained by financial necessity, or by the government (they own the government) or by the law (they own the law). A billionaire can wake up in the morning knowing that he can do absolutely anything he chooses to do that day.

For most people waking up in the morning means having to go to work, more often than not to a job that they hate. If you’re a wage slave you don’t really have freedom.

Free marketeers think economic freedom solves everything. The free market is kind of like magic.

Libertarians think freedom is great, unless one person’s freedom infringes another person’s freedom. 

The problem is that libertarians, and most liberals, do not understand how society works. It’s all very well to say that everything should be permitted unless it directly harms someone else but that overlooks the fact that so much of the harm done is done indirectly. If homosexuality is celebrated and children are taught in school that being homosexual is fun and liberating and cool and absolutely healthy and natural then how exactly am I going to raise my kids in such a way that they will recognise the dangers of what is actually a profoundly unnatural and unhealthy lifestyle? If every TV show and every Hollywood movie as well as the schools pushes the message of feminism how can I protect my daughter from a poisonous ideology that would condemn her to a life of anger and misery?

Freedom isn’t straightforward and it isn’t always good. 

Do people even want freedom? Today every child is free to choose any one of fifty-seven gender identities. When I was a child there was no such thing as gender, except as a grammatical term. There were two sexes, male and female, and whichever one you were born into you might as well make the most of it because it couldn’t be changed. In this case freedom just leads to insecurity, confusion and unhappiness. Maybe people are better off without some freedoms.

Today everyone is free to choose to indulge in a wide variety of sexual perversions. Strangely enough those who choose such perversions don’t seem to be particularly happy. They have high suicide rates and high rates of alcohol and drug abuse. Perhaps this sort of freedom is not a good thing?

Of course we have political freedom and no-one doubts that that is a good thing. If we don’t like the way Tweedledee is governing us we can throw him out and put Tweedledum into office.

On the whole I’m pretty dubious as to whether people really want freedom. What people want, more than anything else, is to belong. In order to belong they want to conform. This is in fact perfectly natural. Traditional societies weren’t very big on freedom but they were very good at giving people a sense of belonging. Not just belonging to a nation state but to an ethnicity, to a regional community, to a local community, to a religion, to a family. It seems to be the case that the more freedom you have, the less sense of community you have. Freedom tends to weaken social bonds. The entire history of liberalism is based on the belief that freedom is more important than social cohesion. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. I’m inclined to think that freedom is a rather tricky thing. Sometimes it turns out to be an illusion. Sometimes it comes at a high price. 

Looking at our society today, maybe freedom really is just another word for nothing left to lose.

Tuesday, July 25, 2017

From Bauhaus to Our House

Tom Wolfe’s delightfully savage 1981 account of the rise of modern architecture, From Bauhaus to Our House, remains as relevant today as ever. Most of all it provides a fascinating insight into the bizarre and disturbing ways in which cultural elites work.

The roots of the horror that is modernist architecture go back to the early years of the 20th century, a time when the worlds of art, literature and music were all beginning to embrace the cult of modernism. In architecture things really got going when Walter Gropius founded the Bauhaus. 

Of course no-one actually wanted the bleak, depressing and ugly architecture promoted by the Bauhaus. The only clients these architects got were socialist governments wanting to build housing for the workers. The workers, naturally, were not asked how they felt about having to live in these architectural horrors.

Modernist architecture got its big break when suddenly these European architects, people like Gropius and Ludwig Mies Van Der Rohe, arrived in the United States as refugees in the 30s. As Wolfe puts out, they were welcomed like great white gods who had consented to come down to earth and dwell among mortals. American architectural schools were falling over themselves to employ these godlike beings and young American architects eagerly abandoned any thought of trying to create distinctively American architecture in favour of a slavish colonial devotion to whatever the Europeans told them was the latest thing.

The result of all this was the abomination that became known as the International Style. Boxes. Boxes of glass, steel and concrete. 

The Bauhaus had been a kind of arty compound, cut off from the real world. The emphasis, as with modernist painting, was on theory. It was not necessary for the Bauhaus architects to have the buildings they designed actually built. Buildings that only ever existed on paper were just as good as real buildings. This emphasis on theory was something they brought to America with them. Getting academic posts was what counted. Once the modernists dominated the schools they could ensure that the International Style became the only approved style. It was the new orthodoxy and it was to be enforced.

An exclusive focus on theory was of course the hallmark of modernism in every field.

The horrors of modernism are of course mostly avoidable but architecture is kind of hard to avoid. People could not be forced to enjoy modernist paintings or modernist music but they could be forced to live and work in the soul-destroying boxes of modernist architecture.

Having done a brilliantly effective hatchet job on the modernists Wolfe then turns his attention to the post-modernists and proceeds to savage them as well, and rightly so.

In politics there is no weapon quite so devastating as ridicule and Wolfe is the master when it comes to wielding that particular sword. He’s in top form here. From Bauhaus to Our House is a very very funny book. Not just amusing but laugh-out-loud funny. But it’s not just funny, it offers extremely perceptive and important insights into the ways in which political and cultural elites operate. Wolfe understood right from the start just how vital cultural and artistic battles are.

Monday, July 24, 2017

winning with emotional arguments

I’ve been watching the culture wars with great interest for many years now. I’ve watched as social conservatives have lost every single battle. It’s been clearly obvious that the social conservative arguments are more sensible and more coherent but it hasn’t done them any good at all.

The mistake social conservatives have made is to think that if their arguments are true, and prudent, and properly thought-out, and logical that they will automatically prevail. It doesn’t work that way. The argument that will prevail is not the one based on truth and experience and common sense. The argument that will prevail is the one that is most emotionally satisfying.

This gets back to my post of a couple of days ago about emotional intelligence versus rational intelligence. If you want to get your message across to women you have to rely on emotion. But then that’s also true in the case of a very large proportion of men.

This is especially true in the case of political disputes, which tend to be complex. Arguments about social engineering and “social justice” are particularly complex because it’s necessary to weigh up not only the costs and benefits for the individual but also those for society as a whole, and to consider long-term as well as short-term effects, and to consider indirect as well as direct effects. This is all very complicated and confusing so most people will go for the argument that has been most skillfully presented and that feels true emotionally.

Social conservatives (and economic conservatives also) have had difficulty making their arguments emotionally attractive. The arguments of social radicals and SJWs sound wonderful on an emotional levels - they’re all about love, and caring and sharing, and equality and fairness. Their arguments are also progressive (we know their arguments are progressive because they keep telling that they are) and who doesn’t want to be seen as progressive?

There are two further factors that explain the dismal outcome of the culture wars to date. These are factors that can effectively cripple any political or social campaign. The first is to be made to look mean and nasty. The media has had extraordinary success in making conservatives appear to be a bunch of bad old meanies. In fact of course many economic conservatives really are mean and nasty and social conservatives have never realised that it would be wise to distance themselves a little from the economic conservatives. Portraying social conservatives as nasty hate-filled bigots has been an effective weapon used against us in the culture wars.

The second weakness of social conservatives has been just as deadly. Our enemies have consistently managed to make us look ridiculous. Mockery is one of the most potent of all political weapons.

So what can we do about all this? In truth, not much. It would have been nice if social conservatives had learnt to fight effectively 40 years ago but they didn’t. Now the SJWs have complete control of the megaphone. Even so, if we’re hoping to continue the fight we have to learn to fight to win. We need to find ways to make our arguments effective on an emotional level, and to avoid reliance on rational arguments which tend to make us look cold and heartless. 

It’s a losing strategy to oppose immigration on rational grounds. You’ll simply be portrayed as an evil racist, Literally Hitler in fact. You have to find ways to make immigration sound unfriendly and threatening and to make opposing immigration sound humane and enlightened. You can’t fight social issues on rational grounds because that makes you an evil misogynist. You have to find ways to make traditional values, like marriage and motherhood, sound emotionally appealing and to make the feminist obsession with careerism sound depressing and empty. You have to find ways to make heterosexuality (otherwise known as normal sexuality) seem exciting and appealing.

One thing the alt-right has realised is the importance of mockery. It’s been their biggest single contribution and it’s by no means negligible. The alt-right has also had some success in making the idea of being right-wing seem cool and glamorous. Social conservatives need to take note.

I have no idea whether the ideas I’ve suggested would work. But one thing I’m sure of. They couldn’t possibly fail more completely than the strategies used to date.

Friday, July 21, 2017

women, Christianity, superstition and heresy

The latest post at Oz Conservative, Male dominion, magical women, is extremely interesting and there have been a couple of interesting comments as well. It’s one of those posts that makes you think about an issue in an entirely new way.

There’s firstly the issue of whether women who conform to the traditional Christian virtues deserve to be considered to be “the crowning achievement of divine creation,” something that Mark quite rightly has some doubts about. He also mentions the extraordinary female attachment to bizarre beliefs in things like the Tarot and various forms of fortune telling. These are things that 99 percent of men would regard as laughable and nonsensical superstitions but a frightening number of women believe in such superstitions. What is really worrying is that extremely intelligent women are still quite capable of believing in stuff like astrology.

It’s another example of the profound difference between male intelligence and female intelligence. Men have the ability, to a large degree, to separate belief from emotion. Men tend to believe in objective truth, and they believe in weighing up evidence. Women believe in emotional truth. If it feels true then it is true. Of course this is a generalisation. But generalisations can be very useful things as long as you remember that they are generalisations and I think that this particular generalisation is both useful and mostly accurate. Certainly my own experience of women suggests that women do not perceive truth the way men do. 

I’m not suggesting that women are dishonest in this regard. It’s just the way they’re wired. They find it exceptionally difficult to make non-emotional judgments. Of course if society was still organised on the basis of traditional sex roles this would not matter, since in their proper domestic sphere emotional intelligence is a major asset. It becomes a problem when women take on roles for which they are unsuited, such as political leadership, where their emotional intelligence is almost certainly going to lead to disaster.

A commenter named Bruce added something that had never occurred to me before but which may well be very very important. He said that 

“...Christian women, at least the ones I know, are far more likely to claim that their decisions are based on direct conversations they have with God. They tell me that they literally speak to God and he speaks back - either in the form of "whispers" or direct conversation that they literally hear. I almost never hear Christian men claim this sort of thing.”

I think that this may explain a great deal about the current disastrous state of Christianity in the West. It seems quite possible that the female experience of religion is entirely and radically different from the male experience. For women religion may well be purely an emotional thing. That could be why women seem to be unworried by the widespread acceptance of heresy by Christian churches - women simply don't care about theology or doctrine at all. Men will often choose a religion, or reject one, because there is a key point of doctrine that they simply cannot accept. It seems likely that for women what matters is whether a particular religion or a particular denomination seems to them to be emotionally true. Which means that as long as they get the emotional buzz they'll accept any heresy.


This is certainly a very powerful reason to oppose the ordination of women and to oppose vigorously the appointment of women to any position of authority within the Church. Women are unlikely to oppose heresies or abominations like homosexual marriage because it simply doesn’t matter to them if such things are explicitly forbidden by scripture or by the historical teachings of the church. What matters are feelings.

A church dominated by women is inevitably going to drift towards heresy and doctrinal incoherence but it’s also going to drift towards New Age-y wallowing in superstitious wishful thinking or equally dangerous fatalism. Christianity cannot survive in any meaningful form unless men take back their proper leadership role. With women in charge Christianity is likely to do much more harm than good.

Tuesday, July 18, 2017

nationalism, regionalism and localism

There are many reasons why nationalism went out of fashion in the latter part of the 20th century. One of the reasons, not usually considered, is that nationalism is in fact rather artificial. Or perhaps it’s more accurate to say that nationalism in practice has often been rather artificial.

The boundaries of most nation states as they exist today reflect historical accidents, military conquest, the whims of statesmen and the vagaries of long-ago dynastic politics. Most nation states are not organic ethnostates. Some European nations are true ethnostates. Poland for example, although that’s largely the result of some brutal ethnic cleansing after the Second World War. More typical are countries like Switzerland, Belgium and the United Kingdom - different and not always compatible ethnicities forced together for reasons that may have made sense centuries ago. The Swiss had their reasons and due to their federal system their country has succeeded. The United Kingdom has been less happy. The Welsh, the Cornish, the Irish and the Scots were all incorporated, very unwillingly, into an English-dominated state. As for Belgium, no-one really remembers why anybody thought Belgium was a good idea.

Even nations like Germany and Italy were (before they chose to commit suicide) not quite the straightforward ethnostates they seemed to be. To make those countries work strong regional identities had to be crushed. Prior to unification Germans had a sense of German-ness but Bavarians also had a sense of Bavarian-ness and Swabians had a sense of Swabian-ness. Northern and southern Italians retain some degree of regional identity, hence the push for independence for northern Italy.

The strongest ties of identity that we have tend to be local. Regional ties can be strong also. National ties can be more problematic. If a nation isn’t an ethnostate then there’s nothing really substantial to unite the population. Attempts to construct nationalism on the basis of “shared values” or “civic nationalism” have been dismal failures. There aren’t any shared values any more, and there never were.

It’s a particular problem for artificial nations like Australia, Canada and the United States. Australia really has no sense of national identity at all. One was perhaps starting to emerge in the first half of the 20th century but the tidal wave of American culture that engulfed us after the Second World War put an end to that. We don’t have regional identities either. The US does seem at one time to have had strong regional identities but they have been fairly relentlessly crushed by the monolithic trash culture of Hollywood, social media and pop music.

Nationalism is certainly preferable to globalism, but perhaps it’s not a complete answer. Whether regionalism or localism would be any more successful in resisting globalism is of course another matter.

Saturday, July 15, 2017

censorship and the sexualisation of pop culture

The process of dismantling censorship began during the late 1950s. It gathered stream during the 1960s and by the beginning of the 70s it seemed like most of the barriers had come down. There was resistance but at the time it didn’t seem likely to be all that disastrous. It was a classic example of the workings of the slippery slope.

In 1967, President Johnson established the National Commission on Obscenity and Pornography. The commission came to the conclusion that pornography was pretty much harmless. Given the amount of pornography around at the time, and the type, this conclusion might well have been quite reasonable. I’m inclined to think that girlie magazines and similar material really were pretty harmless. The trouble is that old slippery slope. The commission could not have predicted the explosion of hardcore porn in the US from the early 70s onwards, the rise of home video at the end of the 70s and the later advent of the internet, all of which changed not only the type of pornography that was around but much more crucially led to dramatic increases in both the quantity and the ease of access.

While I admit that pornography today is a problem I’m actually much more concerned by the ways in which porn has seeped into the mainstream popular culture. The relaxation of censorship allowed pop culture to become incredibly sexualised. While you still have to make a conscious effort to seek out pornography pop culture is inescapable. This has consequences when it comes to children. The average 13-year-old girl is very very unlikely to go looking for internet porn but she is going to be exposed to pop music, to popular movies, to TV, to the social media culture. All of which are awash with sexuality, mostly of a fairly unhealthy variety. Take your daughter to a Disney movie and she’ll be exposed to homosexual imagery, and this in a movie clearly aimed at children.

It’s not so much the explicit content that is the problem, it’s the attitudes. Young women are being encouraged not just to behave sexually like men, to behave sexually like homosexual men. As explained in a recent horrifying post at The Knight and Drummer Teen Vogue is encouraging your teenage daughter to explore the wonderful world of anal sex. Sexual perversion is being normalised and while porn has played a part in this it’s the mainstream pop culture that is doing the greatest harm.

I do have some sympathy with the idea that maybe censorship should not have been relaxed anywhere near as much as it was but any attempt to reintroduce meaningful censorship will be futile unless it targets that mainstream popular culture. 


Thursday, July 13, 2017

why male privilege is a good thing

We are constantly told how men enjoy male privilege and how that’s a terribly evil thing. Men who hold conservative beliefs usually disagree although it’s depressing to note that these days most “conservative” men respond to the charge with groveling apologies. Those men who have not yet been completely emasculated do disagree but they almost invariably commit major errors in the way in which they do so. They make major concessions to feminist arguments right from the outset, accepting the pernicious doctrines of gender equality. Sad to say even some traditionalist men make this mistake. It’s interesting to note that women who reject feminism are often less inclined to make these sweeping concessions.

The fact is that male privilege is a good thing. It’s a very good thing. It’s an essential component of any traditionalist value system, although male privilege is not what most people think it is.

Men and women both have certain duties, certain responsibilities, certain rights and certain privileges and these reflect their differing social roles.

Men have always had a duty to protect women. They have always accepted this responsibility, often at great danger to themselves, often at the cost of their own lives. They still do so. Women used to understand this but today most women seem scarcely even aware of such a basic reality.

Men have also always had a duty to provide for women. Men did not go to work for fun. Unlike female work, which all too often involves nothing more than drinking coffee and talking, male work tends to involve actual work. You often get your hands dirty, sometimes you get injured, sometimes you even get killed. Women do not often get injured in workplace accidents, mainly since they’re unlikely to suffer anything worse than a paper cut. 

Historically women often made a direct economic contribution but it was a secondary contribution. A woman’s duty lay mostly in the domestic sphere, playing a nurturing role to both her husband and her children. This was an equally vital task, but it was very different from the tasks assigned to men.

This setup worked because it was not based solely on duty. It was an interlocking system of duties and privileges. Men took on the dangerous and often exhausting task of protecting and providing for their women, as well as the tasks of leadership in the society. In return they received certain privileges. They were entitled to exercise authority. Women kept house for them, reared their children and provided them with emotional support. This emotional support (and this will enrage feminists) included sex. This was male privilege.

Women took on the tasks of child-rearing, keeping house and providing emotional support to their men.  In return women got certain privileges. As well as the direct advantages of protection and financial support they got to be treated with courtesy and respect and they got a very high social status. They were entitled to be treated as ladies. That was female privilege.

Women still expect to receive female privilege but in the long run society is unsustainable without male privilege as well. Male privilege is a necessary condition for having civilisation. 

Saturday, July 8, 2017

a return to the 50s - an impossible dream?

Anyone who believes in traditionalism has to face the reality that the prospects for traditionalism are not good. The fact that there are large numbers of people who identify as “conservatives” is no help at all given that the overwhelming majority of these people are simply right-wing liberals. They accept the liberal program pretty much in its entirety. The fact that there are still reasonable numbers of people who identify as Christians is no help either since most modern Christians accept the liberal program to a horrifyingly large degree.

Of course there is always the chance that a major crisis will trigger a collapse of the current order but given that traditionalists have no established support base from which to work there’s no guarantee that even a collapse of the existing order will usher in a traditionalist revival.

So what do we do if a full-scale traditionalist revival proves to be impossible? Is any compromise possible?

We’ve learnt from bitter experience that compromise with liberals is dangerous. It’s a concept that liberals generally speaking do not believe in. Any attempt by traditionalists to compromise with liberals would have to be made from a position of strength, and traditionalists would need to display an implacable determination to stake out positions of principle and defend them.

What kind of compromise could be possible anyway? If you’re a full-blown traditionalist you realise that the rot set in in the 18th century with the Enlightenment. A return to a pre-Enlightenment society seems like a very remote possibility. What about a return to the 1950s? that would be OK wouldn’t it? 

The 50s weren’t too bad. Christian churches were still Christian. The congregations were mostly actual Christians and there were even actual Christians to be found in the hierarchies. Marriage was still fairly healthy. Most people got married and most people made a real effort to make their marriages work. There was plenty of pre-marital sex but that’s to a large extent exactly what it was - couples who were intending to get married jumping the gun. Lamentable but not disastrous. Divorce was still fairly unusual. Mothers actually raised their children. And those children were still being raised in a moderately satisfactory way. Schools were not vehicles for homosexual propaganda. Traditional sex roles still existed after a fashion. A woman could admit to being a housewife without being sneered at. Multiculturalism had not been invented. Homosexuals enjoyed a fair degree of de facto toleration as long as they were discreet, and as long as they refrained from proselytising and kept away from children. Children in the 50s had not been sexualised. Crime rates were low. People still believed they could trust the police, and even more surprisingly in most cases they could.

The trouble with a restoration of the 50s is that under the surface there were forces eating away the foundations of society. The process of weeding out believes in believers in traditional values had already begun in the universities, the media and the entertainment industries and anti-traditionalist were slowly gaining a foothold in the churches. There were two further dangerous anti-traditionalist forces - democracy and capitalism. Democracy isn’t something that has suddenly become broken. It was a bad idea from the outset and representative democracy was never workable. Voters make bad decisions and the whole process is largely a sham anyway. 

Capitalism is another problem. I don’t necessarily subscribe to the view that capitalism should be destroyed. I think it should be controlled. Rigidly controlled. Difficult, but not necessarily impossible.

So the 50s could never be restored in their entirety because the society of the 50s was a society already programmed for self-destruction. A society with many of the good features of that decade might be possible but mechanisms would need to be found to prevent cultural infiltration, democracy and capitalism from doing their work of destruction.

It’s probably not a likely scenario but perhaps it does no harm to toss ideas around.

Saturday, July 1, 2017

to control society first control the culture

A commenter at Oz Conservative recently stated, “Liberals can only mount their progressive tyranny on non-liberals through the power of the state.” I’m not sure I agree with this, not completely anyway.

The current dominant ideology, a combination of globalism and liberalism, has gained its ascendancy mostly through gaining control of the culture. This process began early in the 20th century. By the 1960s liberal leftists were firmly in control of the worlds of art and literature. They controlled Hollywood, and most of the world of entertainment. They controlled most of the news media. They controlled the universities. They had thoroughly infiltrated most of the churches. They were well on the way to controlling the culture. Their cultural control is now total.

In most cases they did not advance their agenda through direct political means. They did not control the power of the state. They have certainly been able to force the state to enforce their agenda but this has been a fairly recent thing. In every case the coercive power of the state has only been used to compel obedience to cultural changes that have already taken place.

Homosexuality had already been culturally normalised before legislation was passed to make homosexual acts legal. Marriage had already been undermined before divorce laws were relaxed to the point of making marriage nothing more than a temporary sexual arrangement. Feminists had already gained acceptance of most of their program before feminism started to be legally enforced by the state.

The use of the judiciary to accelerate the rate of social change is a recent phenomenon and it has only been made possible by liberal domination of the culture (both high culture and popular culture). 

Liberals haven’t actually needed the power of the state to push their agenda. Nor have they needed to win election victories. As long as their control of the culture remains total they can rest assured that the power of the state can and will be used to reinforce their victories. Those victories are however always won by cultural battles, not political battles. Politics is downstream of culture.

It logically follows that liberalism cannot be defeated by conventional political means. Liberalism can only be defeated by wresting control of the culture away from them. That can only be achieved by a more powerful, more attractive, more dynamic, cultural force. At this point in time such a cultural force does not exist. Until it does liberalism will remain in the driver’s seat.

Wednesday, June 28, 2017

the war between the sexes: the aftermath

Ever since the evil ideology known as feminism emerged men and women have been at war. In my view there is no way the conflict between the sexes can be resolved. So what does the future hold?

This is purely a personal view, but I suspect we will see an almost complete separation of the sexes. Our society will in fact be two societies, one male and one female, with very little real contact between the two. Men and women will lead totally separate lives.

When they’re in their 20s women will use men for sex. When they hit their mid-30s they’ll hear that biological clock ticking and they’ll panic and they’ll have one child and the state will raise the child. Marriage will be out of the question. They will have left it too late, and no man is going to want to marry a bitter angry 35-year-old feminist who has spent the previous twenty years treating men like dirt.

Men will increasingly opt out. There’s no upside whatsoever to marriage from a male point of view. You’d have to be insane even to contemplate such foolishness. Men in their 20s might hook up with women for casual sex but even that will increasingly be seen as not worth the misery and the aggravation. Within twenty years or so men will get most of their sex from sex robots. That’s an idea that has been around in science fiction for decades but the technology is catching up with the science fiction.

There are animal species in which the males and females have little or nothing to do with each other. They come together briefly once a year to mate and that’s it. That’s going to be the future for humans as well, except that we probably won’t even bother with the mating part.

Eventually men will figure out that they’re paying all the bills. Women mostly don’t have productive jobs. They work in the bureaucracy or in the “service” sector, in nice comfortable air-conditioned offices where they don’t get their hands dirty and they can spend their time drinking coffee and having meetings. They don’t actually produce wealth for the country. Men do that. When men realise that they’re producing the nation’s wealth whilst women are simply consuming that wealth things could get interesting. Men will discover that if they can’t find the kinds of jobs that allow them to keep their income (in other words jobs where they are paid under the counter) then there’s not much point in working at all. Women, who increasingly control the bureaucracy, will make frantic efforts to prevent men from keeping their income.

Both men and women will face the prospect of long long years of loneliness in the second half of life. Women will have their cats. Men will have porn and beer and gaming. All will be lonely but the relations between the sexes have been so irretrievably poisoned by feminism that will all live out their lonely lives in solitude.

I don’t see any chance of fixing any of this. The damage done by feminism has been so severe that any kind of truce seems unlikely. In all probability relations between the sexes will continue to deteriorate. We’ll end up with a kind of sexual apartheid. Two mutually hostile societies existing side by side in steadily increasing incomprehension and suspicion.

Of course in western Europe things are likely to go in a different direction. Islam will sweep feminism aside as if it had never existed.

Saturday, June 24, 2017

children, marriage and society

A couple of days ago I wrote a post on our looming aged care crisis and I made the point that a society that values nothing but hedonism, autonomy and freedom is not going to be capable of (or willing) to deal with the problem of caring for the elderly. It should also be noted that such a society is not going to be well equipped for the task of raising children. A society that cannot adequately rear children is hardly worth describing as a society at all.

A society that thinks that sex is purely a recreational activity is also not going to be child-friendly. A society that sees marriage as a vehicle to satisfy the selfish desires of two people rather than a basis for a family is not going to do too well raising kids. A society that thinks that homosexual marriage is normal and healthy is a very poor environment for children. 

It’s terrifying to think that we are actually allowing homosexuals to raise children. This is not going to end well.

It’s not just homosexual marriage that is a problem. Heterosexual marriage is not a satisfactory arrangement for child-rearing unless it is accepted that marriage is permanent.   If people think it’s fine to get a divorce because they’re bored, or they’ve met someone younger and hotter, or they’ve decided that marriage no longer satisfies their need for freedom and autonomy then children are going to suffer. Half a century ago people understood this. Why don’t people today understand it?

Single mothers cannot raise children successfully. It’s not just that they can’t raise sons, they can’t raise daughters either. Both girls and boys need fathers. Of course it goes without saying that single fathers cannot raise kids properly either - both girls and boys need mothers. Homosexual couples certainly cannot raise children, for this very reason.

A society awash with pornography is also a terrible environment for children.

De facto relationships cannot form a successful basis for raising children. They are by their very nature temporary arrangements. if you can’t handle the idea of making the commitment involved in marriage you have no business even contemplating children.

It should also be obvious that children need to grow up in a society that understands, accepts and celebrates the differences between men and women. And accepts that biological sex is not something that can be altered by surgery. It's not like getting a nose job. Children need to learn to accept their biological sex and to be happy with it. If they don't they're just going to add to the numbers of unhappy and confused adults.

Children are a massive commitment. We have to accept that. But children are the only reason for having a society in the first place. We have accept that as well.

Friday, June 23, 2017

the aged crisis and why it isn't going to go away

One of the biggest problems that western societies must face over the next few decades is what to do about aged care. We’re going to have an awful lot of old people to care for and it’s going to be very expensive. It’s a problem that most of us simply do not want to face, and governments are reluctant to confront the issue because there is no easy way to provide the necessary money.

The aged crisis is partly a product of the many undesirable social changes that have occurred since the Second World War. Partly, but not entirely. A major component of the problem is simply that old people are living much longer, and they have fewer children to look after them. It’s no good saying that in the past people cared for their elderly parents so people today should be able to as well. It’s not that simple. Those elderly parents could live long enough to reach their nineties and by that time their children are going to be rapidly approaching old age themselves (a member of my family was in her seventies and still having to care for her mother who lived to be 99). A century ago an old person would typically have three living children to share the burden. These days many aged people are lucky if they have a single child to shoulder the burden.

It’s also not realistic to think that families can still care for elderly relatives without government assistance. It just isn’t possible. A frail elderly person might still have a decade or more of life ahead of them, and when people live to extreme old age there is more often than not the complication of dementia, and caring for an old person with dementia is not possible without a good deal of support. I can tell you that from personal experience. We have to accept that the government will have to be involved. The family, and private charity, are not sufficient.

Of course those social changes I mentioned earlier have made the crisis much worse. People today are not keen on accepting any kind of responsibility and are inclined to see elderly family members as an inconvenience best dealt with by putting them in a nursing home as soon as possible. The problem with that is that nursing home care is much much more expensive than caring for the person at home, and that’s quite apart from the fact that while a nursing home is sometimes the only option it is generally not a very good option.

A society that values hedonism, autonomy and freedom is not well equipped to deal with the problem of caring for the elderly, and it’s amazing how many people who embrace these values seem to be able to pretend that it’s not going to happen to them, that they are not going to face the prospect of one day being shipped off to a nursing home when they become an inconvenience.

There aren’t any easy answers but somehow we’re going to have to find some kind of answer. I have a feeling that we will continue to pretend the problem isn’t there and the results are going to be very unpleasant.