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.

Wednesday, October 11, 2017

why our women have gone feral, part 2

As I hinted in my previous post on this topic western women have gone feral because they refuse to accept reality. They not only refuse to accept reality, they get angry when they encounter it. In that post I concentrated on the reasons young women turn feral. This time I’m looking at a couple of the reasons thirty-something and forty-something women go feral.

This also applies, bizarrely, to biological reality. The one great biological fact about women that cannot be evaded is the biological clock. Women have a very limited timeframe in which to have children. After 30 their chances of conceiving and carrying a child to term start to decline. After 35 those chances drop at a terrifying rate. By 40 the odds are not very favourable at all. Women do manage to have children in their mid-40s, and feminists and the media always like to point to such cases, but what they overlook is that those women were lucky. And they probably could afford some very expensive medical intervention as well. The brutal fact remains that after 40 the odds are stacked against the women wanting children.

Of course women have always accepted this biological fact. If they wanted to have children they understood that it was a very wise idea to aim to have the first child by the age of maybe 27 or 28, at the latest. Which meant that they needed to find a husband by around the age of 25 or so. Women have always accepted this biological fact, until feminism came along and assured them that they didn’t need to worry about facts any more. Facts were unfair and misogynistic. If reality was unpleasant then feminism would change reality!

As a result we now have large numbers of women who believe they can devote themselves to careers and sex until they’re 35 or so and then they can still have kids.

There’s another uncomfortable biological fact that women used to accept, even if they didn’t like it. Women reach their peak of attractiveness in their late teens and early 20s. After 30 their beauty starts to fade. A woman of 35 may still be beautiful, but she won’t be as beautiful as she was at 25. And a woman of 45 might still be quite attractive but she isn’t going to be anywhere near as pretty as she was at 25. Logically if a woman wants to maximise her chances of finding a good husband she should be on the lookout for one in her early 20s and should be aiming to have landed one by her mid-20s. Beauty isn’t everything and you don’t have to look like a supermodel to get a good husband but the reality is that if you’re a woman then beauty is a factor in attracting a mate and it’s sensible to use that asset while it’s still there.

This is another facet of reality that women don’t want to accept any more. They want to believe they can wait until they’re in their mid-30s (or even older) and for some reason they will have terrific high-status men queueing up to marry them.

This is the Sex and the City syndrome. Women think they can devote all their energies to a career, shopping and promiscuous sex and then in their late 30s a wonderful rich good-looking man will come along and beg them to marry him. It happened for Carrie Bradshaw so it can happen for any woman! The only trouble is, Sex and the City was pure fantasy. In reality why on earth would a  rich attractive man like Mr Big want to marry Carrie Bradshaw? He’s not exactly the sort of guy who’d be likely to be in the market for a used car but if he was he’d be looking for a late model low-mileage car with one careful previous owner. He wouldn’t be looking for a broken-down and rather battered-looking old clunker liker Carrie that had been driven by half the men in Manhattan. He would also not be interested in a woman who was clearly at an age when the chances of having even one child would be very slim. As for sex, Carrie will open her legs for him any time he asks anyway so why marry her in order to get access to something she’s giving away for free? In the real world Carrie would be resigning herself to an empty lonely purposeless life and would be thinking about buying a cat.

It’s probably no coincidence that Sex and the City was a fantasy foisted on women by homosexual men. The extent to which the modern worship of the homosexual male lifestyle has been indirectly responsible for making women crazy has never been properly explored. It’s a destructive lifestyle for men. For women it’s completely disastrous.

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

censorship, popular culture and pornography

In the past fifty years we have been the victims of many ill-advised social experiments. One such experiment was the relaxation of censorship.

It began in a major way in the early 60s and at first it didn’t seem like it was going to be a major problem. But of course it didn’t stop with just a relaxation of censorship. The relaxation continued until it reached the point where censorship became almost non-existent. There are many on the right who consider this experiment have been a disastrous failure. On the whole I agree with them although my views on the subject are a bit more complicated and I have no doubt that many in the social conservative and traditionalist camps are not going to approve of some of those views.

I should probably make the point here that I’m speaking of censorship in a broad sense. In the days of the Production Code Hollywood movies weren’t subject to government censorship. The censorship was done by the industry itself. The end result is however the same. It is important to emphasise that whether censorship is imposed by government or by corporations it is still censorship.

In my view there are two separate issues at stake when it comes to sexual material and censorship. There is sexual material that is imbedded in popular culture (and these days it is very deeply and thoroughly embedded) and then there is actual pornography. To my way of thinking it’s the sexual material that so thoroughly permeates our popular culture that is the biggest problem.

The reason I see this as the main problem is that sexual material in popular culture is inescapable, it is all-pervasive, it often takes the form of outright propaganda and it is extremely difficult to protect children from it.

It’s worth mentioning as an aside here that the Hollywood Production Code was introduced as the result of pressure by groups like the Legion of Decency and their main concern was not so much the explicit content (which was pretty tame even in the pre-code era) as the attitudes towards sex that were being encouraged. There was some nudity in pre-code Hollywood movies (such as the notorious scene of Jane skinny-dipping in Tarzan and His Mate) but the bigger concern was the number of movies that not only dealt with subjects like adultery sympathetically, they glamourised and celebrated that kind of immorality. Such attitudes were seen, quite correctly, as being extremely dangerous. Even more dangerous in that the immorality was sometimes presented in a less obvious way. Hollywood was always good at propaganda and while the propaganda was sometimes blatant it was often done in a more subtle and more pernicious way. The Production Code laid down very strict guidelines governing not just overt sexual content but also the messages that films were delivering.

And that’s the problem today with popular culture. It’s not just that there’s a good deal of inappropriate overt content. There’s also a relentless message encouraging and celebrating sexual depravity. The overt content is often graphic enough to be a huge problem in itself but the insidious messages are worse. A pop song glorifying anal sex probably does more harm than a fairly graphic sex scene in a movie. No matter how hard you try it’s just about impossible not to encounter such material and there really is no way you’re going to prevent children from being exposed to it.

Pornography is a different matter. My views on this subject might not be popular but to me it’s a matter of context. If you’re watching music videos or you’re watching a TV drama series or a thriller and suddenly you’re presented with graphic sexual content or messages then to me that’s a case a wildly inappropriate context for such material. You’re not prepared for it and you’re being exposed to it even if you don’t wish to be. And your kids are being exposed to it.

On the other hand if you buy a girlie magazine or visit a website that specialises in pictures of nude women then you’re expecting pictures of nude women. If you watch a porn movie you’re expecting to see people having sex and it’s hardly going to come as a shock. It’s an appropriate context. If you don’t wish to see pictures of naked women then you don’t have to visit that website or buy that magazine. If you don’t wish to see people having sex don’t watch a porn movie. It’s avoidable. It’s compartmentalised. You have to seek it out and it’s your choice. It’s not suddenly thrown at you when actually you’re expecting to see a straightforward thriller.

As long as you have to make a conscious decision to view the material it doesn’t worry me all that much. Of course there should be limits and restrictions and depending on the graphicness of the material there should be some hoops to jump through before you can access it, in order to make sure that people don’t stumble upon it by accident and to ensure that minors can’t access it. I do realise that these restrictions don’t work as well as they should in the internet age but to me that’s a technical problem rather than a moral problem.

My attitude towards this subject also varies depending on the exact nature of the material. There’s an extremely wide range of pornography, but broadly speaking to my mind you’re dealing with three categories. There’s softcore, which is basically naked women and simulated sex scenes. There’s hardcore, basically explicit images of real sex. And there’s the extreme end which covers some very disturbing and frankly disgusting stuff. The extreme stuff worries me and I’d be happier if people didn’t want such material and it is possible to make a fairly sound argument for banning a good deal of it outright.

Hardcore material worries me a good deal less as long as it is confined to the depiction of normal heterosexual activities (and perhaps I should mention in passing that I most certainly do not consider sodomy to be a normal heterosexual sexual act). If it stays within such limits I don’t think it’s a huge problem although of course it should be made impossible (or as near to impossible as can be managed) for minors to access it.

As for softcore porn, I have to be honest and say I don’t really have any problems with it at all. I can’t really imagine anyone being psychologically scarred by seeing pictures of naked women.

My principal concern is that pornography should be kept separate from mainstream popular culture, and that pornographic material should not be permitted to be infiltrated into mainstream popular culture. In my view this is where the real harm has been done. Sex is part of life but when popular culture becomes pornographic it encourages the idea that sex is all that matters in life.

Saturday, October 7, 2017

why have women gone feral?
 part 1

Why have western women gone feral? Why do they deface their own bodies with tattoos? Why do so many embrace sluttiness as an exciting lifestyle choice?  Why do they buy into gender identity nonsense, given that the whole gender identity/transexual thing is profoundly misogynistic? Why do teenage girls want to mutilate their own bodies?

Why don’t women, especially young women, just enjoy being women?

The answer seems to be that they are driven by anger and bitterness, but why? Partly of course it’s because the schools and the media actively teach them to be angry and bitter. I think there’s a bit more to it than that though.

Immense social changes have taken place in the past fifty years or so (in reality the social changes were already starting to get underway as early as the 1920s). Women were told that they would benefit enormously from these social changes. In practice women are much worse off today than they were half a century ago. They were promised lives of excitement, fulfilment, adventure and endless sexual pleasure. It all went wrong. Women are however reluctant to admit this. It would mean admitting that feminism was wrong from the start. Even women who claim to be sceptical of feminism, or even openly hostile to it, accept most of the feminist agenda.

Women think that being a slut is the path to happiness but of course they want to be treated like Disney princesses as well. Then they discover that if they behave like sluts the desirable men, the high-status males, won’t treat them like Disney princesses. Why bother treating a girl like a princess if she’s going to open her legs for you anyway? Princess treatment is reserved for the girls with high Sexual Market Value. The girls that high-status males might actually consider marrying.

For women at the top of the heap it doesn’t matter. Women with beauty and money will still get those high-status men. For the majority of women it’s a disaster. Not only do they still lose in the competition for the most desirable males, they even have problems snaring the ordinary average men who would probably have made great husbands (possibly better husbands than the alpha males). Traditionally the way to get those decent ordinary men was to use sex as a bargaining counter. If you want to have sex with me that’s fine, but you’ll have to put a ring on my finger first. That strategy worked fine for perfectly ordinary women, women who had average looks but reasonably pleasant personalities. Ordinary men were happy to marry them. Most men have never expected to marry supermodels (or Disney princesses). They’re happy to marry a woman who is reasonably attractive and pleasant to be with.

Now that most women have been persuaded that being sexually liberated means jumping into bed with every man they encounter that strategy no longer works. Why marry a woman in order to sleep with her if there are plenty of other women giving it away for free? That bargaining counter is no longer worth anything. High-status men don’t need to commit to a relationship to get sex. An added complication is that marriage has been made into a very unattractive proposition for men. Women who aren’t lucky enough to be stunningly beautiful (or who don’t have other compensating advantages like wealth and family connections) find that the men who are likely to marry them, or even date them, are not going to be the men of their dreams. And in any case those dreams have become increasingly unrealistic. A princess gets to marry Prince Charming. Non-princesses need to set their sights a bit lower. These days they may need to set their sights a lot lower.

Women respond by being angry and resentful. Many girls choose the option of deliberately making themselves look ugly. They get piercings and tattoos, they get fat, they turn themselves into blue-haired harridans or sexually ambiguous freaks. Then they no longer have to feel bad because men aren’t interested in them. They can claim that men won’t look at them because men are unreasonable enough to have a prejudice against women who make themselves look ugly. But it doesn’t work. These young women are now even less likely to attract male attention. Of course you could argue that their best option would be to try to make themselves more attractive by paying some attention to the way they dress, their makeup, etc. Maybe even try to behave more pleasantly. But feminism tells girls that nothing is their fault and nothing is their responsibility and if they’re unhappy then men must be to blame.

Hence we get feral women.

Part two of this post can be found here.

why women being allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia is a disaster for the West

There is a news item that has not attracted much attention but is actually of immense significance. King Salman of Saudi Arabia has issued a decree ordering that women be allowed to drive.

Why does this matter? It matters because this is a classic case of the camel’s nose under the tent. It seems innocuous and insignificant but it is the first step in the full-scale liberal/feminist offensive against Islam.

And why does this matter? It matters because Islam is the only force in the modern world that has both the willingness and the capability to oppose liberalism. If the globalists wish to achieve their ultimate objectives Islam must be destroyed. This is exactly what the globalists intend to do. In the short term they will continue to use Islam as a weapon against their opponents in the West but those opponents are now so demoralised and powerless that fairly soon the globalists will no longer need Islam. At which point they will launch the same sort of all-out war against Islam that they waged so successfully against Christianity. Globalism cannot and will not tolerate the existence of any alternative system of thought.

The existence of such alternative systems of thought is crucial to any hope we may have of saving western civilisation. These alternative systems of thought do not need to be particularly attractive or even particularly pleasant but they do need to exist. In the 1950s the Soviet Union was not an especially nice place to live but the existence of the Soviet Union was on balance a good thing. It demonstrated that there was more than one possible system of thought. It may seem paradoxical but even the existence of an unattractive alternative gives cause for hope. If one alternative system of thought can exist then perhaps others are possible.

It is clear that the US has decided that Saudi Arabia must be eliminated as a possible source of opposition and they have already embarked on a policy of imposing “freedom and democracy” on Saudi Arabia. There is already talk of much-needed “reforms” and foolish short-sighted Saudis are listening. The US will use the weapons it always uses - economic pressure and the export of American “culture,” backed by the threat of military force. The Americans intend to liberalise Saudi Arabia so that it can be fully integrated into the globalist world order.

Of course the policy of the globalists will be, as always, to boil the frog slowly. If liberals can win one victory, even a small victory, against conservative Islam in its heartland then the heat will gradually be turned up and the frog’s fate is sealed.

If Saudi Arabia goes down the liberal toilet then conservative Islam will be seriously weakened, perhaps even fatally weakened.

It may be unpalatable to accept this but if globalism is to be resisted we will need allies and Islam is the only credible ally on offer. Liberalism/globalism is the enemy that matters and sooner or later there is going to be a fight to the death between the globalists and Islam. If Islam loses that fight the consequences will be disastrous. Sometimes it really is true that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It is not necessary to like Islam (I don’t particularly like it) but it is necessary that the one deadly enemy of the globalists should continue to exist.

Sunday, October 1, 2017

the feminist wars on women and reality

Steve Sailer had an interesting iSteve piece a couple of days ago, Guardian: If Only White Women Didn't Have Any Male Loved Ones, Then Hillary Would be President. Feminists are still agonising over Hillary’s defeat but now they think they’ve found two explanations. Married women voted for Trump because their evil white patriarchal husbands forced them to do so. And married women apparently care more about their families than about solidarity with the feminist sisterhood.

“The key distinction, according to Kretschmer’s research, is that single women tend to cast votes with the fate of all women in mind, while women married to men vote on behalf of their husbands and families …”

It’s incredibly amusing on so many levels. It seems that women are so strong and empowered that they automatically vote the way their husbands tell them to. And women care what happens to their own husbands and their own children. Outrageous!

“A college-educated woman identifying as a liberal Democrat confided to Kretschmer – not wanting to be identified, as a Trump voter – that she had voted for him over Clinton because her husband’s job depends on the coal industry; she saw Trump as the candidate that would protect it, and by extension her family’s economic interests. Kretschmer called her story ‘the clearest, most heartbreaking validation of our article that I had ever heard’.”

Most of all though it perfectly encapsulates the two most outstanding features of feminism. Firstly there’s the all-consuming white-hot hatred that feminists feel for normal heterosexual women. Secondly there’s the equally burning feminist hatred for reality.

Feminists know that the only way women can be fulfilled and happy is to be exactly like men. They should think like men and behave like men, they should pursue male career paths doing male jobs, they should forget about having families, they should pursue casual sex just like men do. Ideally they should become angry bitter lesbians but the next best thing is for women to become sluts. They should use men for sex and then discard them.

Women should repress every single female instinct. Because everything about being female is stupid and trivial and aids the patriarchy. Everything about being male is cool and exciting. Women should become men with vaginas (to a feminist the only good thing about being female is having a vagina which is of course awesome). Married women are therefore the most dangerous and evil enemy of all. Married women are so sick and perverted that they actually want to love men and be loved by them. They want to have children. Having one child in your late 30s is OK as long as you pay someone else to do all the childcare and as long as the child is raised to hate men (in the case of girls) or hate themselves (in the case of boys). But some married women are so twisted up inside that they want to raise their own children. No wonder the feminist Utopia has not yet come to pass!

Feminists know that feminist theory is correct. Reality does not correspond in any way with feminist theory. Therefore reality is hateful and evil. Reality must be wrong.

The worst thing is that married women often actually accept reality. Some are so far gone that they think that if their husbands behave as if they’re kind and generous and loving then maybe they really are kind and generous and loving. Which of course cannot be true, because feminist theory says it isn’t true.

This is why it is necessary for feminists to wage war on married women. Getting married is not OK. Putting the interests of your own family ahead of the interests of total strangers who just happen to have vaginas is not OK. Caring about your children is not OK. Being happy and content is not OK. If married women cannot be made to realise these things then steps will have to be taken.

Thursday, September 28, 2017

should men go their own way?

I haven’t really talked much about the so-called manosphere or about one of its more interesting manifestations, Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW). I have some sympathy for this movement although I certainly don’t consider myself to be a part of it. Of course that might be because I’m just not that much of a joiner.

The most potent argument against MGTOW is that it’s a kind of surrender and that surrender is what got us into this mess in the first place. There’s the argument that the one positive step that anyone who dislikes the current state of society can take is to marry and have lots of kids. These children will be shock troops, or at least loyal foot soldiers, in both the Culture War and the Demographic War. The further argument is that since liberals have few children we can easily win  The War of the Cradle. These are arguments that I myself was making just a year ago.

The trouble is that these arguments rest on two assumptions that are looking increasingly dubious. The first is that the Culture War and the Demographic War are winnable. The Culture War is clearly already lost. The Demographic War is looking very grim indeed. If these wars are unwinnable then that changes everything.

Of course there’s always the possibility that eventually our society will implode and then perhaps we can reconstruct a sane society from the ashes. It has to be said that an actual collapse seems (to me at least) rather unlikely in either the short or medium term. It’s more likely that present trends will continue and life will become more and more unpleasant but that the elites will maintain their control.

The second dubious assumption is that governments in the West are going to let us raise our children the way we think they should be raised. It’s blindingly obvious that our governments intend to put more and more pressure on us to raise our children the way they think children should be raised - as alienated but compliant economic units totally committed to the state religions of globalism and social justice. It’s also blindingly obvious that our governments will have absolutely no hesitation taking children away from patents who refuse to conform.

And liberals don’t need to breed. They don’t need their own children because they know they’re getting to get possession of the hearts and minds of our kids once those kids are exposed to the indoctrination program which is what our education system now is.

Marriage is clearly a very bad option for men for a host of reasons. If having children is now likely to be mostly futile then really it’s difficult to see any arguments at all for marriage from a male point of view.

We may be headed, rather rapidly, for a situation in which Men Going Their Own Way is not just an option, but the only viable option.

I think it’s all very tragic. Before feminism raised its ugly head men and women got along remarkably well. Then feminism taught women not only to hate men but to hate themselves for being women. Now an increasing number of men are so angry at women that they want nothing to do with them. The trouble is that living without the opposite sex is a hard road to choose.

The latest post at The Knight and Drummer addresses this issue and the closely related issue of withdrawing from society altogether. Maybe living a neolithic lifestyle in a hut in the wilderness appeals to some people but it’s not my idea of fun. I don’t like nature. I never have done. In my experience nature is damp, cold, smelly, uncomfortable and downright dangerous. Wildernesses might be nice to look at on TV (although even on TV they seem pretty boring to me) but the idea of living in an actual wilderness horrifies me. I’m not sure I’m keen on such absolute levels of solitude either.

I’m also not terribly attracted to the monkish thing. It’s a bit too much of a rejection of the sensual world. I’m not sure I can bring myself to regard the pleasures of the flesh as evil.

But then I seem to be a person entirely lacking in the taste for spiritual introspection so I’m not cut out for monkdom anyway.

I try to compromise as best as I can. I might live in society but I don’t feel part of it. Not any more. But I do rather like things like indoor plumbing and electricity, and at least some limited human contact. I shun all contact with contemporary popular culture, I avoid any unnecessary interactions with the state and I limit my human contacts fairly severely. Compromising is difficult but it seems to me to be unavoidable. I suppose that in practice I have to some extent been a man going his own way for quite some time now but I’m still sceptical about embracing it as an ideology. The idea does however become more attractive with each passing day.

Tuesday, September 26, 2017

Christianity and sexual morality

Pretty much all of us on the dissident side of politics who tend towards social conservatism or traditionalism are probably agreed that modern society has a problem with sexual morality. The problem being that we don’t have a sexual morality any more.

Whether there is any chance of changing this, any chance of returning to a society in which sexual morality is taken seriously, is another question. At the moment the chances seem pretty slim. On the other hand the one lesson we can learn from history is that dramatic social and political changes can happen and they can happen very quickly.

So assuming that however unlikely it seems right now such a change might be possible at some point, what kind of sexual morality would be desirable? Do we want to turn back the clock to the 1980s, the 1950s, the Victorian era or the fifteenth century?

That’s a big question and will probably require several posts to address fully. At the moment I want to consider just one aspect of the question. Do we want to return to a Christian sexual morality? Many traditionalists on the right would like to do so, but is such a thing even possible? Christians are a small minority. Is it a practical proposition  to base morality on the beliefs of a rather small proportion of the population? Is it reasonable to want to do so? Is there even the tiniest chance it could be achieved?

There’s also another point to consider. The Cultural Left has been very successful in shutting down dissent because of their very effective tactic of painting anyone who disagrees with them as being motivated by Christian zealotry and/or bigotry. Since most people are not Christians this works extremely well. Planning for a return to a specifically Christian morality is in some ways making things easy for the Cultural Left. Of course if you’re a committed genuine Christian then naturally a Christian-based morality is going to sound very attractive. It’s as well to remember that such a thing doesn’t necessarily sound so appealing to the non-Christian majority.

Perhaps we need to try harder to convince people that you don’t need to be a Christian to be concerned about the devastating impact of sexual immorality. It is possible to be vehemently opposed to social liberalism on purely pragmatic social utilitarian grounds. Sexual immorality undermines the family which in turn has catastrophic consequences for children. It undermines society as a whole by disrupting normal social relations. It leads to unhealthy lifestyles that cause human misery. You don’t have to be religious in order to see this clearly.

I have to come clean about my own position. I’m sympathetic to Christianity but I am not a Christian. I don’t necessarily think a Christian morality would be a bad thing (in fact it might be a good thing) but I do think it would be a very hard sell.

And to be honest I’m not entirely sure I’d personally want a Christian-based morality. Certainly not a full-on biblical sexual morality. I would be in agreement with hardline Christian traditionalists on some sexual issues, but perhaps not on others.

Of course much depends on exactly how a more strict sexual morality would be enforced. Does anybody actually believe that governments could be trusted with legal powers to do so? Surely no-one could believe that a democratic government could be trusted with such powers, democratic governments having systematically abused every single power they have ever been able to get their hands on. I would be frankly horrified by the prospect of a Christian sexual morality enforced by the apparatus of the state. Such a morality enforced by social persuasion and social disapproval  might be more palatable. Of course it goes without saying that there are certain very serious sexual offences (rape and anything involving children) that involve severe actual harm and they must be subject to legal sanctions, even though that means giving governments powers that they can and will abuse and in fact already do abuse. Sometimes unpleasant compromises cannot be avoided. And perhaps one day we will have a society in which the police and the courts can actually be trusted.

The real issues though are whether a sexual morality based on the teachings of Christianity can or should be imposed on non-Christians, and whether aiming for a Christian morality would alienate so many people as to make the chances of some kind of moral improvement of our society even more remote than they already are.

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.