Thursday, May 25, 2017

college dorms are liberal re-education camps

Over at Oz Conservative commenter Flavia has this to say,

“The process of sending young women off to live in college dorms, with in loco parentis abandoned, to find their way in the world induced a set of anti-civilizing behaviors. There is really no way to encourage this behavior and have defense of Western values as a result.”

I couldn’t agree more. We’re sending these young women off to liberal re-education camps. And they’re not just being indoctrinated with liberalism but extremist liberalism. Even the ones who don’t mutate into full-fledged SJW harpies are still absorbing their share of the poison.

We need to re-think higher education. We have a lot more of it than we need and it’s doing colossal social and cultural damage. Universities are bad enough but having students living on-campus is disastrous.

We need to reduce the number of university places since the vast majority of people have no need whatever for a university education. We need to gut the humanities faculties. We need to changer our entire approach.

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

the crisis of Late Democracy

You will often hear people talk about the age of Late Capitalism. These people are almost always those who identify as being on the left but they do have a point. Capitalism has mutated. The capitalism of today bears little resemblance to the capitalism of the age of Henry Ford.

What has been less noticed is that we now live in the age of Late Democracy. Democracy of course was always a sham. The purpose of democratic institutions is to thwart the will of the people. What has changed, and it has changed dramatically over the past twenty years,  is that the mask has been dropped. In the past great effort was put into maintaining the pretense that democracy expressed the will of the people. This is no longer felt to be necessary.

Political leaders like Tony Blair, David Cameron, Barack Obama, François Hollande, Angela Merkel, Justin Trudeau and Malcolm Turnbull do not even pretend to care about what the voters want or think. 

The media no longer makes any attempt to hide the fact that it manipulates elections. Members of the real elite, the international finance elite, openly buy and sell politicians. Bureaucrats and judges openly despise ordinary people and openly defy the will of the people.

The contempt for ordinary people is palpable. And it is venomous. And it is openly expressed.

The question is whether this is sustainable in the long term. Governments have always felt the need for some sort of legitimacy. This was true even in the days when kings ruled rather than serving as figureheads. A king would think twice before taking any action that he knew would be repugnant to his people. A king reigned by the Grace of God but it was clearly understood that he was in a real sense the servant of his people. If he lost the confidence of the people he could be, and often was, deposed. Such a king no longer had any legitimacy and thus could no longer claim to rule by the Grace of God.

Even dictators usually only survive for as long as they serve the interests of the nation and the people. Like kings they can be, and often are, deposed.

We now have a new situation in which we are ruled by an elite whose claim to legitimacy is increasingly sketchy. Rule by a class which openly expresses its contempt for the people is also new.

Of course our current elites have much greater power in their hands than any king or dictator. Their control over the media is total and the power of the media is unprecedented in history. They control education. They control the police and the military. They control the “intelligence communities” which are now quite blatantly employed for the purpose of social control. They also control the economy. If you oppose them they can destroy your livelihood. They can destroy your family. They can also simply have you locked up and they are increasingly willing to do so.

In spite of all this power held by the elites the situation is inherently unstable. It can only continue as long as the elites remain united, and history shows that there is no guarantee that this will continue indefinitely. There are always groups that are on the margins of the elite and they would be happy to be on the inside, and in order to achieve this they will quite cheerfully displace existing members of the elites. New groups arise that want their share of the action and again they’re happy to take the place of existing elite groups.

The continuance of this situation also depends on the ability of the elites to navigate crises, and crises are by their nature impossible to predict.

Ruling classes also become, in time, decadent.

A ruling class without legitimacy is in a poor position to weather such storms, both internal and external. Whether or not our current ruling class can do so remains to be seen.

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

Manchester: the price of decadence and folly

There isn’t really much I can say about the Manchester attack that hasn’t already been said. One thing that does need to be emphasised over and over again though is that multi-culturalism is only part of the problem and it’s mostly a symptom. It’s not the underlying disease.

These attacks are happening because western society has become both decadent and irrational.

Maybe decadence is just a natural stage in societal evolution. In this case I’m not convinced. This seems to be deliberately engineered decadence. Everything that gives a society strength and stability has been systematically undermined. Our men have been emasculated and our women have become virtue-signaling harpies.

And pop culture, especially pop music, has played a major role in this. It has been one of the major weapons used to demoralise and degrade us.

We don’t fight back because we believe that holding hands and singing Imagine and lighting candles are the best ways to confront problems. And of course hashtags. Hashtags can solve just about any problem. 

Irrationality also has a great deal to do with this. This whole problem could have been  easily avoided but our leaders (and this includes the leaders of every western country) failed to do so. Whether this was from malice or stupidity is hard to say. I’m inclined to think it was a bit of both. Combining open borders with a crazed interventionist foreign policy can only lead to disaster. 

At the moment we have a wasps’ nest in our back yard. It’s been there for quite a while and every day we see the wasps busily going back and forth to their nest. The wasps are busy doing wasp things and they ignore us. They haven’t been any problem at all. There are two reasons why they haven’t been a problem. Firstly we don’t invite the wasps into our house. We don’t put up a sign on the door saying Wasps Welcome. They have their territory and we have ours. The second reason is that we don’t go poking their nest with sticks. That would be foolish and it would be unjust. We’re happy to recognise their right to exist, as long as they stay outside.

There’s a lot to be said for this as an approach to foreign policy. Leave the wasps in their own country and don’t go poking their nests with sticks.

Decadent societies tend not to survive. Societies that are both decadent and foolish have very little chance. We’re lucky in some ways. Our decadence is deliberately engineered so we can halt the slippery slide and maybe even reverse it, at least a little. Foolish foreign policies can be abandoned. 

Our leaders have let us down. We have to find a way to let them know that their failures will no longer be tolerated. It’s not going to be easy but a good start would be to stop with the candles and the John Lennon songs.

Monday, May 22, 2017

cucks by name and cucks by nature

I disliked the term cuckservsative the first time I heard it. I’m still not totally convinced by it but I find myself using it more and more often. It’s just so damned useful.

It really does perfectly capture a certain mindset. It’s especially useful when used against weak cowardly “conservative” men. There’s the implication of a lack of manhood, and a lack of manhood is one of the biggest problems we face today. It’s not just that today’s men don’t have the guts to physically contest the invasion of their own countries and their own erasure from their society. They don’t even have the guts to stand up to verbal assaults. They’ve allowed themselves to be emasculated and cuck is somehow just the right term to describe them.

Ridicule can be a potent weapon and that makes cuck an even more useful term.

It also has the advantage that cucks hate being called cucks!

Sunday, May 21, 2017

Foundational Myths and the Cult of Science

Every society has its Foundational Myths. I’m not talking about myths in the sense of mythology - gods and monsters and superhuman heroes and such things. I’m talking about the quasi-historical myths that define a society’s sense of itself.

For the Greeks it was the Trojan War. For the Romans it was Romulus and Remus and the founding of the city but the Romans elaborated their Foundational Myth by extending Roman history back to the exploits of the Trojan prince Aeneas after the fall of Troy. For French republicans it’s the Revolution. For Americans it’s the Founding Fathers and the Revolutionary War.

For modern secularists the Foundational Myth is the Rise of Science. Until around the 17th century there was an age of ignorance and superstition then along came Science! and everything was light. Science! ushered in a blessed age of reason and enlightenment.

Foundational Myths can be entirely mythical, or they can be semi-mythical or even mostly historical. The Trojan War might well have happened although the actual events were probably much more small-scale and much more tawdry than the version promoted by the Greek poets.

The Rise of Science is at least partly historical. There has been a great deal of scientific progress in the past 500 years. The benefits are more questionable.

A Foundational Myth should be inspiring. It should give people a sense of cultural identity but more than that it should give a society some sense of purpose or destiny.

Has the Rise of Science done that? In some ways, perhaps. Although it’s worth pointing out that a great deal of human progress in modern times has owed more to practical engineers than to scientists. The engineers who were responsible for providing Europeans cities with sewerage and clean water contributed more to human happiness and prosperity than any scientists.

The problem with Science! is that it has given us a worldview that is bleak and nihilistic. The followers of the Cult of Science! have rarely taken this into account. Did the acceptance of the heliocentric view of the solar system actually make the world a better place? Did the acceptance of the Darwin-Wallace theory of evolution by natural selection make us happier? Was there great popular rejoicing when the Big Bang Theory displaced the Steady State Theory of the universe? These things made liberal secularists happier because they provided them with ammunition with which to pursue their war on Christianity. Did it make society as a whole better? Are we better off now that we generally believe that the universe is entirely without purpose and meaning and that our ancestors were ape-like creatures?

Of course Science! may well be right much of the time. Nobody today disputes the heliocentric view of the solar system. The question is not whether the scientific view is often correct, it is whether that view of the world has actually represented genuine progress. Progress is after all always a good thing, or so we’re told. But what if the scientific worldview has actually left us without any purpose or meaning in our own lives?

There’s also another very great danger to the cult of Science! Even the craziest ideas can gain credence if they can be labeled as scientific. Marx claimed that his wacky and misguided theories had to be correct because they were scientific. Freud’s even nuttier ideas were sold as science. In the 20th century we were even told there was such a thing as social science, an oxymoron if ever there was one. Straight-out political propaganda can be promoted as science - the global warming hysteria being a fine example.

Rather than eliminating superstition the Cult of Science! has provided us with a whole grab-bag of new superstitions. Rather than ushering in an age of reason what we actually ended up with was a mixture of emptiness, despair and superstition. Some Foundational Myths seem to work better than others.

Thursday, May 18, 2017

lies, damned lies and thruthiness

We have always taken it for granted that there are certain groups for whom lying is natural and habitual. No sane person has ever expected politicians, lawyers or journalists to tell the truth.

Today we have a situation in which many groups that we used to regard as being relatively trustworthy are now also habitual liars. Scientists, school teachers, historians, clergymen, even doctors are now quite likely to lie to us. Not all the time of course, but often enough to represent an enormous sea change in western society. If half the scientists lie to us half the time then that means that we have to assume that scientists are people who cannot be trusted.

There is of course a difference between outright conscious lying and merely repeating falsehoods. In some cases the people repeating falsehoods actually believe their own lies. Sometimes they know that what they’re saying is untrue but they’re too scared not to go along with the lies. I don’t think that many doctors deliberately lie but I am sure that they’re aware that there are certain things that it’s better for them not to question - it’s best to stick to the party line so you don’t get into trouble. I think that very few clergymen deliberately lie - I really think most of them believe it when they tell us that diversity is good for us and that homosexuality is A-OK. In the case of historians and other academics I think it’s a mixture - some believe their own nonsense and some are lying trough their teeth to protect their nice comfy positions in academia.

It doesn’t make much difference in practice. It still means that we now live in a world in which the safe assumption is that we’re probably being lied to most of the time.

We don’t just have fake news. We have fake science. We have fake medicine. We have fake religion. We have fake history. If everything is fake where do we find truth? Does it even exist? Or do we just settle for truthiness?

This is of course an ideal situation for the elites. It doesn’t matter too much to them if we don’t really believe the Narrative that they push. If lies are everywhere and truth cannot be distinguished from lies then we have little choice but to believe the Narrative. Or maybe not believe, but accept it even while knowing that that it is false. Anyone who has read his Orwell knows that from the point of view of the elites being able to force us to believe something that we know is a lie is even better than having us actually believe. It demoralises us even further.

blog makeover

James at Nourishing Obscurity has suggested that maybe this blog needs a makeover. I think he’s probably right. So before I adopt a new look that you might all hate I should ask for some input.

First off, do you prefer reading a dark text on a white or near-white background, or something like the present scheme with light text on a dark background?

Is there anything about the present layout of the blog that you really hate?

Is there anything that I should consider adding? Any more widget-thingies?

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

blasphemy laws and why we may be stuck with them

I wasn’t going to mention the Stephen Fry blasphemy case but now Richard Dawkins has jumped in on the issue. Dawkins of course wants the blasphemy law repealed.

My position on this is a bit complex. I believe that if you have a mono-cultural mono-religion society then you don’t need blasphemy laws. The reality is that we don’t have that type of society any longer. We now have a multi-cultural multi-faith society. In such a society blasphemy laws are an unfortunate necessity. Minority views do need to be protected. If they’re not protected you’re going to have trouble. That’s just reality. We have something even more difficult to deal with - a society divided not only on cultural racial and religious lines but even more bitterly divided on ideological lines. A multi-cultural multi-faith multi-ideology society is a society in which conflict is going to be continuous and bitter. 

We already have a society in which Christianity is under never-ending and vicious attack. Now increasingly we have each of a variety of religions, including atheism, in a state of permanent low-level war. We also have a society in which atheists like Dawkins are permitted to attack religion without limits. If there are no limits to the viciousness of the attacks it’s all going to end very very badly. Unfortunately I do think some limits are needed on the extent of the viciousness of the attacks. Did Stephen Fry cross the line? That would be for a court to decide.

Of course in an ideal world we would never have allowed our society to become a multi-cultural multi-religion war zone. But we did allow that to happen and one of the unfortunate consequences is that blasphemy laws may be required in order to dampen down the conflicts.

This is the world that liberals (like Stephen Fry) wanted. Now they have to live with it. If you want diversity you end up needing all sorts of intrusive and unpleasant laws, such as blasphemy laws. A diverse society will either destroy itself or it will become a police state. You can have freedom or you can have diversity. You can’t have both. We chose diversity.

Monday, May 15, 2017

Evola’s Revolt Against the Modern World.

My current reading is Julius Evola’s Revolt Against the Modern World. It’s heavy going, especially if you limited tolerance for the wilder shores of mysticism, esotericism, magic and the occult. If you persist with it though there are plenty of profound and important insights into the sorry state in which our civilisation has landed itself. The second half of the book in particular is filled with key insights.

Evola’s idea of a revolt against the modern world is breathtakingly radical. In his view things started to go wrong a very very long time ago, and they went wrong in very fundamental ways. And his ideas on tradition are not exactly conventional.

There’s a lot of material to plough through in this book and I remain sceptical of much of it. I really wouldn’t feel in the least bit qualified even to attempt to review this book. There are however a few things that happened to catch my interest as they connect to other things I’ve been reading recently.

The first is his spirited championing of caste systems. Given that egalitarianism has proven to be a dangerous chimaera and that hierarchies are almost certainly both inevitable and necessary in a healthy society, and given that class divisions produce endless futile conflict, a caste system does seem to have its attractions.

The second point that struck me in this book is Evola’s enthusiasm for the ideal of chivalry. This is a little surprising at first in view of Evola’s disdain for Christianity. He argues however that the medieval ideal of chivalry was not entirely Christian in inspiration and that it avoids many of what he sees as the flaws and decadent features of Christianity. Of course it could be objected that chivalry was an ideal that was in all probability seldom practised, at least in a pure form. That doesn’t really matter. The fact that the idea of chivalry existed and that it struck such a powerful chord in the medieval imagination is what’s important.

My own reservations about Christianity are centred on its passive and excessively feminised nature and its unfortunate tendency to encourage the cult of victimology. These regrettable tendencies seemed to be much less evident in medieval Christianity, and the ideal of chivalry did seem to be a way of minimising those negative factors.

Medieval Christianity was a masculine religion that respected women. Such a thing is possible.

There seems to be no question that Christianity has lost its way and that this has been a gradual process that has taken centuries. The Middle Ages was the high water mark for the Christian faith. It’s been all downhill since then.

Friday, May 12, 2017

nationalism and the myth of nation states

I spoke about nationalism in my previous post. I want to say a bit more on the subject. What I have to say is unpalatable but it needs to be said.

Nationalism is no longer a viable proposition because generally speaking nation states as they existed between the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 and 1945 no longer exist.

A nation state is a political entity that is capable of asserting its independence. This requires both the military capacity and the political willingness to do so. According to this criterion the only independent nation states that exist in today’s world are the United States, Russia, China and (possibly) India.

The idea that any other country has this capability is pure fantasy. 

Let us assume that Italy, or Japan, or Brazil, or France or Britain decided that as a matter of national survival they needed to wage war against some other state. Could they do so? The answer of course is that they could not. They would need to ask the United States for permission to do so. It is unthinkable that any of these countries could fight a war, even a war for national survival, without first seeking Washington’s approval and then seeking US aid. In other words not one of these countries is a true nation state. They are mere vassal states.

In 1982 Britain was only with great difficulty able to defeat a Third World nation, Argentina. It was a near run thing and Britain won because from Argentina’s point of view it was not a war for survival and it was therefore not worth making it a fight to the finish. If Britain faced the same situation today she would have to abandon the Falklands. Britain also no longer has its own nuclear deterrent. Britain’s Trident missiles belong to the United States. The recent controversy over whether Jeremy Corbyn as prime minister would or would not use nuclear weapons was irrelevant, No British prime minister could use nuclear weapons without Washington’s permission. The Trident missiles allow Britain to indulge in the fantasy that Britain is a great power. In fact Britain is not even a proper nation state, merely an American vassal.

The Second World War marked the end of the nation state system. It marked the end of European nation states. Western Europe became part of the American Empire. The EU is merely a means by which that empire can be controlled more easily and more conveniently.

The problem of nationalism today is how can you have nationalism without nation states that are in control of their own destinies?

Thursday, May 11, 2017

nationalism, internationalism and globalism

If you’ve ever spent more than five minutes in the dissident right corner of the internet you’ve heard the phrase, “The real political divide today is not between left and right but between nationalism and globalism.” I’ve said it myself.

Are things quite as simple as that? Is nationalism really more organic, more traditional, more healthy, than globalism?

Nationalism is a fairly recent phenomenon. It did not exist in the ancient world, nor in the medieval world. In fact it did not really exist until the mid-17th century. The Treaty of Westphalia of 1648 which ended the Thirty Years War marked the formal recognition that nation states were now the effective political units of Europe. And nationalism did not take deep root in the European psyche until the end of the 18th century.

Prior to that there were of course strong local sentiments based on shared language, culture and religion but these had little bearing on the actual political arrangements of Europe. The political unit was the dynastic unit. Insofar as people had political loyalties those loyalties were owed to the local lord and ultimately to the king, or in central Europe they were owed to the local lord, to the prince and ultimately to the emperor. A kingdom could comprise a variety of ethnic groups and cultures and languages and even religions. The boundaries of kingdoms shifted constantly as dynastic marriages split existing political units or caused larger units to coalesce.

You might not speak the same language as your king, you might not belong to the same ethnic group, you might not share his culture or his religion but that did not affect your loyalty.

Prior to the Reformation most (but by no means all) of Europe belonged to a single entity known as Christendom but this was not a political unit. The head of Christendom was the Pope. His spiritual authority existed side by side with the political authority of kings.

Europe functioned perfectly well without nationalism. Multi-ethnic multi-faith multi-cultural political entities such as the empire of the Habsburgs were extremely successful. No modern nation state has lasted as long as the empire of the Habsburgs.

The Europe of the dynastic system and of Christendom had nothing in common with modern nationalism, but at the same time it also had nothing in common with modern globalism. It represents a third option and it is an option that is usually ignored, partly because it most people don’t understand it and partly because it didn’t suit modern political agendas.

It’s also worth pointing out that internationalism as such is by no means identical with globalism. Take for example the European Union. The EU is evil not because it’s internationalist. The idea of European political unity is not inherently evil. The idea of Europe has much to recommend it. The Second World War demonstrated with brutal clarity that European nation states were defenceless against the power and wealth of the United States. If Europe was going to avoid becoming an American colony then some degree of political and economic unity was essential. 

The problem with the EU is not that it’s corrupt and undemocratic (although it is corrupt and undemocratic). The problem is that it’s run by people who hate Europeans, hate European culture and are ashamed of themselves for being European. It is run by people who are fundamentally hostile to European civilisation. It is run by people whose loyalty is to bankers.

This is the problem with almost all internationalist organisations today. They are run by bankers for bankers.

It is extremely unlikely that organisations like the EU can be reformed. The EU will never serve the interests of Europeans. The idea of Europe on the other hand still has some validity. The question is whether it will ever be possible to bring about a European unity that will serve the interests of Europeans.

The idea of regional internationalism is also not inherently evil. Countries like Australia cannot exist in the modern world as viable independent nation states. They simply do not have the economic, military and political muscle to be anything other than satellites of great powers. Countries like Australia (and Canada and Britain) are, in political terms, merely American vassal states. In the long term their only hope of avoiding such vassalage is by being part of regional power groupings.

It is also clear that, in the absence of such regional power groupings, the entire world is going to end up being divided into two gigantic spheres of influence, one dominated by the United States and one dominated by China. This is why the idea of resurrecting the caliphate is so attractive to many Muslims. Independent Islamic nations are merely pawns in the game of power politics played by great powers. A caliphate uniting a large part of the Islamic world would have some chance of political independence. It is their only chance of preserving their culture and their religion and it ids therefore going to be increasingly seen as not only desirable but essential.

Nationalism is certainly preferable to globalism. It is however doubtful whether in the modern world nationalism can defeat globalism. While I’ve been quite sceptical of ideas like white nationalism I can understand why such ideas seem attractive. If nationalism is a spent force then perhaps other options for fighting globalism need to be considered.

the alt-right and the politics of humour

Humour can be a very effective political weapon. It is by its nature a weapon that is more useful to dissidents than to those who defend the status quo. For this reason political humour has for most of modern history been most effectively wielded by the Left.

Humour was used to devastating effect by the New Left in the 1960s and 1970s. They were able to use it to promote the idea of themselves as funny, clever, irreverent and cool and even more importantly to portray their enemies as humourless, stuffy and terminally uncool.

Humour may not have won the culture war for the cultural left but it did play its part.

Today the political landscape is very different. The Left is in complete control of the culture (although in fact leftists are merely useful idiots for the globalist capitalists and bureaucratic managerial types who really run things).

Those who were the glamorous rebels in the 60s and 70s are now the establishment. And being the establishment has crippled leftist humour. Just try sitting through ”progressive” comedy. It’s an ordeal. Being terrified of offending dozens of protected victim groups leaves no real scope for being funny.

In today’s world humour has become a weapon that can be most easily and most effectively wielded by the dissidents of the right. The alt-right in particular has discovered just how potent a weapon humour can be. Their humour might be vulgar and cruel and irreverent but those are exactly the qualities that made the leftist humour of half a century ago so devastating. 

The alt-right obsession with Pepe the Frog and similar memes might be somewhat childish  but the constant trolling of liberals (especially the undeniably amusing efforts of /pol/ to troll liberals with fake white supremacist memes) is having the effect of making liberal ideologist seem ridiculous. And one should never underestimate the potency of ridicule. The alt-right’s use of humour does seem to be having some effect in making liberalism seem ugly, oppressive and unattractive. It has to some extent wrong-footed the liberal establishment and that’s a positive thing.

Monday, May 8, 2017

The Trump Effect and the French election

Looking at the catastrophic performance of Le Pen in the second round of the French election the thought occurs to me (as it did after the Dutch election) that Trump may have played a major role.

If there’s one thing Europeans enjoy it’s indulging in moral preening about their anti-fascist credentials and if there’s one thing they enjoy even more than that it’s sneering at the United States and congratulating themselves on their superior levels of culture, tolerance and all-round moral virtue. Europeans are so very civilised while Americans are barbaric, backward and crass.

This smug condescension on the part of western Europeans is actually quite hilarious. In 1914 western Europeans had a magnificent civilisation. In the century since then, through their own efforts, they have managed to flush it all down the toilet. You’d think this would teach them a bit of humility but in fact as Europe has become progressively more decadent, more corrupt, more cowardly and more depraved Europeans have become even more addicted to sneering at Americans.

Trump has kicked this tendency into overdrive. He represents everything about America that appalls western Europeans, and everything about America that frightens and upsets them.

The election provided the French with a wonderful opportunity to prove their civilisational superiority by electing the anti-Trump. And that is indeed what Macron is. Trump is masculine; Macron is emasculated. Trump is proud of his country; Macron is ashamed of his. Trump has demonstrated his commitment to the future by having children; Macron is childless. Trump likes being a political outsider; Macron is a creature of the establishment. Trump is confident; Macron is apologetic. Trump radiates strength; Macron radiates weakness. Trump likes ordinary people; Macron regards them with horror. Trump is a loose cannon; Macron is a good boy who will do what he is told.

To make the deal even sweeter, Trump is a fascist. The French know he is a fascist because that’s what the newspapers and TV tell them and in any case he’s a Republican and everyone knows that all American Republicans are fascists by definition. And Macron is not a fascist because Le Pen is a fascist and he’s against Le Pen so he can’t be a fascist.

So we have an election that was a splendid opportunity for both virtue-signaling and civilisation-signaling.

Given the fact that the second round was a landslide you might suggest that even if there was a Trump Effect it made no difference. Maybe. On the other hand the first round was quite tight and the Macron As Anti-Trump factor may have had some significance, possibly costing Fillon enough votes to keep him out of the second round. Macron was after all a ludicrous clown of a candidate and realistically he could have been in big trouble against Fillon in the second round.

It may well be that the Trump Effect has significantly damaged the chances of nationalist parties in all western European countries. Knee-jerk anti-Americanism is not far beneath the surface amongst most middle-class Europeans, and the irrational and morbid fear of being tarred with any association with fascism is an immense factor in western European politics. 

Of course I’m not suggesting it’s Trump’s fault. Trump is Trump and he can only be himself and his style works very well in US politics. Europeans need to grow up and they need to lose their attitude. If they don’t then they’re going to lose their civilisation.

what do we do when we realise that our civilisation cannot be saved?

So what do we do when we realise that our civilisation cannot be saved through the ballot box? And when we realise that things are not going to improve within the foreseeable future. At what point do we decide to concentrate on our own survival and the survival of our own families?

And when we reach that point, what exactly are our options?

The trouble with the religion of secular liberalism is that opting out is not permitted. Everyone must conform. That of course is the nature of totalitarianism, and totalitarianism is what we’re going to be dealing with.

One option would be to conform outwardly with sufficient enthusiasm to convince the Thought Police of one’s orthodoxy. The big problem with that option, in fact the big problem with any of the possible options, is that it’s OK if you’re childless but absolutely out of the question if you have kids. The system will insist that your children attend school for their regular indoctrination sessions. Which means your children are swallowed by the Moloch of the system. They will not only be brainwashed into conformity, they will also be exposed to the moral degeneracy that is increasingly part and parcel of the education system.

If you refuse to send your children to school the state will simply take them away from you.

In the short term in some countries there’s still the option of home schooling. Do you really believe that liberals intend to allow that option to be available in the long term?

If outward conformity isn’t viable what does that leave? Forming our own communities and hoping the state will allow us the freedom to run those communities without interference? It does seem very unlikely doesn’t it?

A commenter at a recent thread on Diversity or community? at Oz Conservative made the point that some ethnic communities, even white ethnic communities, have managed to maintain a certain degree of autonomy. The example given was of Italian and Greek communities in the UK. It may be that such communities have enough ethnic solidarity, enough economic muscle and perhaps enough political influence to persuade a hostile state that it would be preferable to leave them alone. You would need, apart from a very strong sense of ethnic identity, a willingness to vote as a disciplined bloc. This might give you just enough political clout, at a local level at least.

Displaying that degree of political bloody-mindedness and discipline and that degree of in-group solidarity does not come naturally to Anglo-Saxons. It may be something we will have to learn. The Irish managed to do it in the United States for several generations. You don’t necessarily need to be a political majority. Being a quite small political minority can be enough in certain circumstances. If you have the capability of swinging the vote in a number of marginal constituencies then you can exercise a surprising amount of political power.

This would mean giving up on society as a whole but trying to protect the interests of one’s own immediate community.

Of course it would not be possible for Anglo-Saxons to pursue this strategy by forming an ethnic bloc. We’re too hopelessly divided. Most Anglos are liberals and are therefore, by definition, the enemy. I personally have no interest in playing the identity politics game on the basis of white identity alone. I do not feel the slightest degree of kinship with white liberals.

But would it be possible to form small, self-contained highly disciplined blocs organised along ideological or religious lines? Could we play the identity politics game by focusing on a shared identity as Christians, or social conservatives? Or perhaps a combination of ethnicity and ideology/religion. Could we form a coherent white Christian identity group? 

Perhaps that’s what’s really happening with the alt-right and similar groups. The alt-right has little chance of ever gaining actual power at a national level. They might still be able to achieve something as a pressure group. Lobby groups that represent very small numbers of people can exert a remarkable amount of influence, if they’re prepared to be focused and ruthless and to put their own interests ahead of everyone else’s. It’s a dirty game but it may be the only game in town for us.

Thursday, May 4, 2017

in praise of slut shaming

The campaign against slut shaming is one of the sadder and more self-defeating manifestations of the social disease known as feminism.

In retrospect our civilisation has committed few greater blunders than removing the stigma from out-of-wedlock births and putting the state into the position of surrogate father for the resulting children. We are rewarding women for irresponsible, selfish and destructive behaviour. It is no surprise that there has been a huge increase in irresponsible, selfish and destructive behaviour among women.

Related to this is an interesting piece at Dalrock on “father roulette” but more interesting still is the link to an earlier article We are trapped on Slut Island and Traditional Conservatives are our Gilligan.

While I’m not entirely convinced by his idea that the vast majority of out-of-wedlock pregnancies are due to such a small number of men that doesn’t diminish in any way the importance of his main points. Slut shaming is a good idea because it works. While it’s morally correct to condemn the men involved the fact is that shaming them will prove to be generally very ineffective. Shaming the sluts on the other hand has been historically demonstrated to be very effective indeed. If we wish to save our culture we need to look at solutions that will actually work in the real world.

Dalrock demolishes the tired defeatist arguments about double standards. There are double standards because men and women are radically different.

He’s also, quite rightly, contemptuous of the traditional conservatives who have been unwilling to run the risk of hurting the feelings of sluts.

This is an horrific social experiment gone wrong and it’s yet another case in which Christians have demonstrated a complete lack of backbone. Society is being trashed before their eyes but they think that if only they can sing Kumbaya a bit more loudly everything will be fine, and most importantly everything will be nice. Niceness is next to godliness.

Wednesday, May 3, 2017

who are the extremists?

What is political extremism? The answer to that question is very simple. Political extremism is any ideology that those currently in power disapprove of.

In most cases the accusation of extremism will make use of the left-right political axis. The left-right political axis no longer serves any useful descriptive purpose but it is still extremely useful as a propaganda tool. Those whose views are out of favour can be labelled as extreme right or extreme left. These days the extreme right label is the preferred method of disqualification. Because that’s exactly what this labeling amounts to - disqualifying and demonising the views of dissenters. If someone is “far right” then there is no need to examine his arguments or to present evidence to argue against him. The fact that he has been declared “far right” means he is a wicked extremist whose views can be simply disregarded.

Mainstream conservatives tend to do the same thing - they think they can disqualify an opinion by painting it as hard left. Even alt-righters and their ilk will do this.

Of course left and right are now entirely meaningless political concepts but the idea of a political spectrum is very very attractive to those who have set themselves up as the gatekeepers of acceptable thought. If there’s a spectrum then that means that anyone whose opinions fall on one end of the spectrum must therefore logically be an extremist (and therefore dangerous and evil). And anyone whose opinions fall somewhere in the centre of the spectrum must logically be a moderate (and therefore a good and reasonable person).

Naturally those who currently dominate the political scene, the liberals and the globalists, present themselves as being in the middle of the spectrum. They believe (or claim to believe) in liberal democracy and what could possibly be more moderate, more centrist and more reasonable than that? Wicked people who disagree with them are either communists (far left) or fascists (far right). Nobody bothers much about demonising communists any more. Communists only exist on American university campuses. It’s those right-wing fascists that need to be disqualified and demonised.

In fact if you think about it liberal democracy is itself a rather extreme political view. Two hundred years ago wise statesmen like Metternich quite rightly considered democracy to be dangerous extremist nonsense. The core principles of liberalism were regarded as being fairly outlandish and certainly unworkable in practice. Liberalism was the doctrine of cranks. Those prejudices have turned out to be quite correct - liberal democracy never has worked and never will work. But people who believe in liberal democracy are not considered to be either far left or far right and therefore by default they are considered, quite wrongly, to be moderates.

And a century ago globalism would have been dismissed as extremist claptrap. It is extremist claptrap. There is nothing remotely moderate about globalism as a political philosophy. It is as extreme as marxism was a hundred years ago.

If you want to find political fanatics today you’ll find them among the ranks of globalists and Social Justice Warriors. The views of the “far right” are by contrast remarkably moderate. Even the few remaining genuine old school hard leftists are moderates compared to the unbridled lunacy of globalists and SJWs.

It all comes down to who gets to apply the labels.

Monday, May 1, 2017

what are European nationalists actually fighting for?

We need to be honest and clear-headed when examining the rise of the nationalist so-called far right parties in Europe. It would be pleasant to imagine that these parties are fighting to defend western civilisation but is that really the case? It seems to me that what they’re fighting for is a vision of western civilisation that is starkly at odds with the beliefs of traditionalists and social conservatives.

These parties, including the FN in France and Geert Wilders’ party in the Netherlands, have shown an alarming willingness to compromise on moral issues. In fact they’re prepared to make almost unlimited compromises on moral issues. The problem with this is that you can’t defend civilisation by abandoning everything that makes civilisation civilised.

In practice these nationalist parties are fighting for rainbow flags and Gay Pride marches. They’re fighting to defend the right of women to murder their unborn babies. They’re fighting for the right of feminists to go on destryong the foundations of society. They’re fighting for the rights of homosexuals to prey on our children. They’re fighting for the rights of liberals to brainwash our kids. 

They’re not defending civilisation. They’re defending liberalism.

It’s not the slight left-wing leanings of these parties that should worry us. It’s the fact that they are demonstrating very little willingness to oppose the moral degeneracy which is overwhelming the West.

There’s also very little sign that these parties have any vision of a Christian Europe. 

I’d like to see European civilisation saved, but only if there’s a European civilisation that is actually worth saving.

Friday, April 28, 2017

the city vs country front of the culture war

One aspect of the culture wars that is often misunderstood and underestimated is the city vs rural antipathy. More particularly, the venomous hatred that city people nurse towards country people. Anyone who isn’t a city-dweller is assumed to be a moronic knuckle-dragging yokel and a hateful bigot.

This seems to be much more extreme in the United States than anywhere else. American city-dwellers really seem to hate and fear rural folk. The contempt of US coastal elites for the denizens of “flyover country” is well known. It’s partly class hatred but it seems to be more than that. There seems to be an extraordinary irrational fear at work.

This is not one of those things that suddenly emerged in the 1960s. In the US at least it goes back much further. Just as an example I watched a 1944 movie called Together Again a few weeks earlier. On the surface it was a harmless screwball comedy. At least that’s how it starts out. As you keep watching you discover that the nice people of the idyllic little small town which is the film’s setting are not nice people after all. They are actually hateful bigots. And the reason they’re hateful bigots is that they’re small-town folk, and being a hateful bigot is what small-town folk do. Here’s my full review of the movie in question.

So is it natural for city-dwellers to hate rural people? Or is to something that has been fostered by the cultural elites? The cultural elites have been liberal and/or leftist for a very long time, at least a century (particularly in the US). Rural people tend to be more in touch with traditional ways of life and more in sympathy with traditional values. It’s not really surprising that the cultural elites hated them. I think it’s fair to say it’s been a deliberate campaign to portray country people as stupid and dangerous.

It’s one of those things you don’t notice very much at first but when you do become aware of it you start seeing it all over the place in popular culture and especially American popular culture.

watching movies and TV after taking the red pill

One of the problems with becoming “red-pilled” is that a lot of simple pleasures become less simple. Steve Sailer always talks about noticing things, and once you start noticing things you can’t stop.

Popular culture becomes a real problem. Even the popular culture of the past can be perplexing. I love old movies but these days I can’t help noticing just how much propaganda Hollywood has always included in its movies. Back in the 30s and 40s and 50s the propaganda had to be subtle, they couldn’t risk showing their hand too obviously, but the messages are there and they’re insistent.

There is for example a subtle anti-marriage bias. The message is always that love is what matters, not commitment or responsibility. And it’s always pretty obvious that in this context love means pure sexual lust and/or abandonment to emotional excess. OK so we’d all like our marriages to include amazing heights of sexual passion and non-stop emotional bliss but we realise that in the real world it doesn’t always work that way. On the other hand commitment and responsibility can make for a relationship that is a lot more fulfilling in the long term. In a cautious low-key way the Hollywood movies of that era keep on undermining the commitment and responsibility bits. They couldn’t dare to attack marriage directly but there is quite a bit of undermining going on.

There’s an astonishing amount of anti-Christian propaganda, done very skillfully and very subtly indeed. Devout Christians are usually portrayed as being slightly ridiculous, or excessively moralistic, or (especially) hypocritical. Actually conforming to the teachings of Christianity is made to seem out-of-date and eccentric. For the most part the heroes we are encouraged to identify with are solidly secular.

Hollywood has always been basically hostile to western society and to Christian values although they used to be better at hiding the fact.

I’m also very fond of old TV shows, from the 50s up to the 70s. And again there’s a great deal of mostly low-key propaganda. If you watch British television from that era you’ll be hard pressed to find a single example of a sympathetic portrayal of a practising Christian. The message, never stated directly but always there, is that normal people are secular in outlook. Christians are odd.

The propaganda in American television in the 60s was often remarkably up-front. Anyone who’s ever watched Rod Serling’s classic The Twilight Zone will have noticed that they’re being subjected to an endless barrage of liberal propaganda. Serling used television as a soapbox, and he used it relentlessly. Star Trek creator Gene Roddenbery was another liberal who saw television as a means of pushing his agenda, although he was rarely as crude about it as Serling.

And of course there are the action heroines, the feminine and often petite ladies who can easily beat up bad guys twice their size. Feminist silliness has been preached tirelessly by television for sixty years now.

These are examples of message television that are fairly obvious but the same messages, in more muted firms, are present in countless series.

This doesn’t mean that it’s impossible to enjoy movies and television of the past. It is impossible to enjoy the movies and TV of today so the old stuff is really the only option. It can be enjoyed but you’ll still find yourself doing a lot of noticing. I blog about both old movies (at Classic Movie Ramblings) and old TV series (at Cult TV Lounge) and I try to concentrate on the positives and in those blogs I also try to avoid getting overtly political, although I do throw in some very low-key political observations. It’s quite an interesting challenge, trying not to frighten off readers who aren’t red-pilled.

Thursday, April 27, 2017

are there any men left in Europe?

2016 was a year that many people believed to be a watershed. The Brexit vote and the election of Trump offered hope that perhaps globalism wasn’t invincible, that perhaps globalists were guilty of over-reaching and of underestimating their opponents. 

Now 2017 has come and reality is starting to assert itself. The Dutch elections were a calamity for the nationalist party. The first round of the French presidential election has been a bitterly disappointing result for Marine Le Pen and the FN. She obviously has no chance whatever of victory in the second round. The French people have found a candidate who really captures their imaginations - who wouldn’t be swept away with enthusiasm at the thought of having a globalist banker as president?

The British elections look like being a triumphal procession for the Tories. At a time when a genuine alternative to the major parties is needed more desperately than ever UKIP has failed to re-invent itself as the party that could provide that alternative. Instead UKIP has become an irrelevance. Labour seems to be headed for what might well be the worst defeat in the party’s history. The Tories should win an overwhelming majority, which may strengthen the hand of those within the party determined to sabotage Brexit.

We really have to face the unpalatable truth that the political process is merely an exercise in futility.

There’s another point that is becoming more obvious and more disturbing. The European nationalist parties all seem to be led by women or homosexuals, or by girly men. In Germany the AfD’s new leader is a lesbian. Of course it’s always been obvious that there is nothing remotely far right about any of these parties. All of the European nationalist parties that the media describes as far right are actually solidly centre-left. That really isn’t a problem. 

What is a problem is that these parties are all liberal parties. They are all committed to the liberal social agenda. Maybe they’re not quite as extreme in this regard as the mainstream parties but they would all have to be described as very socially liberal. These parties might claim to be committed to defending European civilisation and values but their ideas of what constitute the core values of that civilisation are very very depressing. To them European civilisation is all about tolerance, secularism, abortion and homosexual marriage.

In fact the programs of these parties are pretty much what you’d expect of parties led by women, male feminists and homosexuals.

Are there any actual men at all left in Europe? Any men who have not been totally emasculated? What has happened? Are they putting something in the water? A civilisation led by women and homosexuals is headed for catastrophe.

Monday, April 24, 2017

are we on the right seen as unpleasant people?


James at Nourishing Obscurity raises a very important but very uncomfortable point today.  

“This is a key issue in getting any of the snowflakes to see reason – that we ourselves come over as unpleasant people.”

There’s no question that the Right has a huge image problem. Unfortunately it's to some extent well deserved. There are people who identify themselves, and are generally identified as, rightists or conservatives who are the kinds of people who will give any movement a bad name. These unpleasant people are not representative of conservative-leaning voters as a whole and it’s unfair that we get blamed for their sins but that’s the way it is. We need to face the problem.

The first group of the unpleasants is the rabid free markets/free trade/tax cuts for the rich crowd that comprises a large segment of the establishment of parties like the Republicans and the Tories. They obviously don’t give a damn for ordinary people and ordinary people are aware of this and as a result a very large number of ordinary people have an absolutely visceral loathing for these right-wing parties. They would die rather than vote Tory. And unfortunately as far as most people are concerned the vicious grasping Republicans and Tories are the face of conservatism.

The second group of unpleasants is those damned Nazis. Yes I know they’re all dead and there haven’t been any actual Nazis for seventy years but it doesn’t matter. Any political leader who is on the right and who deviates to the slightest degree from the approved path of respectable conservative politics is going to be labelled as Literally Hitler.

Now comes the really uncomfortable bit. While the rise of the alt-right has been understandable and is probably on the whole a very positive thing it does have its lunatic fringe. Of course every political movement and every political party has a lunatic fringe. The trouble is that the alt-right’s lunatic fringe is an absolute gift to our political opponents. It’s just so incredibly easy to portray them as being Literally Hitler. Some of them really are disturbing. It’s quite possible that many or even most of them are actually paid trolls employed by leftist organisations or even agents provocateurs from the FBI, but it has to be admitted that some of them are real and even though they’re harmless nutters if they make me uncomfortable they undoubtedly make ordinary people very uncomfortable.

What this all adds up to is that if you’re on the Right most people are going to regard you as either a cynical champion of the rich against the poor or an angry violent humourless life-hating person. 

So how do we deal with this problem? I don’t claim to have the answer. Perhaps we need to avoid terms like right and conservative altogether. These terms just have too much negative baggage. I’m not sure we can ever rehabilitate these terms.

Perhaps we need to be better at selling an overall positive vision for society. We need to emphasis what we’re in favour of rather than emphasising the things we hate. 

That’s the immense advantage that anyone who claims the leftist label has - they’re fighting to create a Better World, a safer place for children and puppies and we all want that don’t we? If not for the children then at least for the puppies. In actual fact most modern leftists are part of the Fake Left. They’re actually fighting for a better world for bankers and billionaires but they don’t get called out for their deceptions and they still get the benefits of being portrayed a crusaders for justice, equality, hugs and general niceness. We on the other hand just get labelled as hateful bigots.

We need to find a way to market our vision of a better world. We love puppies too.

open borders and the servant problem

When immigration is discussed there’s an important point that is often overlooked. That point is the servant problem.

Wealthy middle-class people need servants. In fact it’s not so much a need as a basic human right. Without servants you’d have female corporate lawyers having to raise their own children. You’d have merchant bankers having to mow their own lawns. The suffering would be unthinkable.

It’s OK for the very rich. They can always get servants. But what about the moderately rich? What about people whose net wealth mighty only be ten or twenty million. Don’t they have the right to have servants too?

It’s no good saying that they could employ white people. That won’t work. White people expect to be paid a living wage. Brown people will work for a pittance and they’re so pathetically grateful to be allowed to do so. And employing white people as servants is awkward. One is never sure how to behave around them. Especially if one’s liberal friends are around. At least with brown servants you don’t have that uncomfortable feeling. You might think your Mexican maid Consuela is an absolute treasure but you’d never make the social faux pas of thinking of her as an equal. Brown people were born to be servants weren’t they? They’re sort of like pets. And the children love them.

There’s absolutely no point in being rich if you can’t have servants. Without open borders wealthy people could face a very real and very serious servant shortage. Surely it’s obvious that having open borders is the only answer?

Sunday, April 23, 2017

Courtly Culture: Literature and Society in the High Middle Ages

I’ve been reading Joachim Bumke’s Courtly Culture: Literature and Society in the High Middle Ages. It was published in German in 1986 and the English translation dates from 1991. It’s an odd book. Bumke isn’t arguing that the courtly literature of the 12th and 13th centuries accurately reflected the realities of aristocratic society at that time but he does seem to be arguing that the literature does tell us something real about the period, or at the very least about the way that society viewed itself.

Like most modern historians he seems reluctant to draw actual conclusions. After he has presented masses of intriguing evidence the book just stops. 

There is some fascinating stuff here though. In the 11th century western European aristocratic society was still very much an honour-based warrior society. It was Christian, but not thoroughly Christianised. It certainly had little use for Christian notions of morality. Over the course of a couple of hundred years the Church engaged in a fierce struggle to change this. The contest ended in a fairly complete victory for the Church. 

The lords regarded marriage as a purely economic and dynastic arrangement. Marriages were arranged and if you didn’t like your prospective bride or groom it was too bad. Force could be, and was, used to compel agreement. The Church was having none of that. The Church’s position was that no marriage was valid unless both partners consented. By the later Middle Ages they had more or less won their point. A degree of coercion might still be employed but if you absolutely refused your consent you could reasonably expect the Church to back you up.

The aristocracy also had a free-and-easy attitude towards fornication and even adultery, at least as far as men were concerned. The Church’s position was that sexual misconduct was sexual misconduct regardless of the sex of the transgressor. The Church certainly didn’t win a complete victory on this issue but they did manage to change attitudes to a degree.

The Church also tried, with some success, to limit the endless feuding of the nobles.

The Church was acting as a civilising agent at a time when western European society badly needed such an influence. Of course it’s all a matter of balance. This was a society that was excessively violent and immoral so at that time the civilising and feminising influences of the Church were a good thing, shifting the balance in a healthier direction.

The other thing that really intrigues me in this book is the survival of an oral literary tradition possibly as late as the 13th century. The idea that you could be totally illiterate and be a poet seems bizarre today but in the High Middle Ages there were indeed poets, and great poets at that, who were illiterate.  What’s really interesting is that the oral literary tradition and the written literary tradition co-existed for centuries. Some of the most important literary works of the period, such as the Nibelungenlied, certainly originated within the oral tradition. Other epic poems written at precisely the same time originated as             written works. 

We don’t actually know how the audience of the time consumed (for want of a better word) their poetic works. Most were presumably sung or recited but whether there was an actual reading audience is unknown. The literacy levels at the various princely courts varied widely so we have no idea how much of the audience for literature comprised actual readers.

All interesting stuff, and it’s helping to feed my growing obsession with things mediaeval.

Thursday, April 20, 2017

nations and shared values and why it won't work

There’s been some excitement over moves by Australia’s Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, to tighten up on the rules for granting Australian citizenship. Apparently prospective citizens will have to prove that they share Australia’s values.

This is quite interesting. I had no idea that Australia had any shared values. I’m quite sure I don’t share any values with Malcolm Turnbull. 

Is it even possible to base a nation on shared values? How many nations have been based on shared values? Nazi Germany perhaps. The old Soviet Union. In today’s world North Korea is probably the only real example. When we say that a nation is based on shared values what we’re saying is that it’s a successful totalitarianism. Everyone believes the same thing. If they don’t they get sent to a re-education camp until they do.

Liberals and progressives love the idea of nations based on values, because they assume that they’ll get to choose the values and they’ll get to enforce conformity. And there’s nothing they enjoy more than enforcing conformity.

Of course at this point someone will object and say that the United States has been a marvelous example of the success of a proposition nation, and that a proposition nation is essentially one that is based on shared values.

Indeed. A great success. But hold on a moment, wasn’t the Civil War fairly damning evidence that Americans did not share values after all? And that shared values were in fact imposed by force on the conquered South?

And today progressives, the ones who love that shared values stuff, refuse to accept the legitimacy of the current President. And the reason? Because he doesn’t share their values!

Experience tends to show that nations based on a shared history and a shared culture are more successful than nations based on shared values. That’s why Japan is a nice place to live and North Korea isn’t.

Tightening up the rules for citizenship is a great idea (although halting immigration altogether would be an even better idea) but basing the mechanisms on meaningless twaddle like values is never going to work, and for me the concept of shared values always carries with it the faint whiff of latent totalitarianism.

Sorry Malcolm, but I don’t buy it.

no enemies to the right?

One of the key choices you have to make if you’re going to aim to achieve anything by political means is whether you’re going to be inclusive or tightly focused. Are you going to adopt a variation on the slogan No Enemies To The Right? In other words a Big Tent approach. Or are you going to aim for some sort of ideological purity? Although personally I’d prefer to think of it as ideological focus rather than ideological purity.

The Left has historically had an easier time adopting a strategy of no enemies to the left. All leftists after all hoped to achieve some form of socialism even if some wanted to push ahead much faster and much more aggressively. And there was pretty general agreement that in order to achieve socialism the existing economic and political structure would have to be overturned. It wasn’t terribly difficult for leftists to adopt a fairly united front.

This was a major strategic advantage for the Left. 

There are those who feel that the Right should adopt the same strategy. I can see the advantages in strictly political terms but I really don’t see it working. The issues that divide the Right are not divisions that can be easily papered over. They’re kind of fundamental.

First of all it’s not at all clear what it even means to be on the Right. It could be argued that Left and Right no longer even exist but as far as most people are concerned if you’re opposed to globalism and the Social Justice agenda then you’re on the Right so for the sake of convenience we might as well accept that label.

So what are these fundamental divisions? 

First of all there’s religion. There are rightists who believe that our culture can only be saved by Christianity, albeit a much more traditional kind of Christianity to that practised by  the mainstream churches of today. There are other rightists who are militant atheists and despise Christianity. And then there are the rightists who consider Christianity to be a non-European import and who want to revive European paganism. The problem is that all three of these groups tend to hold their respective positions very very strongly indeed. And they do not get along well, to say the least.

Then there’s democracy. There are rightists who have an almost religious reverence for democracy. And there are rightists who think that it was democracy that got us into the mess we’re in now and who think that in the long-term some kind of authoritarianism is going to be necessary. These two groups do not play well together either.

There’s also the questions of race and nationalism, with substantial differences of opinion between adherents of the white nationalist position and those who believe that culture and not race is what matters. Most sane rightists agree that mass Third World immigration is a dumb idea but most mainstream conservatives are true believers in the open borders cult.

There’s also the question of capitalism. Many rightists are very enthusiastic about capitalism and free markets but others are much more sceptical. You can be a rightist and dislike capitalism just as much as you dislike socialism.

Then there’s the social conservative problem. There are those on the right who think that nothing matters except the immigration issue and that therefore we should embrace abortion, drugs, sexual degeneracy and feminism in order to appeal to moderates.

Yet another complication is provided by libertarians. Some libertarians claim to be on the Right, but they tend to hold views that most people on the Right would find to be rather disturbing.

My problem is that most of these divisive issues are issues that really matter to me. I can’t go along with acceptance of abortion, drugs, sexual degeneracy and feminism for the sake of short-term political advantage. You can’t fight evil by embracing evil. I can’t really compromise on religion - I just don’t think atheism is compatible with civilisation. I’m also very reluctant to embrace the free market fetish. Maybe I’m just not the kind of person who is good at compromising. Whether being uncompromising is a viable political strategy or not is a question I can’t answer. But compromising just doesn’t appeal to me.

Tuesday, April 11, 2017

Hilaire Belloc’s James II: book review

James II
Hilaire Belloc’s James II appeared in 1928 and it’s typical of its author’s slightly idiosyncratic approach to both history and biography. He has little interest in connected linear narratives or in chronicling the events of his subject’s lifetime. He offers us a series of impressions, each of them calculated to shed as much light as possible on the underlying truth.

The story is also of course a tragedy. James II, the last legitimate King of England, lost his throne in 1688. The tale has been told a hundred times but almost always with a conscious or unconscious anti-Catholic bias, and of course with an anti-Stuart bias (England’s current queen being a representative of the usurping house that ousted the Stuarts).

The Stuarts also suffer from the disadvantage of being the historical losers and history, as the saying goes, is written by the winners. It’s easy to assume that the losing side must have lost because their defeat was inevitable. Unfortunately history is rarely so clear-cut although admittedly the odds were stacked against the Stuart kings.

In approaching this volume it helps of you’ve read some of Belloc’s other books, specifically those dealing with the Reformation. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 was the culmination of the English Reformation. As Belloc is at pains to point out the Reformation in England was largely about money. The issues of church discipline and organisation could in time have been sorted out. The Reformation became permanent because it offered the great landowners the chance to enrich themselves still further, to enrich themselves in fact to an obscene degree, by helping themselves to land stolen from the Church. Some of this land theoretically went to the Crown, but only temporarily. The Crown ended up poorer than it had been prior to the Reformation.

While helping themselves to Church lands the great magnates also took the opportunity of adding even further to their wealth at the expense of the small independent landowners. This was a social revolution, a revolution of the rich against both the poor and the Crown.

The impoverishment of the Crown forced the English kings to rely on Parliament for money, their income being hopelessly inadequate to carry on the government of the realm. Parliament in the seventeenth century had of course nothing whatever to do with democracy. It was an assembly of rich men, selected by themselves, to advance their own interests. If the King had not been reduced to penury then Charles I would have had no need to summon the Parliament that brought about his downfall. Charles II would have had a chance of restoring the royal powers. James II might then have inherited a secure throne. 

Hilaire Belloc (1870-1953)
Religion of course played a major role in the downfall of James II. His conversion to the Catholic faith gave the enemies of the Throne the weapon they needed. They were able to exploit religious paranoia and bigotry to overthrow the King. Belloc points out that the idea that the Catholic Church could be restored to its position as the national church in the late 17th century was absurd and James had no thought of trying to achieve such an aim. At most he hoped to give Catholicism as chance of survival in the kingdom.

The King’s personality played its part as well. Belloc portrays him as a man of intelligence and application of very strong principles. Alas these useful qualities were combined with others far more harmful. The King was very inflexible and he was a remarkably poor judge of men. James would not compromise his principles even in relatively small things even when it would have been wise to do so, and in the country’s interests as well as his own.

To Belloc the Glorious Revolution was the end of the line for the English monarchy although in fact it had already been grievously weakened. James II may have been England’s last legitimate monarch but Charles I was the last king to exercise anything like genuine royal power. Whether James II ever had any real chance of restoring the fortunes of the Crown is doubtful but he at least was determined to make the attempt. 

In Belloc’s view the undermining of the monarchy was a disaster, the King being the only real defence of the common people against the greed and viciousness of the rich. Since the Glorious Revolution British monarchs, apart from not being legitimate, have been mere pawns of the wealthy ruling class.

Belloc can always be relied upon to offer a view of history that is refreshing original, provocative and eccentric. Highly recommended.

Saturday, April 8, 2017

Syria - we're back to Invade the World, Invite the World

I’m not going to rehash any of the voluminous arguments pro and con in the current Syrian cruise missile attack crisis. What I want to focus on here is the most predictable, and most worrying, feature of the crisis. That feature being the inescapable linkage between Invading the World and Inviting the World. 

We’re already seeing the mainstream media pushing the emotionally manipulative argument that saving Syrian babies by launching cruise missiles is all well and good but if Americans really cared about Syrian babies they’d be welcoming them as refugees. Bombing designated villains only earns you partial virtue points - to prove genuine virtue you have to embrace open borders. They’ve already trotted out Hillary Clinton to make this argument.

It is now clearer than ever (as Steve Sailer has been tirelessly arguing for so long) that Invade the World cannot be separated from Invite the World. The one implies the other. If you accept the idea that the West (led by the United States) has a duty to solve every real or imagined humanitarian crisis on the planet then logically the West must welcome an unlimited influx of refugees.

If the Third World’s problems are our responsibility then accepting unlimited numbers of refugees must logically be our problem as well.

And of course these same arguments will be relentlessly pushed by the media and by the elites throughout the West, not just in the United States. Our lamentable Australian prime minister Malcolm Turnbull has already expressed his support once again for the Invade the World part of the equation which means Australia will be under pressure, once again, to show the same eagerness in Inviting the World.

The Syrian crisis has been a heaven-sent opportunity for globalists to promote their agenda of demographic replacement in the West.