Friday, December 28, 2018

why white nationalism is a non-starter

Among the various groups who comprise the motley crew of political dissidence in the modern West the most notorious are the white nationalists. Their dream is of white ethnostates. There are many reasons why this notion is, perhaps unfortunately, totally fanciful and it’s worth looking at a few of them in detail.

First off white nationalists tend to blame immigrants for all their woes. It’s all the fault of the Mexicans or the Somalians or the Muslims or whatever. White nationalists often seem to have trouble comprehending that these immigrants are not invaders. They have not fought their way through our heavily fortified defences nor have they defeated our armies in the field. They have been brought here by our own leaders. They are here because our political leaders, business leaders, our media and our church leaders have decided that they should be here. In other words the fault lies with our own elites.

The second problem is that white nationalists do not understand how elites function and maintain themselves in power, and they do not comprehend the make-up of the alliances that keep allow elites to maintain their power.

The elites are predominantly white but they have zero white identity. Their entire identity is bound up with membership of the elites. For the elites class trumps race or ethnicity.

The elites are by definition a small group and to remain in power they need loyal servants. In the case of contemporary western globalist elites they get support from two sources, the Coalition of the Fringes and the wannabe elites. The Coalition of the Fringes is a term coined by Steve Sailer to describe the alliance of victim groups who provide the elites with the votes needed to maintain power whilst  retaining the appearance of democracy. Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, the LGBT-whatever crowd, etc.

Since these groups seem to have few apparent interests in common how is the Coalition of the Fringes held together? Blogger Spandrell explains it with his theory of bioleninism. These groups are entirely dependent on the existing power structures. Without those power structures they’d have zero status and no money. They are loyal because they have no choice. They have nowhere else to go.

The key to Spandrell’s theory is that the elites don’t care that these followers are often of very limited competence if not entirely incompetent. What the elites want is not competence but loyalty. The absolute loyalty of people who have no other options.

Many of these people are white. The LGBT-whatever crowd are still mostly (although not entirely) white. They are white but they have no white identity. They identify as LGBT-whatever. The extremist feminists who live off the government and make up another part of the Coalition of the Fringes are still mostly (although not entirely) white. They are white but they have no white identity. They identify as feminists.

As well as the Coalition of the Fringes there are the wannabe elites. Academics, schoolteachers, bureaucrats, senior military officers, low-level media types etc. They are also entirely dependent on the existing power structures. Without those power structures they’d be without status and money. These groups are mainly white but again with zero white identity. They have thrown in their lot with the elites. They adopt what they perceive to be the values of the elites.

So even if by some magical process all the non-whites could be made to disappear you still would not have the utopian white paradise that white nationalists dream about. The white elites would not suddenly discover a sense of solidarity with working class and rural whites. The white elites would continue to hate and despise and fear the non-elite whites and the non-elite whites would continue to hate the elite whites. And you’d still have a society that reflected the values of the elites. You’d still have a decadent degenerate society of atomised individuals with no sense of common purpose.

White nationalists for the most part are so focused on race (and on Jewish conspiracies) that they fail to understand any of this. They fail to understand that their fantasy really is a fantasy. One of the few ho does get it is James Lawrence. His essay Contra Cosmopolitanism is very much worth reading.

Don't get me wrong. I do sympathise with some of the aims of white nationalists and I do think ethnostates are generally preferable to multicultural states. And I would certainly love to see an end to immigration. I just don't think the idea of white nationalism based on white racial solidarity is workable.

Meanwhile white nationalists frighten off the normies and make it difficult for any reality-based dissident movement to gain traction.

Sunday, December 23, 2018

Coming Apart French style

Interesting piece, The French, Coming Apart, from City Journal about French geographer/housing consultant Christophe Guilluy.

Housing is something that the dissident right all too often overlooks (apart from Steve Sailer who has always understood that it’s a crucial issue). The Left used to worry about housing but nowadays they’re not interested.

Guilluy describes the ethnic cleansing of working class native French from major cities like Paris. One of his strengths is that he understands that neither class cannot singlehandedly explain the destruction of countries like France but nor can race. You have to comprehend both class and race.

In cities like Paris the ethnic cleansing of native French neighbourhoods is not seen as a problem by the elites. That’s not because the victims of the ethnic cleansing are ethnically French. It’s because they are working class. As far as the French elites and middle class are concerned those working class people are no longer needed so they should just die.

Guilluy also talks about the fact that there is now not one bourgeoisie but two. That should have led to tensions within the elites but it hasn’t because the old money sort and the new tech economy sort are united by their hatred of the working class and their desire for cheap labour provided by immigrants who will work for starvation wages.

He has an interesting explanation for the fact that both old and new bourgeoisie consider themselves as being leftists. They are “the ‘glass-ceiling Left,’ preoccupied with redistribution among, not from, elites.”

The article is very much worth a read.

Hat tip to Nourishing Obscurity for finding this piece.

Friday, December 21, 2018

moral and immoral art

Oscar Wilde famously said that, “There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written.” He was of course wrong. Wilde said many clever things but the fact that a statement is clever does not make it true. And of course Wilde was a degenerate so he had an axe to grind.

Books take a moral stance. That may be an explicitly moral or immoral stance, or they may pretend to be neutral. But if you’re neutral on the subject of morality then you’re taking a stance on the issue - you’re coming down on the side of scepticism on the issue of morality.

It’s the same with movies and television, and even the visual arts. Even landscape painting is not immune - pure landscape painting became popular with the rise of the Romantic movement and it was implicitly nature-worship and implicitly pagan.

Everyone has a position on moral issues. If you claim to be indifferent to morality then you’re taking the stance that morality doesn’t matter so effectively you’re casting your vote for amorality at the very least.

Of course there’s a world of difference between an artist or writer (or film-maker or musician) who tolerates or ignores immorality and one who actively promotes. The former can be accused of cynicism or even cowardice, but the latter is actively evil.

It also has to be remembered that today more than ever art and literature are seen as political acts. It’s very hard to be neutral. Art and literature are energetically used to undermine what is left of traditional morality. The question of the morality of art and literature matters very much.

Can a work of art or a book be great and still be immoral? Wilde was certainly partially correct - books are either well written, or badly written. An immoral book can be superbly well written. Perhaps it can even achieve greatness. But it’s still an immoral book. It’s still evil.

Can we afford to tolerate great art and literature that is actively evil? My view is that the history of the past century is pretty strong evidence that we cannot.

Saturday, December 15, 2018

Illinois officially embraces Satanism

There are those who think that western society is in deep trouble so it’s reassuring to hear some positive news. In the Illinois Statehouse there’s a display this holiday season where various religious traditions are being celebrated. Including Satanism. Because we have to be inclusive!

Here's the inspiring story.

So if you’re looking for somewhere to take the kids at Christmas why not take them to see Satan instead of Santa? In Illinois you can do just that.

Remind me again why we should be trying to save western society.

Friday, December 14, 2018

paganism and morality

I’ve talked before about the importance of religion to a successful society and to speculation as to whether Christianity should be abandoned as a lost cause and some kind of alternative sought. I’ve also talked about the extreme difficulties such an option would face and the dubious chances of success.

There are those on the dissident right who see a revival of paganism as a viable alternative. For a whole series of reasons I think the idea is a complete non-starter. The one thing in its favour is that paganism lacks the universalism of Christianity. That universalism was at one time an asset but it’s now a serious weakness. Paganism is parochial rather than universalistic so it’s certainly has some appeal to those who want to promote nationalism.

To me it seems that the big problem with paganism is morality. Paganism is essentially ritual-based religion. What matters is that the rituals should be performed correctly. Whether an individual is virtuous or not, whether a society is virtuous is not, is pretty much unimportant. If the rituals are carried out in the correct manner then one’s obligation to the gods has been fulfilled.

That’s not to say that the pagans of the ancient world were oblivious to the importance of morality, but morality was more of a social obligation than a religious obligation. In that sense the pagan approach was very similar to our modern approach and to the modern secular religion of liberalism.

That’s a less than ideal basis for morality. There’s a definite danger that moral behaviour  will end up being whatever you manage to convince yourself it is or even worse, whatever you think you can get away with.

In pagan religions even the gods seem to approach the matter in this manner.

Paganism probably worked quite well for societies at a low level of civilisational advancement in which most people lived in small close-knit communities and social pressures were strong enough to maintain the social order. Once pagan societies started to reach a high civilisational level decadence seemed to set in disturbingly quickly and disturbingly completely. The Romans achieved levels of decadence that even we were unable to aspire to until the 20th century.

Which raises an interesting question. Is full-blown decadence something to which only pagan or completely secular societies are prone to? And it raises a related question - is decadence inevitable in a pagan or completely secular society?

Friday, December 7, 2018

more on transhumanism

Some more thoughts on transhumanism.

I’ve already expressed my view that an increase in the number of high IQ people would be a disadvantage to society. The manipulation of human genetics could pose other dangers also.

Intelligence appears to be a quality that is controlled not by a handful of genes but by huge numbers. If you want to create transhumans with incredibly high intelligence you’re going to have to manipulate thousands of genes.

The problem with this is that if you manipulate thousands of genes then how can you be sure that intelligence is the only thing you’re going to be changing? Human behaviour is incredibly complex. If you fiddle around with genes that alter the workings of the mind then you might end up with some unanticipated and very unpleasant behavioural changes.

You might end up with people with very high IQs and major psychological and behavioural problems. A high IQ person with severe psychological issues might be more of a liability than an asset to society. We have no way of knowing exactly what form such psychological disturbances might take.

It’s unfortunate that many people seem to be inclined to ignore such risks. These risks are entirely unpredictable and unquantifiable. Rather than being a magical shortcut to power and prosperity it might be more like playing Russian roulette.

Monday, December 3, 2018

socialist realism reconsidered

Alexander Deineka, The Expanse, 1944
Socialist realism was the officially approved painting style in the Soviet Union from around the time that Stalin came to power. It was very much a reaction what was seen (quite correctly) as the decadent and degenerate modernist art of the West.

It was a direct challenge to the orthodoxy of the western art establishment. Socialist realism was optimistic and wholesome when everybody in the western art establishment knew that art was supposed to be pessimistic and was supposed to celebrate ugliness, squalor and depravity. So socialist realism was the subject of anger and ridicule among western art critics.

When we think of socialist realism we think of the propaganda paintings and posters. We think of heroic portraits of Stalin, inspiring scenes in tractor factories, brave Red Army soldiers fighting evil fascists. There was this side of it, no question of it. But there was a bit more to it than that. Socialist realism was also intended to be art for ordinary people. Art that ordinary people would understand, and like.

The very idea of art that ordinary people would understand and enjoy was of course anathema to western artistic elites. And here we get down to the nitty-gritty. Socialist realism was consciously anti-elite art.

Yuri Pimenov (1903–1977),  Wedding in Tomorrow Street, 1962
Western elites consider that art belongs to them. The notion that the average person has the right to hold an opinion on the subject of art is deeply offensive to western elites.

Being art for ordinary people socialist realism can tend towards sentimentality. But then if you look at the tastes of ordinary people everywhere you’ll find that they do tend towards sentimentality.

Socialist realism upsets western intellectual and artistic elites for other reasons. It challenges assumptions about the purpose of art. For more than a hundred years it has been an article of faith that art is and must be political. That of course means that art must reflect the political views of the elites.

In the west the intellectual/artistic elites identify as left-wing (and back in the 1930s and 40s they really were left-wing). You might think they would therefore admire the art of a country that actually had a socialist government that promoted an avowedly left-wing style of art (socialist realism) but in fact they hated socialist realism because it was the wrong kind of left-wing art.

Western art critics and theorists wanted revolutionary art that would undermine the culture and destroy society. The Soviet Union on the other hand had already had its revolution. What the Soviets wanted was art that would promote stability and social cohesion. In fact what the Soviets wanted looked to left-wing western arty types like reactionary art, or even (horror of horrors) fascist art. So, amusingly, the western left violently disliked the art of the communist world that they so admired in every other way.


Nikolay Bondarenko (1914-2000), Sport bold and beautiful, 1963
This all raises interesting questions about the purpose of art. Should art be political? Is political art automatically good art (as the western art establishment believes) or is political art automatically bad art (as many traditionalists believe)? Should art make people angry, disturbed and miserable (as the western art establishment believes), or should art make people joyful and optimistic (a belief shared by traditionalists and the Soviets)? Should art celebrate ugliness and degeneracy (as the western art establishment believes) or should it celebrate beauty and health (a belief also shared by traditionalists and the Soviets)?

Of course one could ask whether art even has a purpose. In the late 19th century art started to become a substitute for religion. I’m not sure that this was a good idea. There had always been religious art but that was art that served religion rather than seeking to supplant it.

In any case I don’t think Soviet art was all that bad. In fact there’s quite a lot of socialist realist art that I rather like. I wouldn’t describe it as one of my favourite art movements but it was certainly preferable to most western modernist and postmodernist art.

Although I know a bit about 19th century Russian art I must confess to my complete ignorance of the artists of the Soviet period. The paintings included in this post just happened to be paintings I found on the web that appeal to me. I have no idea if all these artists identified as socialist realists, or whether they were generally regarded as belonging to that school.

Friday, November 30, 2018

IQ fetishism and transhumanism

There’s much concern at the moment that some Chinese scientist may have already created the first genetically modified human babies.

Much of the hand-wringing concerns the possibility that China will use this technology to breed lots of high-IQ babies, this giving China an immense economic advantage over all its competitors.

This seems to me to be a bit unlikely. The Chinese already have tens of millions of very high IQ people. Why would they need, or want, more?

This comes back to the IQ fetishism that I find to be so amusing. The idea that the more high IQ people a nation has the more powerful that nation will become. This really is nonsense. You actually need only a very very small number of high IQ people. If you have more high IQ people than you need you will have major social problems. You will end up with lots of very smart people chasing a fairly small number of suitable jobs. The ones who miss out will become angry and disillusioned. They are likely to gravitate toward political extremism. You will have more SJW/globalist political activists expressing their frustrations at their own uselessness by lashing out at society.

This is what has already happened in the West as we have expanded university education far beyond our actual needs. We have already created a massive entirely unnecessary pool of university-educated intellectuals who serve no useful purpose whatsoever.

It’s not really all that likely that any of the major developed nations is suffering from a shortage of high IQ people.

If a nation did want to gain a significant advantage by manipulating the genetic attributes of its population IQ might not be the attribute to choose. A smarter population is likely to cause more headaches. But how about a more docile population? A population not just indoctrinated into docility, by genetically engineered into passive obedience. Ot perhaps it might be useful to have some segments of the population more docile, and others more aggressive? Changes in behavioural traits that could be hardwired into the population’s generic code might be attractive not just to nations like China but also to the large corporations that control the West, and to the western elites that serve those corporations.

So personally I’d be more worried about behavioural modifications than the creation of super-high IQ nations.

Tuesday, November 27, 2018

western civilisation and the irrational

Astrology is apparently enjoying a bit of a revival. Which is depressing but not overly surprising.

It’s easy to assume that this kind of irrationality has its roots in the counter-culture of the late 60s and 70s when astrology and other kinds of occult and paranormal silliness were enormously popular. But if you go back to the years between the two world wars you’ll find that spiritualism was a very big thing and it was the heyday of scientific (or pseudoscientific) ghost-hunting and scientific investigations of extra-sensory perception.

If you go back a little further, to the late 19th century, it was a boom time for the occult and for ritual magick and it was also the period that marked the beginnings of neo-paganism and modern witchcraft.

Even in the seemingly very rational 18th century there was a huge vogue for things like Freemasonry and Rosicrucianism.

And the 16th and 17th centuries were rife with all manner of occult beliefs such as alchemy and hermeticism.

In fact from the time of the Reformation onwards irrationality has been central to European civilisation.

Of course I’m inclined to see the Reformation as western civilisation’s first big mistake but it is difficult to deny that the fragmentation of western Christianity opened the door to a good deal of craziness. Not just crazy heresies but crazy stuff that went way beyond mere heresy. Organised religion became more irrational (witch-hunting only became an obsession after the Reformation) and seriously weird ideas that were totally outside the orbit of religion began to gain in popularity, particular among the intellectual elites.

It is perhaps a sobering thought that irrationality may be the western mainstream, while rationality is just a fringe thing.

Of course in the 20th century atheists started to convince themselves that they represented Reason while religion represented Superstition but I have to say that in my own personal experience atheists have never seemed to be significantly more rational than Christians. If anything atheists seem slightly more gullible.

Saturday, November 24, 2018

what the military is really for

It’s obvious that something strange is happening to the militaries of western nations. Combat efficiency is no longer considered to  be important. What matters is political correctness. What matters is diversity, and having equal representation for women, homosexuals and transgenders.

This seems odd at first. Surely it’s obvious that an army of women and homosexuals is not going to be the slightest bit of use against a real enemy? And in order to get women into combat units it’s going to be necessary to lower standards of physical fitness to such extreme degrees that even the men are going to be increasingly recruited from the less fit. So eventually your entire army is going to be of very poor quality.

It seems odd until you ask yourself the question - what is the military actually for? The West has no actual enemies in the sense of hostile nation states with formidable conventional military forces. The enemies that the media tries to get us worried about our illusory enemies. The Russians just want to be left alone. They have their own problems to deal with. The Chinese have no interest in anything outside their own backyard and their backyard is a long long way from any western nation. There are no other countries possessing military establishments that could possibly be a threat to the West.

The military and political establishments in the West are well aware of this. But there is one enemy that they are genuinely worried about. And that’s the enemy within. They are worried about the prospect of large-scale civil unrest as citizens increasingly lose enthusiasm for the globalist and social justice agendas. They are worried that civil unrest could escalate to riots, or even worse. The enemy they fear is their own people. They fear a repetition of 1968 in France, they fear the troubles that brought down the French Fourth Republic, they fear a repeat of the anti-Vietnam War protests, they fear a revival of anti-globalisation violence. They fear that their own people will, when pushed too far, turn against them.

That means they need a military that they can rely on absolutely. A military that is fiercely loyal to the regime. That means a military filled with women, minorities, homosexuals, trannies etc. It doesn’t matter if it’s a military of unfit overweight misfits, as long as those misfits can be relied upon to shoot down their own people if the government tells them to do so. An army of white heterosexual men might not obey such orders. The political and military establishment are confident that the new diverse army will obey such orders. An army of misfits will be loyal because they have no choice. They are entirely dependent on the government. They will pull the trigger on their own people.

There is another fear. What if civil unrest breaks out and elements within the military decide to throw in their lot with the dissidents and stage a coup? That’s a real possibility if you have a military with pride and esprit de corps, a military composed of men who believe in duty and sacrifice. The answer to that is to ensure that the entire officer corps is composed of reliable people. Female officers and homosexual officers - these people are of little use in the military but they’re even less useful in the real world. Their careers are all they have. They will be loyal.

The modern army does not have to be tough enough to take on professional battle-hardened troops. It just needs to be politically reliable to shoot Deplorables should that become necessary.

Friday, November 23, 2018

pop culture time capsules, The F.B.I. (1965)

I have a great fondness for the pop culture of the past. This includes vintage television which is in fact one of the great loves.

Once you become red-pilled though you find that vintage pop culture can be a little disturbing. For one thing, you can’t avoid noticing the propaganda. And the liberal propaganda was always there in television, going right back to the 50s.

At times watching old TV shows can also be an oddly melancholic experience. That’s what I’m finding at the moment with The F.B.I., or more specifically with the first season of that series. The F.B.I. was an immensely popular series which aired from 1965 to 1974. It’s the fact that the first season originated in 1965 that gives it a real poignancy. 1965 was a very very pivotal year. Everything was about to change. Pop culture can offer us a fascinating window into the past and can sometimes be more illuminating than official history.

The 1965 season of The F.B.I. shows us an America that is peaceful, prosperous, united and confident. What’s interesting is that this is a crime series, so it actually has an agenda to show us the darker side of society. Which it does. It makes no attempt to deny that problems exist. However the overwhelming feeling that the show conveys is that these problems are entirely manageable. They are challenges that can be, and will be, met and overcome.

There’s the challenge of organised crime but the Bureau is already giving that top priority. There’s communist subversion but in this series the communists are mostly paid agents of foreign governments and mostly they’re involved in sabotage. In those happy days of 1965 no-one had considered the possibility that society might be much more effectively undermined by subversives taking control of the education system and the media. Erskine, the older of the two F.B.I. agents featured in the series, actually wants his daughter to stay in college rather than get married. It’s difficult to think of a more wrong-headed notion but in 1965 college still seemed like a good idea.

Drugs are mentioned but are seen as purely a law enforcement problem and as another challenge that can be met. Vietnam gets mentioned in passing but there’s no sense that it’s going to prove to be an historical watershed. The horrors of feminism and militant LGBT activism weren’t even on the horizon. Pornography was seen as a threat but a threat that could be largely eliminated by vigorous law enforcement. The idea that within a few years a policy of complete surrender on this subject would be adopted and the country flooded with pornography would have been considered crazy talk in 1965.

There’s one episode in which a cab driver decides to become an F.B.I. informant. I don’t mean that he’s a reluctant witness who is persuaded to come forward. He volunteers to be an active informant, seeking out information to pass on to the Bureau. And he does this because he thinks it’s his duty as a citizen. Even two or three years later I don’t think such a decision could have been presented in such an unironic way. In fact that’s one of the notable things about the 1965 season of The F.B.I. - it is totally lacking in irony. Which I think is wonderful.

America in 1965 is not exactly portrayed as being complacent, merely very confident. Democracy seemed to be working. The political and economic system as a whole seemed to be delivering the goods. Technological progress appeared to be limitless and entirely a good thing.

By 1974, when this series ended its run, the society depicted in the first season had pretty much ceased to exist. And it was a disaster that, apparently, was entirely unexpected.

The series is politically incorrect, and often delightfully so, but in those innocent times no-one knew that political correctness was going to become a thing. The F.B.I. is extremely good but watching it  really is desperately sad at times.

Friday, November 16, 2018

Orwell reconsidered

I’ve been reading a collection of George Orwell’s essays and it’s been a slightly disturbing experience. If you’re accustomed to thinking of Orwell as a remarkably prescient and perceptive writer with a knack for penetrating to the heart of the matter it can even be a shocking experience.

The truth is that Orwell did not have quite the brilliant mind that w’ve been led to believe. He was quite good at pointing out the fallacies in other people’s thinking but he was prone to making exactly the same mistakes himself. He points out that most people believe atrocity stories when the atrocities are allegedly carried out by people of whom they disapprove, and tend to disbelieve atrocity stories when those atrocities are alleged to have been committed by people of whom they approve. This is true and it’s very important. And then in the same essay he assures us that we should believe all the stories of Fascist atrocities in the Spanish Civil War because, after all, the Fascists are bad people. They’re people of whom Orwell disapproves.

Orwell had a knack for being wrong, or at least for being partly right but mostly wrong. He believed that the first year of the war had conclusively demonstrated the failure of capitalism. Britain could not hope to survive unless it adopted full-scale socialism. Without socialism Orwell was convinced that defeat was inevitable. He was of course partly correct. Britain (and the United States) did adopt a form of War Socialism, and it is quite likely that victory would have been impossible otherwise. What Orwell failed to anticipate was that once the war was won the ruling class would reinstate capitalism. He also failed to anticipate the way in which the working class would be bought off with the expansion of the welfare state which eliminated any desire on the part of the working class for the kind of full-scale socialism that Orwell craved.

Let’s be quite clear about this. For all his opposition to national socialism and Soviet communism Orwell was most certainly not a moderate leftist. He was a hardcore socialist. Orwell’s vision of the ideal future was pretty much full-on communism. On the other hand Orwell seemed to disapprove of all the established leftist groupings. He despised the Labour Party. He despised the English communists. He particularly loathed what he called the pansy left. He talks about a kind of democratic socialism which really is pure fantasy. The kind of socialism that Orwell wanted was never going to be brought about by the ballot box. Orwell’s beliefs were doubtless since but hopelessly unrealistic.

Orwell also suffered from a crippling case of colonial guilt. He had been, briefly, a colonial policeman in Burma. It was a career for which he was ludicrously unsuited and it turned him into a rabid but somewhat irrational anti-imperialist. He was convinced that Britain’s prosperity was based entirely on the exploitation of the huddled masses of India and Britain’s other colonial outposts.

All of this of course just shows that Orwell was human and was as much a prey to intellectual prejudices and emotional misjudgments as anyone else. His belief in socialism doesn’t bother me but it does seem to me that his ideas as to how it could be implemented were hopelessly naïve. His dislike of imperialism also doesn’t bother me although he does take it to an unrealistic extreme. The European colonial empires may have been a disastrous mistake but to see them as having not even the slightest positive element is I think going too far.

Orwell had a somewhat unique perspective. Intellectual circles in Britain in the 30s and 40s were fairly overwhelmingly dominated by leftism but Orwell was a kind of contrarian communist who managed to remain entirely independent of all the established leftist groupings. For this reason alone his essays are worth reading.

Saturday, November 10, 2018

The First World War and the death of empires

It is now exactly a hundred years since the guns stopped firing in the First World War. I don’t propose to discuss the rights and wrongs of the war since there is little to be said on that subject that hasn’t already been said.

I do want to take about one of the most evil of all the evil results of the war.

The war destroyed four great empires - the German, Russian, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires. I’m sure that none of those empires could have been described as perfect but they were all significantly better than what replaced them.

The destruction of the German Empire led to the chaos of the Weimar Republic and then to Hitler.

The destruction of the Russian Empire paved the way for the Bolshevik seizure of power in 1917. The Russian Empire was autocratic and authoritarian certainly but it was not especially brutal. It was also an empire that was booming. Contrary to popularly held views the collapse of the Tsarist empire was by no means inevitable. In fact in 1914 there was every reason to think that it had a bright future in front of it. The war brought Lenin to power. Without the war Lenin would have lived out his days as just another failed revolutionary in exile. He would hardly have qualified even as a footnote to history.

The destruction of the Austro-Hungarian Empire led to some extraordinarily ill-advised territorial reorganisations which were always going to end up leading to further war.

And most of the horrors that have been visited upon the Middle East in the last century can be said to be due to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

The First World War changed everything and remarkably it changed almost everything in extraordinarily disastrous ways. It’s difficult to think of a single good thing that came out of that war.

That’s the trouble with wars. They set in motion events that are entirely unpredictable and are often the exact opposite of the result that had been hoped for. What they destroy can never be rebuilt. They kindle a fatal desire for political and social experimentation. They encourage the entirely pernicious desire to change things.

Most wars would have been better not fought. That applies particularly strongly to the First World War.

Thursday, November 8, 2018

conservatives and history

It is a curious fact that conservatives (I mean mainstream political conservatives rather than social conservatives) have never conserved anything and have never seriously tried to do so. The explanation is of course that mainstream conservatives are in fact liberals. Their entire worldview is liberal to the core. But how is it that these conservatives have never been troubled by the contradictions inherent in being liberals who call themselves conservatives?

Perhaps part of the explanation is the Whig view of history which has reigned unchallenged (particularly in the Anglosphere) for centuries. The Whig view of history is that the whole of history is an inevitable progression towards the Promised Land in which society will be organised entirely upon pure liberal lines. Its only challenger has been Marxist history but the Marxist approach to history is merely a variation on the Whig approach. To Marxist historians the endpoint of history is a society organised upon pure Marxist lines but the process is identical. History is inevitable, history is progressive, the trend is always towards a better and more virtuous world, change is good because change is always for the better (because old things and old ways are always bad), the good guys (the liberals) always triumph in the end.

In other times and places quite different views of history have prevailed. Cyclical views of history seemed to have predominated in the ancient world and in the East. The Christian view of history, that it is the unfolding of God’s plan, was at one time immensely influential. For the past couple of hundred years cyclical views of history have been very much on the fringe whilst the Christian view of history is now held only by extremist Christian heretics such as dispensationalists. Mainstream Christians accept the fundamentally anti-Christian Whig view of history.

It’s inherent in the Whig view that everything that happens in history will always turn out in the long run to be liberal and progressive and good and in accordance with Whig principles, because it’s in the very nature of history that liberalism must be the winning side. Liberalism is on the right side of history.

So naturally the outcome of historical conflicts, whether military or political, must tend to contribute to the defeat of those on the Wrong Side Of History. This means that the winners of any military or political conflict must be the good guys. Conservatives tend to believe this, and in fact most of us believe it because for several centuries we have been thoroughly indoctrinated in the Whig approach to history. It’s interesting that this even applies to obviously disastrous wars like the First World War. No matter how appalled we may be by that exercise in butchery most of us still feel that somehow the Germans must have been the bad guys, simply because they lost.  The fact that they lost is enough to prove that they were in the wrong.

This is an attitude that is unconsciously adhered to by most people in the Anglosphere. Victory in war is proof that one is on the Right Side of History. Mainstream conservatives do not question this because to do so would be to question the rightness and the inevitable triumph of liberalism.

This also applies to victory in political struggles. While it may seem obvious that the Sexual Revolution that began in the 60s was a catastrophe in every way and is something that needs to be undone if society is to survive very very few mainstream conservatives would dare to think such a thing, much less say it. It’s the same with the triumphs of feminism and the homosexual lobby. Mainstream conservatives are unwilling to adopt a radically critical stance towards such matters because the very fact that those who pushed the Sexual Revolution and feminism and the homosexual agenda succeeded proves that they were on the Right Side of History. Clearly those cataclysmic social changes were Meant To Be.

The irony is that conservatives end up being totally opposed to the idea of conserving anything because the only way to be on the Right Side of History is to be favour of constant change.

Friday, November 2, 2018

nations in decline

There’s an interesting debate at A Political Refugee From the Global Village on the subject of Britain’s decline.

Decline is a tricky concept. A nation can be declining absolutely or relatively. The Austro-Hungarian Empire was extremely healthy in 1914 but it was perhaps declining relative to the other great powers.

Nations can be declining in certain areas and booming in other areas.

Australia today is unquestionably in material terms a lot more prosperous than it was when I was growing up. Just as unquestionably it is now a much less pleasant country in which to live. The cities are much more crowded and they are dirtier. There’s a subtle atmosphere of suspicion and hostility that wasn’t there in the past.

People are much less relaxed. People feel less secure.

Half a century ago we had little in the way of an actual Australian culture. Today we have even less. Culturally we are entirely an American colony. We even celebrate Halloween, a purely American festival that was unknown in Australia even a couple of decades ago. We copy every aspect of American pop culture. We have become a much more crass much more trashy society.

This is all subjective, but it’s the subjective things that matter to people.

Australia’s position in the world has not really changed. Half a century ago we were a U.S. vassal state. Militarily and politically that hasn't changed. Psychologically that hasn’t changed. We think of ourselves as having no right to an independent foreign policy.

We might be doing well economically but psychologically and spiritually we’re in deep trouble. We’re not happy but we can’t figure out that we’re not happy because material wealth does not bring happiness.

Tuesday, October 30, 2018

the problems of prosperity

It’s amazing how many of our society’s problems are the sorts of problems one normally associates with spoilt children. We have it too easy. We enjoy a very high degree of material prosperity. Even those in our society who consider themselves to be poor enjoy a level of prosperity that was unavailable even to the aristocracy a hundred years ago. We have lots and lots of shiny gadgets. We have gadgets to help us do things that we didn’t even know we needed to do.

We have all the things that money can buy. Unfortunately we don’t have any beliefs or values. We don’t have anything that is actually worth anything. We just have lots of shiny things that cost money. And we’re miserable. The way spoilt children are miserable.

We think that we’re unhappy because we don’t have enough money but really we’re unhappy because we have too much.

We invent imaginary problems because we don’t want to face the emptiness of the lives we lead. Feminism was a prime example of a political movement established to address an imaginary problem, the non-existent oppression of rich privileged middle-class university-educated women.

We also invent imaginary illnesses. We have perfectly normal children but we decide that they’re suffering from make-believe disorders like ADHD. Unhappy women convince themselves they’re suffering from all sorts of ailments when in fact their problem is that they need to have kids.

We do have real problems (like the lack of beliefs alluded to above) but we refuse to face those problems and make up imaginary problems instead.

One can’t help feeling that if we didn’t have so much material prosperity most of our imaginary problems would disappear.

Tuesday, October 23, 2018

why we need more instability

We are used to the idea of political stability being a good thing, but perhaps there are times when it is highly undesirable.

At this point in time the globalist-liberals have society moving in the direction that suits them. All they need to do is to keep the momentum going and in fact to a large extent they don’t even need to do that. Their agenda will keep rolling steadily forward under its own momentum.

So naturally what the globalist-liberals want is political stability. They do not want anything that will threaten the stability of the current situation since the current situation suits them perfectly.

What this means is that if you are an opponent of the current regime then logically what you want is political instability. You want to undermine the foundations of the present regime, just as every revolutionary movement has sought to do. The objective has to be not a change of government but regime change. The overthrowing of the existing political settlement.

In the past revolutionary movements sometimes aimed at regime change by force. For various reasons this is not an option for western dissidents today, and for various reasons it would be very undesirable even if it were possible. But revolutionaries can be perfectly bloodless. The social revolution of the 60s and 70s was non-violent but it succeeded in overthrowing every accepted social value.

We need our own social revolution. And to get it we will need to destabilise things.

Which means that when we vote we need to keep this in mind. There’s no point in voting for the person you think will make the best prime minister or the best president. Democratic and parliamentary systems are designed to ensure that there is no possibility of someone reaching the top who actually has the ability to be a good and effective leader.

So whichever way you vote you’re going to be get a lousy prime minister. My feeling is that therefore it is best to vote for the candidate or party most likely to create instability in the system. In Britain today that probably means Jeremy Corbyn. He might well be a terrible prime minister, but he might help to create the kind of political chaos that is needed to bring down a rotten system. In fact one could argue that Theresa May is doing a terrific job right now in laying the foundations for anarchy in the U.K. - with any luck she might deal the system a fatal blow.

I’m adopting here the view attributed (probably wrongly) to Lenin, the famous “the worse, the better” argument that holds that the worse things get the better from the point of view of bringing down the system.

In Australia the best hope of destabilisation is certainly Pauline Hanson. Her recent attempt to get the Senate to pass a motion saying that it’s OK to be white was the kind of masterstroke that is needed. He not only knew the motion would fail, she was counting on it. By voting down the motion the Senate has made it clear to ordinary Australians that as far as the system is concerned they are the enemy. It was a brilliant way of undermining public faith in the political system.

When there’s no realistic hope of reforming the system all you can do is to try to weaken it as much as you can. In such a situation the most attractive candidates to vote for are the most massively incompetent ones (like Corbyn) or the ones who know they are outsiders and are prepared to act accordingly (like Hanson).

Sunday, October 21, 2018

conservatives, liberals and authority figures

One of the great weaknesses of the conservative mindset is a certain habitual obsequiousness towards authority figures. There’s a tendency to assume that authority figures are fine people doing a good job and that they deserve respect.

Maybe there was a time when this was reasonable. Maybe there was a time when most authority figures were honest and trustworthy and concerned with doing the right thing. I don’t think it’s likely that this was ever the case but I’m prepared to admit the possibility that there was a time when it was at least partly true. What is beyond question is that to assume the trustworthiness of authority figures today is naïve to an almost pitiful degree.

In the past few years dissident rightists have started to realise that authority figures are not on their side. Mainstream conservatives however cling to their child-like faith in authority (they tend to positively grovel when they see a uniform) and even some dissident rightists still fall into the trap of being too trusting of authority.

The sad fact is that these days practically everyone in a position  of authority is either a liberal/globalist true believer or someone who has willingly sold his soul to liberalism/globalism for the sake of career advancement. If you are a police officer, a judge, a bureaucrat, an elected official, a church leader, then you serve the liberal/globalist Establishment. You serve those who have destroyed our society. You serve the enemies of civilisation. Whether you believe in the cause or evil or merely serve the cause of evil because you’re ambitious or you’re afraid of losing your job makes no difference. You are still serving evil.

It’s sad to see people who think of themselves as conservatives or traditionalists failing to understand that the levers of power are no longer in the hands of people who are on their side.

What’s rather strange and disturbing is seeing the way left-liberals have changed their view of authority. Up until a couple of decades ago any self-respecting left-liberal regarded authority with extreme suspicion. They regarded the representative of the criminal justice system with even more extreme suspicion. They considered the police (correctly) to be enemies. They considered organisations like the FBI or the CIA or MI5 to be pure evil. But liberals are more realistic than conservatives (they may be crazier than conservatives but they definitely understand reality more clearly). They understand that liberal-globalists are now the Establishment. They have abandoned any left-wing beliefs they once held and now embrace liberalism-globalism as The One True Faith. They understand that the police and the FBI and the entire intelligence/counter-intelligence community are still agents of oppression, but being faithful liberal-globalists they are now very much in favour of oppression.

I’m not sure which is more sad, the conservatives who still think a policeman is your friend and that the justice system has something to do with justice or the one-time leftists who now admire anyone in jackboots.

Tuesday, October 16, 2018

making life gay for everybody

One of the most unfortunate effects of our society’s obsession with the awesomeness of homosexuality is that heterosexuals have adopted many of the worst features of the male homosexual lifestyle.

The hookup culture is a fairly obvious manifestation of this trend. The more general emphasis on sex as an end in itself, of sex as a purely recreational activity, is something that feminists welcomed back in the 70s. Women have been paying for that folly ever since.

One of the early signs of the degree to which this was happening was Sex and the City, a TV show about male homosexuals created by a male homosexual. The evil twist was that the three central characters were women, but women living a male homosexual lifestyle. This seems to be what more and more women are doing.

Of course since this trend started women have become crazier and more miserable and now spend most of their time complaining that they can’t form lasting relationships with men.

Who would have imagined that encouraging women to live the male homosexual lifestyle would turn out to be a disaster?

Thursday, October 11, 2018

when science isn’t scientific

One of the reasons that western civilisation abandoned Christianity was that a shiny new replacement was available. While religion was just superstition this new replacement dealt in absolute truth. Its claims could be tested and were subject to proof. It was incapable of error. This new system was called science.

There was much excitement at the time. And today the claims of science are almost universally accepted. If you’re not sure about something, ask a scientist.

The problem is that science has expanded and it has gone on expanding. Science now covers an immense range of academic disciplines. We can be assured that they are all real science. Their practitioners tell us so, and why would they lie?

The problem is that most of these fields are in reality not science at all. They simply borrow some of the trappings of science. Physics is science. One or to other fields of science are also real science. They employ the scientific method, and the scientific method is the one trump card that science holds. The scientific method is an assurance that we’re dealing with truth rather than superstition or opinion or even deliberate falsehood. For a theory to be accepted as true it has to be tested by experiment and the experiments have to be repeated multiple times just to make sure. It’s a fool-proof system. Physicists knew that the laws propounded by Galileo and Newton were true because they were tested by the scientific method and proof was obtained. Of course the laws propounded by Galileo and Newton later turned out to be wrong but that’s an annoying minor detail that is best ignored.

Most scientific disciplines do not employ the scientific method. Geology for example, or palaeontology. You might be pretty confident that a particular type of valley was the result of thousands of years of glacial action but you can’t very well set up an experiment to prove it. You might think that changing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere change the climate but you can’t set up an experiment to prove it.

This has always been a bit of an embarrassment but in the past few decades a solution has been found. If you can’t perform an actual experiment you can set up a computer model. And that’s just as good. The only problem here is that computer models are not just as good as performing an experiment. Computer models are amusing toys. They can be very expensive toys, but they’re still toys. They don’t prove anything.

At least geologists and palaeontologists try to be as scientific as they can. That can’t be said of many other sciences. In fact many disciplines that masquerade as sciences are completely unscientific. Psychology and anthropology for example. That’s not to say that it’s impossible for an anthropologist or a psychologist to have an accurate insight. It’s just that it’s not a scientific insight. Psychology is an art, not a science.

Then there are the social sciences. Like sociology. Such disciplines are very keen to be seen as scientific. In fact they’re political ideologies, not sciences.

And all of this is without taking into account the very real problems of scientific fraud, and the even bigger problems of scientists being motivated by political bias and cowardice. If you look at a field like climate science you get every single one of these problems.

Science’s claim to be able to give us undisputed truth is really rather unimpressive. In certain very narrow fields it can do so, up to a point. The fact that science has major deficiencies isn’t really a problem in itself. What is a problem is that so many people seem to be unaware of these deficiencies. When stuff like “climate science” starts to get taken seriously we’re a long way down the rabbit hole.

Monday, October 8, 2018

marriage Romanian style

A Political Refugee From the Global Village has some interesting news from Romania. A referendum was held to change the constitution to define marriage as being specifically between a man and a woman. The referendum failed because only 20% of the electorate voted.

This is an example of something that has been concerning me greatly in the past couple of years, and it should concern anyone who believes that nationalism and social conservatism are essential for the survival of civilisation. The unpalatable fact is that the vast majority of people are either actively hostile to nationalism and social conservatism or they’re completely indifferent.

What is really worrying is that it is clear that this applies to eastern Europe as well. A lot of us have been consoling ourselves with the thought that even if western Europe and North America continue to slide inexorably towards social collapse and chaos at least civilisation will survive in eastern Europe. The fantasy that the eastern Europeans will hold the line against Third World immigration and western degeneracy really is just that - a fantasy.

Any society that allows poisonous ideologies like feminism, secularism, liberalism, democracy and consumerism to gain even a small foothold is doomed. And those ideologies already have a very strong foothold in eastern Europe. The most dangerous poisons of all, the worship of modernism and American trash culture, are already firmly established among the young and among urban populations. That’s exactly how the process of destroying the West began. Eastern Europe cannot be saved unless those nations recognise the dangers posed by the twin evil empires - the E.U. and the United States.

Of course the very idea of holding a referendum to define marriage is part of the problem. It means accepting the core of the liberal agenda. It means accepting the principle that questions of morality, or even questions of reality, should be decided by a popular vote.

being both a victim and an oppressor

A comment to my previous post noted that “SJWs have plenty of historical and even contemporary stuff to portray East Asians as victims.”

This raises a really interesting point, particularly in regard to America. East Asians in the United States certainly get victim privileges. Given that on average they’re doing better than white people that might seem strange, but if massively privileged white female college students can portray themselves as victims and can get away with it then anyone can do it.

On the other hand when South Koreans, Japanese or Chinese are living in their own nations they suddenly cease to be victims. Suddenly they become oppressors because they aren’t diverse enough. The liberal media whines about Japan’s refusal to replace its Japanese population with a properly diverse population of non-Japanese. China gets the same treatment. The South Koreans have already embraced national suicide (their birth rate is so low that within half a century there won’t be any South Koreans to worry about) so they are not given such a hard time.

This is all part of the weird mix of outrageous racism and grovelling antiracism that characterises modern America. A Chinese person in the U.S. is a victim of white racism and colonialism, but China is a threat to America’s world domination so China as a nation is regarded with suspicion and fear.

It’s pretty much the same with Islam. Muslims in the U.S. are a protected victim class and are therefore virtuous. But Muslim nations refuse to accept American world domination (or more to the point Muslim nations are an inconvenience to Israel) so Muslim nations need to be bombed back into the Stone Age. Muslims in their own countries are evil. Muslims are only good when they live in other people’s countries.

Of course it goes further than this. To white American liberals blacks are sacred - as long as those white liberals don’t have to live in the same neighbourhoods as blacks or send their kids to schools with blacks.

One can’t help getting the feeling that American antiracism is pure hypocrisy. Which of corse would explain why Americans get so strident on the subject.

Saturday, October 6, 2018

East Asia and the globalist agenda

If you’re white it’s easy to fall into the trap of thinking that the globalists and SJWs simply hate white people and want to destroy all white nations. It is of course quite true that they hate white people and that they seek to destroy white nations but there’s more to it than that.

In fact the globalists and SJWs hate anyone who has a successful high-functioning society. Such societies are a serious threat to the globalist agenda. East Asians also have very successful very well-functioning societies, therefore to the globalist mind East Asians must be as evil as white people. No successful high-functioning societies can be permitted to survive.

Everyone must be either a victim or an oppressor. Since East Asians are clearly not victims, therefore they must be oppressors.

It’s fairly obvious that the globalists have East Asians marked down for cultural destruction.

This means that theoretically at least whites and East Asians should be able to form an alliance against the globalists. There are many reasons why this hasn’t happened and may not happen. It does remain a possibility, and it’s a possibility that perhaps should be explored by European and North American nationalists.

offering (or not offering) a vision for the future

In a discussion elsewhere I made the point that the weakness of the alt-right is that it doesn’t offer much in the way of a positive vision for the future. The alt-right is mostly negative and mostly focused on dislike of its political enemies. My view is that no political movement can succeed unless it does offer a positive vision of the future.

Someone else pointed out that this applies equally to the Left these days. Which I think is a valid point. There was a time when the Left articulated a very clear and reasonably coherent vision of the future. The Left had an actual program. That’s no longer the case. Social justice is a meaningless term that in practice means nothing more than handouts for victim groups and acting as a cover for vicious attacks on political enemies (especially Christians). Social justice, feminism and indeed liberalism in general are little more than rambling incoherent ideologies of hate. The Left no longer has a plan to reconstruct society. The Left has embraced capitalism. The ugliness and injustice and social unhealthiness of capitalism are now things for the Left to cover up. Social justice is a way of persuading us not to notice that the Left no longer has an actual coherent program.

The mainstream Right also offers no vision for the future, other than tax cuts for the rich.

So we’re left with nothing more than a struggle for power, and a recipe for societal disillusionment.

Wednesday, October 3, 2018

culture war, to the death

It’s now obvious that the objective of the globalist/liberal/SJW elites is not to achieve complete political dominance. Their objectives go way beyond that. They are aiming at nothing less than the total destruction of all opposition. They are aiming at zero tolerance for dissent.

We can forget the idea of live and let live. We can forget the idea that once we have been stripped of every vestige of power and influence and completely humiliated and subjugated that we might at least be allowed to live our lives in peace in our own way. That is not going to happen. If you dissent in any way from the new orthodoxy, if you are a social conservative or a Christian or even an old-fashioned leftist who is critical of capitalism, if you a liberal who thinks things have gotten out of hand, if you question orthodoxy in any way you are marked for destruction. For our new masters it is not enough to defeat their political and ideological enemies. Those enemies must be entirely eliminated.

If you have some fantasy that as long as you keep your head down you will be able to live your life your own way or raise your children in your own way think again. It is not just open dissent that is forbidden. It is forbidden to have doubts. It is forbidden to have any reservations about political orthodoxy.

The culture war was lost because most people on the Right didn’t think it was worth fighting because they didn’t think it really mattered. They failed to recognise that as far as the globalist/liberal/SJWs were concerned the culture war was going to be a fight to the death.

It is simply not possible for Christians or for social conservatives to share a society with liberals. Maybe there was a time when some kind of compromise might have been possible. Personally I doubt it, but I admit the possibility. In any case there is no question that at this point in time there can be no compromise, no peace. Either we destroy them or they destroy us.

Sunday, September 30, 2018

postcards from the end of civilisation

So the Girl Guides now allow boys pretending to be girls to join. And they allow adult men pretending to be omen to become leaders. And these men are allowed to share showers and tents with the girls.

So what happened when unit leader Helen Watts suggested that maybe this stuff wasn’t such a good idea? You know the answer already, don’t you? Yes of course. They sacked her.

But don’t worry. The Girl Guides are concerned with the safety of their girls. So they’ve taken steps to exclude dangerous people, like Christians.

You'll also be pleased to know that Girl Guides can now get achievement badges in how to protest.

So remind me again why we should be trying to save western society?

Thursday, September 27, 2018

cultural marxism as anti-marxism

A perennial problem among dissidents today is terminology. Nobody agrees on terminology. Everybody has their own idea of what certain terms mean and as a result there are endless misunderstandings. Two terms that cause immense confusion are marxism and cultural marxism.

People who see themselves as conservatives often use the term marxism to describe any ideological position that they particularly dislike. It’s very similar to the way SJWs and liberals use the term fascist. In both cases a word with a specific meaning has become detached from that meaning and the word has become merely an all-purpose term of abuse.

To me marxism is an economic theory and an economic ideology. To me you're not a marxist unless you're intending to nationalise the banks, socialise the means of production, usher in the dictatorship of the proletariat, that sort of thing. Classical marxism.

Classical marxism is stone dead. It has been for decades.

When dissident rightists talk about marxism they’re often talking about cultural marxism. Now cultural marxism is a real phenomenon and it truly is evil but where we differ is that I consider that cultural marxism has nothing whatever to do with classical marxism. Cultural marxism is the negation of marxism. Cultural marxism is anti-marxist.

Cultural marxism is in fact a right-wing ideology. This is obvious if you look carefully. Consider open borders. Who benefits from open borders? Mega-corporations that want cheap labour. Who benefits from the destruction of the family? The same mega-corporations which want us reduced to mere economic units. Who benefits from the homosexual agenda? The same mega-corporations - they love homosexuals because homosexuals do nothing but consume. Who benefits from feminism? The same mega-corporations. They get cheaper and more docile labour. Who benefits from environmental hysteria? The same mega-corporations who use that hysteria to siphon taxpayers' money into their own pockets through green subsidies. Cultural marxism is capitalist. It is supported and promoted by capitalists.

This is a major problem because the lack of terminological precision is very much in the interests of those who currently run our world. They want us to think that they are leftists when in fact they are nothing of the kind. They want us to think that they care about the disadvantaged and the oppressed when in fact they care only about bankers and billionaires.

I don’t deny that the phenomenon that gets labelled as cultural marxism exists. I don’t deny that it is pure evil. These people exist and they intend to destroy everything that makes civilised life possible. But these people are not marxists.

This isn’t intended as a defence of marxism. Marxism is dead. And even when it was still a living ideology it had its problems, to say the least. Marxism was never a very attractive alternative. But then capitalism is if anything even less attractive, and even more destructive. We need an alternative to both marxism and capitalism. An alternative that might perhaps draw on elements of both, or it might not. An alternative that will probably draw on elements of traditional societies that both marxism and capitalism have rejected.

Either way there’s no way we are going to get an alternative until we understand that cultural marxism is merely a stalking horse for the worst kind of civilisationally destructive capitalism. We need a new name for cultural marxism. Perhaps the most accurate name would be cultural capitalism!

Tuesday, September 25, 2018

oppression as a basic human right

One of the amusing things about the absurd times in which we live is that we’re suffering from a severe shortage of oppression.

Oppression is extremely important to privileged groups because oppression is the magical shortcut to privilege. Oppression offers not just privilege and status but as certificate of virtue. Anyone who is oppressed is automatically virtuous.

The most privileged groups in society today are white college-educated women, homosexuals (and other members of the LGBTwhatever lobby) and Jews. These groups enjoy power, prestige and influence beyond anything that could ever be dreamt of. Their power and influence stems largely from their successful efforts to portray themselves as hideously and horrifically oppressed. The problem for them is that they are the least oppressed people in history.

That’s why they’re so angry! They have a precious inalienable right to be oppressed but nobody wants to oppress them. They haven’t been even mildly oppressed for half a century (and even more than half a century ago the claims of women and homosexuals to have been oppressed are dubious and exaggerated). But the problem now is that they’re not even the tiniest bit oppressed.

The problem is spreading to other groups. In the anglophone countries for decades now blacks have been the beneficiaries of positive discrimination far more often than the victims of negative discrimination.

In fact the terrifying truth is that there really isn’t much oppression around these days. What’s even more disturbing is that the only people who really are being actively oppressed (albeit in a fairly mild way at this stage) are unpopular groups like Christians. These are groups who do not deserve to receive the benefits of being oppressed.

It has to be said that liberals are not taking any of this lying down. They are taking active steps to remedy the situation. If oppression doesn’t exist it can always be manufactured. And liberals are setting about manufacturing oppression with enthusiasm. All the real nazis are long since dead but all you need to do is to paint a few stastikas on walls and you’ll have people believing that it’s 1933 all over again and Hitler has been restored to life and is about to take up the reins of power. Manufacturing hate hoaxes is absurdly simple, and given the politicised nature of our police and our courts it’s just about a risk-free activity. Sexism and homophobia are even easier to fabricate. All you need to do is to make the accusation and no matter how ridiculous it might be the media will run with it.

The logic of late liberalism is that oppression is a basic need. Without oppression there can be no virtue. It is the duty of every good liberal to ensure that the supply of oppression never runs out.

Saturday, September 22, 2018

prosperity and decadence

It’s generally taken for granted that economic prosperity is a good thing. Like most things that are taken for granted it’s something that seems much more dubious when you actually think about it.

A certain degree of prosperity is certainly desirable. That does not mean that ever-increasing prosperity is a good thing. Too much of anything can be dangerous, and that includes material prosperity.

Prosperity seems to lead to decadence. Maybe this is not inevitable but it’s difficult to think of a prosperous society that has not to some extent been afflicted by decadence. Once prosperity increases beyond a certain point what you have is excess prosperity. Excess prosperity leads to status-signalling and status-signalling in material terms seems to lead to ideological status-signalling.

Too much prosperity gives people the opportunity to indulge in unwise and unhealthy behaviours. A struggle for existence on the other hand doesn’t offer such opportunities. Being forced to focus on survival has the advantage of keeping us out of trouble.

Excessive material prosperity also undermines religion.

Too much prosperity seems to be a problem for both individuals and societies. The idea that wealth leads inevitably to happiness is central to both liberalism and capitalism but it is at best an unproven assumption.

What does seem certain is that consumerism leads inexorably to decadence. Consumerism is the ultimate drug. As long as people still have the mot precious human right of all, the right to shop, they will accept anything. Nothing else matters.

Thursday, September 20, 2018

gender quotas and the disaster that is feminism

There are many reasons why the Australian Liberal Party has to die but now there’s yet another reason. They are seriously considering introducing gender quotas to increase female representation in Parliament.

In a way it’s quite amusing. Gender quotas are in fact an admission that women are simply not good enough to make it without special assistance. On a level playing field they just can’t compete. It’s a great example of the utter failure of feminism.

Amusing perhaps, but it’s also a sign of the total surrender of the Liberal Party to political correctness. It’s another example of right-wing liberals being even worse than left-wing liberals.

Tuesday, September 11, 2018

why the police love political correctness so much

It often amuses me, and at the same time saddens me, when people on the dissident right get all shocked and surprised whenever the police behave as enthusiastic enforcers of the new globalist/social justice order. Anti-globalist Britons in particular seem to be absolutely astonished at the way the once much-loved British bobbies have become the Rainbow Thought Police, busily hunting down anyone who fails to bow down to the dictates of political correctness.

These Britons really do seem to be unaware that Dixon of Dock Green was fiction. There’s no question that the police are today much much worse than they have ever been before, but that’s because they’ve now been let off the leash. They can now indulge their worst instincts and not escape punishment for it, they can get rewarded for it. If you want a top police job you need to have an established track record of crushing political dissent.

The root cause is a problem that has always bedevilled police forces - the sorts of people who want to become coppers are exactly the sorts of people who should never be allowed to do so. A police career attracts people who like to push other people around. It attracts bullies. It attracts people of fairly low intelligence who value the social advantages of being part of a pack. The police always end up developing an Us and Them culture because that’s inherent in the sorts of people who want to be police officers.

And ambitious officers have always understood that the best ways to secure promotion to senior rank are to learn to play politics and learn to be a faithful toady of the ruling class. They don’t care what the nature or composition of the ruling class is. As long as it’s the ruling class they will serve it. That way they get promotion and their pensions are secure.

While the police are happy to do whatever they are told to do they do genuinely love the new era of political correctness. They love it because it’s so wonderfully vague. Thought crime is whatever the ruling class decides it is. Which means in practice, on the street, thought crime is anything that a police officer decides is thought crime. They don’t have to be able to prove such charges. That’s the beauty of thought crime. You can’t prove it and you don’t have to. If you’re a cop and you accuse someone of thought crime your accusation is enough. The courts will back you up. You don’t have to concern yourself with evidence, or with respecting people’e legal rights. When it comes to political crimes evidence is irrelevant and legal rights are a fantasy. Political crimes are about power. The police have immense (and ludicrously excessive) power. Ordinary people have no power.

In practice legal rights offer protection only so long as those in power are willing to act with goodwill and in good faith.If they decide, as they have decided throughout the West, that goodwill and good faith are no longer necessary then legal rights effectively cease to exist.

You can clutch your copy of the Constitution to your breast but your constitutional rights only exist so long as those in power choose to allow them to do so.

Over the past half century we have been very foolish in allowing governments to gather to themselves an enormous amount of power to micro-manage our personal lives. Ironically this has happened at the same time as governments have largely abdicated their responsibilities to control the activities of the corporate sector. Mega-corporations can do whatever they want but ordinary people are subject to vast webs of petty regulations and bureaucratic controls and the rights of ordinary people to express any form of discontent or dissatisfaction have been almost entirely curtailed. And we have been very foolish in allowing the police to accumulate vast powers to act as enforcers of the prevailing political dogmas. If you give the police more powers they will abuse those powers. That’s what the police do. That’s simply inescapable.

actual science and pseudoscience

The inability to distinguish between actual science and pseudoscience is one of the major problems we face. It’s not just ordinary people who find it difficult to distinguish between the two. Intellectuals seem to have even greater difficulty with the concept.

It’s really pretty simple. If you can prove it by experiment it’s definitely real science. If you can’t prove it by experiment but you can point to actual evidence, as is the case with historical sciences like geology and evolutionary biology, then it’s real science but you can’t feel quite so confident that all the details will be correct. If it’s based on a mixture of wishful thinking and deliberately dubious methodology, like climate science, then it’s probably pseudoscience. If it’s based purely on subjective value judgments, as is the case with sorcery and psychiatry, then it ain’t science at all.

disappointment in Sweden

The Swedish election is another disappointing result for nationalists. The Sweden Democrats seem to have gained around 17-18% of the vote. They have made gains but 17-18% is still a miserable result.

There just isn’t really any actual nationalist groundswell in western Europe. Any party that is identified primarily as a nationalist/anti-immigration party is going to see its support max out around the 15-20% mark, which means permanent political irrelevance.

Of course when there are other factors in play, such as establishment parties that have become so corrupt that the stench can no longer be disguised, then things can change. Outsider parties then have a chance. But nationalism and an anti-immigration stance are simply not going to win you an election.

People are stupid and they are short-sighted and they are selfish and they will happily vote for civilisation-destroying policies as long as they think that they personally have enough money to be sheltered from the results. Appealing to a love of one’s country or a loyalty to one’s culture or a concern for the future just doesn’t work. In a capitalist/consumerist society people just don’t care about that stuff.

This is why I believe that nationalism and anti-immigrationism have a better chance if they’re combined with some policies that ordinary people actually do want. Maybe offer people not just decently paid jobs but jobs with a future. Housing they might actually be able to afford. Genuine security for their old age. Maybe take on the predatory mega-corporations that increasingly wield not only unlimited economic power but unlimited political power.

You know, offer people the sorts of things that mainstream moderate left parties used to offer. It’s just a thought.

Saturday, September 8, 2018

psychiatry, the story of a pseudoscience

I’m having way too much to do with the mental health system at the moment. No, they haven’t sent the men in the white coats to take me away. Someone close to me is however having some major problems with the system.

The major problem of course is that the mental health system is constructed upon the assumption that psychiatry is real and that psychiatric diagnoses have some connection with reality. The truth of course is that psychiatry is about as scientific as astrology. The sacred text of psychiatry, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), is best described as a work of imaginative fiction.

Which means that admitting a person against his will to a psychiatric hospital based on a diagnosis by a psychiatrist is really no different from locking someone up because they have Pisces rising or because of a very unfavourable conjunction of the planets. There’s no actual scientific basis to it, which means that the legal basis for such measures are built on non-existent foundations.

That’s not to say that mental illness isn’t real. It may be real. We don’t know. We have insufficient data. If psychiatrists and politicians were prepared to be honest enough to admit that they know very little about this subject it might be possible to do some good. But good can never be achieved when you’re basing policy and basing treatment on ignorance combined with arrogance.

There are of course lots of other problems. Psychiatrists are like cops. They stick together. They stick together very tightly when their actions are questioned by civilians. When a psychiatrist gets things hopelessly wrong (which is extremely frequent) it is very difficult to get that wrong reversed because the psychiatry code is that you don’t rat on a fellow psychiatrist. So even if you know that psychiatrist Dr Bill Smith is an incompetent buffoon who should not be allowed to practice as a horse doctor much less a psychiatrist other psychiatrists will tend to defend Dr Smith.

And of course there is the biggest problem of all. If you ever find yourself on the wrong side of the mental health system you will discover that absolutely everything you do, no matter how reasonable and understandable, will be interpreted as a symptom of your mental illness. It’s like the old line that if you turn up late for an appointment with a psychiatrist it’s a bad sign because you’re trying to avoid treatment. If you show up early it’s a bad sign because you’re showing hostility. If you turn up on time it’s a bad sign because it shows you’re obsessive-compulsive. You can’t win.

If a heart specialist makes a ludicrously incorrect diagnosis it can and will be overruled by another more competent doctor. Once you’ve been incorrectly diagnosed once as being mentally ill your chances of having that diagnosis overturned are slim.

I’m not suggesting that al psychiatrists are idiots or malevolent. Some try very hard to do good. Some actually succeed. But psychiatry is an art, not a science. We should never make the mistake of treating a pseudoscience like psychiatry as real science.

Thursday, September 6, 2018

solving problems by throwing money at them

There are many reasons why consumerism and capitalism have been negative and generally corrupting influences. One of the simplest examples of this is the way we judge the efficacy of public policy by how much money it costs.

It really does seem to be accepted by most people that if you increase spending on education by 25 percent then you automatically get 25 percent better education. If you double spending on health then you must get a health system that is twice as good. All social problems are solved by spending money. There is no need to give any actual thought to the nature of the problems being addressed or to various policy options. What matters is how much money gets spent.

This is accepted because we know that virtue is measured by money. The societies that spend the most on education, health, social welfare, etc, are the most virtuous societies. The politicians who support spending the most money on these problems are the most virtuous politicians.

The fact the spending more on education just means more money going into the pockets of assorted parasites like diversity counsellors or our already overpaid teaches doesn’t matter. The fact that increased health spending merely directs more money to administrators and other parasites doesn’t matter.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not attacking the welfare state. I like the welfare state. But it is smart to give some thought as to how money is going to get spent.

The argument applies to right-wing sacred cows just as much as to left-wing sacred cows. People fondly imagine that an increase in defence spending makes the nation more secure. In many cases it makes the nation less secure, either by provoking or alarming potential enemies, or by encouraging insanely aggressive foreign policies or ridiculous foreign policy entanglements. Look at Britain for example. If the British reduced their defence spending to sensible levels they’d be a lot safer. Sensible levels would be close to zero. Britain faces zero military threats. Anything more than a token defence force just encourages British fantasies of being a great power again. Britain’s security depends on accepting the reality that Britain’s days as a great power are over.

Spending money is the easy way to solve problems. It always sounds impressive. The people making the decisions have the luxury of spending other people’s money. And if the policies end in failure there’s a built-in excuse. We just didn’t spend enough money. If we spend more next time the problems will definitely be fixed.

Wednesday, August 29, 2018

believing in inherently incompatible concepts

We live in an irrational age. We live in an age in which people seem to have surprisingly little difficulty believing in concepts that are inherently incompatible. People manage to do this by deluding themselves. They refuse to see the obvious incompatibilities.

There are for example people who consider themselves to be socialists and yet they believe in open borders. This is sheer nonsense. Open borders is death to socialism. Socialism works as a closed system with a homogeneous population. That’s the only way it can work.

There are also people who think you can have closed borders and capitalism. They’re wrong.

Maybe you can have closed borders and a system that incorporates a degree of capitalism but it can only hope to survive in the long term if capitalism is under very very tight government control (something like the present Chinese system). But you certainly cannot have free markets and controlled borders. If you want free markets you’re going to get open borders. There is simply no way to restrain the greed of capitalists for cheap labour and ever-growing markets. If you claim to believe in free markets and immigration restriction then you’re either lying or you’re severely deluded.

This of course does not mean that if you want to avoid the catastrophe of open borders you have to become a socialist. It does mean that you have to abandon free market capitalism and global capitalism. There are other alternatives. The idea that there is a continuum from communism to free market capitalism and that you have to place yourself (and your nation) somewhere on that continuum is total nonsense.

There are also people who think you can have capitalism and religion. In the long run it just doesn’t work. Capitalism will always end up destroying religion. The logic of capitalism is that money is all that matters. Anything that interferes with that must be crushed. Socialism and religion have been very uneasy bedfellows but there is no inherent conflict between the two. Certainly there is no inherent conflict between socialism and Christianity.

We live not merely in an irrational age but in an age in which people seem to genuinely think that if you just believe hard enough then the impossible will become possible. Sadly the world doesn’t work that way.

Tuesday, August 28, 2018

reviving cultures and unscrambling eggs

I saw a comment recently that seems to sum up a popular viewpoint on the alt-right. The gist of the comment was that it doesn’t matter if our culture gets destroyed because a destroyed culture can easily be revived. The commenter went on to argue that on the other hand the effects of immigration cannot be reversed. You can’t unscramble the egg.

In my opinion it’s actually the other way around.

A dead culture cannot be brought back to life. But undoing the effects of immigration is only difficult if the political will is lacking. It has been done, many times. There is the example of the ethnic cleansing of Germans from eastern Europe after 1945, or the population exchange in 1923 in which Greeks were expelled from Turkey and Turks were expelled from Greece. Unscrambling the egg is possible, has been done and can be done.

Once you lose your culture however it's gone forever. You've lost everything that made you you. If you lose your culture it just doesn't matter what happens after that. For example if German culture is overwhelmed by American culture then Germany ceases to exist. After that point the colour of the inhabitants of that geographical region of the American Empire formerly known as Germany doesn't matter in the least.

I understand concerns about mass immigration and I share those concerns. I'm totally opposed to mass immigration. I'd like zero net immigration for my country. Immigration is an important issue. But it's not the most important issue. Cultural integrity is more important. If you look at Britain their problem is not immigrants. Their problem is that they have thrown away their own culture. They have committed cultural suicide. That process began in 1945. At this point even if they stop all immigration it won't help because Britain can't be saved because it no longer exists.

And white nationalism cannot work and it cannot help because it ignores culture. Culture is the one thing that really matters.

Friday, August 24, 2018

the gods of consumerism and economic growth

The ruling passion of the modern West is consumerism. You are what you consume. You exist insofar as you consume. Your worth as a person is measured by your ability to consume.

It’s not quite the same as worshipping wealth. It doesn’t matter if you have zero actual net wealth, if you have access to credit and you can demonstrate your ability to spend then you are one of the righteous ones.

This means of course that the one national goal that matters is to increase GDP. That is not the same as increasing the national wealth. GDP is an entirely artificial figure. It measures economic activity, no matter how worthless, unproductive or even harmful that economic activity might be. And a nation can have a most impressive GDP and be in debt up to its eyeballs. It doesn’t matter. It fuels consumption and consumption is good.

We can look at our GDP and celebrate our good fortune to have so much material prosperity. But even if we assume that material prosperity is the key to happiness and virtue we have to ask ourselves just how real our material prosperity is. Is prosperity based on credit real prosperity? And what does our material prosperity actually represent? We have lots and lots of cheap low-quality consumer electronics. They might only last six months but they’re new and shiny and in six months’ time we’ll buy new ones which will be better because they’ll be even newer and shinier. We have lots of appliances. Of course they only last a few years whereas the ones manufactured half a century ago would last ten to twenty years. But our appliances are new and shiny.

Of course half a century ago ordinary working people could own their own homes. That’s becoming less and less possible. A cynic might say that our boasted material prosperity is complete nonsense if people can’t even afford housing. But who needs to worry about housing when there are shiny new digital gadgets to buy with borrowed money? There used to be a crazy idea that if young people could afford to buy a house they could afford to get married and have kids and that was considered to be a good thing. Nowadays we know it doesn’t matter. You can just live in Mom’s basement for your whole life, and anyway marriage is just a temporary sexual arrangement and who wants to have kids? Having kids means taking responsibility.

No-one seems willing to make a serious challenge to the cult of consumerism. The corporate types care only about profit. It doesn’t matter if society collapses into misery and chaos as long as it doesn’t affect the bottom line. Economists won’t challenge the idea because they’re incapable of understanding anything that can’t be measured in monetary terms. Politicians won’t challenge consumerism because they’re corrupt. Journalists won’t challenge the idea because they’re whores. The churches are too busy erecting Refugees Welcome signs to bother themselves with trivial stuff like the future of family life or the basic human need to find some purpose in life.

I’m not suggesting that material prosperity isn’t a very nice thing. It is. It just isn’t everything. It can be an ingredient in the good life, but it isn’t the whole of it. Which means that economic growth should not be the central pillar of national policy.

Consumerism and the cult of economic growth has distorted our thinking. There are things that we used to value that we’re apparently not allowed to value any more. Things like job security, the mere mention of which brings sneers from modern politicians and economists and the media. Things like quality of life. Remember quality of life? Things like living in pleasant neighbourhoods and not having to battle with traffic congestion.

Consumerism and economic growth have become our masters.