Sunday, March 31, 2019

The War on Noticing hots up

The Social Justice agenda just gets more and more crazy. To many people this is a mystery. Surely even the Social Justice Warriors themselves must realise how insane their demands are becoming? What is going on?

The explanation is simple. As Steve Sailer pointed out some time ago, political correctness is a war on noticing. There are a lot of things that we are not supposed to notice. In fact we must not be allowed to notice these things. In order to ensure that certain embarrassing things don’t get noticed distractions are needed. Hence we get things like the Tasmanian Government’s plans to legalise abortions for men. This is clearly complete lunacy but it’s a very useful distraction.

What are these things that we’re not supposed to notice?

For starters there’s the fact that anthropogenic global warming/climate change is complete hogwash, and obvious hogwash. It just ain’t happening.

Secondly there’s the fact that green energy has been an expensive failure.

Thirdly there’s the undeniable truth that feminism has been an utter failure. Where are all the female rocket scientists, brain surgeons, nuclear physicists and mathematicians? We were led to believe that once sexism was abolished women would equal men’s achievements in science. In fact the contribution of women to science has been minuscule. Where are all those brilliant female entrepreneurs? How many major corporations are there that were established by women? Women CEOs taking over already established companies doesn’t count. Those brilliant female entrepreneurs just don’t seem to exist in the real world. All feminism has done is to make women angry and miserable. But we mustn’t be allowed to notice that. Most of all we must not notice that men and women really are entirely different.

There are quite a few things about the economy that must not get noticed. Like the fact that the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer. Like the fact that most people can no longer afford to buy a house. Like the fact that most people are living with crippling debt from which they can never escape.

It’s also vital that nobody should notice that despite the expenditure of billions of dollars to solve the social problems of groups like African-Americans those groups still seem to have the same social problems they had half a century ago.

The psychiatric industry would also prefer us not to notice that all those gee-whizz miracle drugs like Prozac that were supposed to make everyone happy appear not to have worked.

There are therefore a lot of powerful groups that have things that they are desperately keen for us not to notice. So they are naturally very enthusiastic about abortion rights for men and transgender bathroom rights.

I’m not saying that there’s no ideological substrate here but the bottom line is that the people with the actual power don’t care about ideology, they care about power. The ideological insanity of the Social Justice Warriors would not survive for five minutes without the funding they get from rich powerful interest groups. If this craziness did not serve their interests in distracting us from things we might otherwise notice then the bankers and billionaires would simply pull the plug on it.

Friday, March 29, 2019

the flight from sex

This is a kind of follow-on from my recent post on the decline of feminine beauty.

There are many possible explanations for the trans madness that has swept the western world in recent years. One very plausible explanation would seem to be that it’s a way of avoiding sex and/or relationships.

Let’s face it, if you go so far as to have the op then you’ve pretty much ended your chances of ever having a normal sex life. If you take a perfectly functional normal vagina and destroy it and replace it with some bizarre non-functional vaguely penis-like appendage your sex life is over. Your chances of having kids is over. Your chance of a normal family life is over. Your chance of a normal emotional life is also most likely over since a normal psychologically healthy woman would presumable prefer to marry a man rather than a pretend man. Similarly if you take a perfectly functional normal penis and destroy it and replace it with a hole bearing a vague resemblance to a vagina your chances of a normal sex life, children, family life and emotional life are over.

Is this perhaps the whole point of the exercise? Is it a way of avoiding sex and/or relationships?

There have always been women who were not into sex. Some are afraid of it. Some are disgusted by it. Some just can’t deal with it or aren’t interested. In the past such women would become nuns, which offered them the chance to lead useful and satisfying lives. When that opportunity was more or less closed off there was the still the choice of becoming lesbians, sex being essentially an option in lesbian relationships. Lesbians don’t have much sex but they have lots of emotional dramas and that seems to be more to their liking. Becoming trans offers even more emotional dramas with even less chance of having to do icky sex stuff.

But why would men choose an option that ends their sex lives? There is the popular Soy Boy theory, that modern diet and/or chemical additives and/or excess female hormones in the environment leads to catastrophic drops in testosterone levels. Doping boys with drugs to treat imaginary disorders like ADHD may be another factor. I honestly have no idea how scientifically plausible that theory is.

Perhaps boys just get subjected to so much indoctrination and so much harassment at school that they decide that a sexual or romantic relationship with a woman is just not worth the misery. Or they feel that being a man in our society is simply impossible.

Becoming homosexual is not an option for such boys since male homosexuals have massive amounts of sex. But being trans means they have an excuse to opt out of sex and out of relationships.

The motivation may well be the same as that which drives potentially attractive young women to make themselves ugly.

Perhaps our civilisation (and I use the word loosely) is becoming post-sex and post-relationship. We’ve already largely ceased reproducing. The logical next step is to give up sex and emotional involvements.

We may be even more doomed than we thought.

Tuesday, March 26, 2019

what does western civilisation actually mean?

Those who value tradition and traditional values and morality often talk about western civilisation. I talk about it all the time. But what does western civilisation actually mean?

It is often assumed that western civilisation began with classical Greece and Rome. This is simply not so. There have in fact been at least three completely different western civilisations, with very little in common.

It is often not appreciated just how profoundly alien the classical civilisation was. This was a world in which religion was largely a matter of ritual. If you failed to perform the rituals correctly the gods would be angry and really bad stuff would happen. If you performed the rituals correctly there was a chance that the gods would be content and would leave you alone. That was about as much as you could expect from the gods.

The idea that religion and morality were intimately connected did not exist. The gods were amoral, selfish, violent and lustful. It’s not that there was no concept of morality. It’s more that morality was a civic virtue. Morality was necessary because without it society would collapse. The gods simply didn’t care, as long as you offered them the correct sacrifices. Morality was not a religious duty, it was merely useful.

The idea that foreign policy had some connection with morality would have been dismissed as an absurdity. Foreign policy was about power. The Athenians, so worshipped by admirers of classical civilisation, were particularly cynical. Wars were fought for purely materialistic reasons. Alexander the Great did not invade the Persian Empire because the Persians were wicked or immoral or uncivilised. He invaded because the Persian Empire was weak and would offer easy pickings. The Roman Empire conquered anybody it was capable of conquering because it was in Rome’s interest. The business of Rome was imperialism.

By the time that the classical civilisation was reaching its peak philosophers were abandoning the traditional pagan religion but mostly what they offered in its place was a vague pantheism, or even outright atheism. The classical civilisation was conquered by Christianity because it had nothing satisfying to offer people.

When the classical civilisation collapsed in the West it collapsed totally. It was replaced by an entirely new civilisation. Medieval civilisation had nothing in common with classical civilisation. It offered a whole new approach to religion. Religion and morality were now intertwined. Morality became a religious duty. Ritual became relatively unimportant. It survived, but mostly as symbolism.

Kings were now expected to be concerned by things other than power. Being human they were of course still very interested in power. The medievals would have been the first to admit that they often fell short of their ideals. But ideals were still important and they were religious ideals. The king was king by the Grace of God.

Nationalism did not exist. The loyalties that mattered were loyalty to the king, and to the Church.

The Reformation utterly destroyed medieval civilisation. A new civilisation arose in its place, a civilisation that has almost nothing in common with medieval civilisation.

Religion appeared to remain important for a century and a half but it was mostly an illusion. The new civilisation was right from the start well on the way towards being a post-Christian civilisation. The idea that religion was a matter of individual conscience rapidly took hold. What a man believed was his own business. Freedom of religion became a popular idea. In practice of course freedom of religion means freedom from religion. By the 18th century Christianity had ceased to be a factor in national policy, except insofar as national policy was directed toward explicitly anti-Christian objectives (such as state control of education). Once that happened the decline of Christianity was irreversible.

Liberalism became the new religion. Liberalism and capitalism made short work of what remained of Christian morality.

Nationalism appeared. Nationalism is a liberal concept. Nationalism is essentially worship of the state. The two competing religious values were now money and freedom. Freedom of course meant the freedom to pursue money and pleasure. Society as an organic entity gave way to the state and the corporation.

It needs to be clearly understood that this is a civilisation that differs profoundly from earlier western civilisations. It is inherently materialistic and atheistic. Morality is now defined as social conformity.

Whether you think this liberal conception of western civilisation is worth saving is up to you.

Monday, March 25, 2019

Brexit and the will of the people

There is one thing that really intrigues me about the Brexit farce. Have the ordinary British people actually taken any active rôle in the debates? Have hundreds of thousands of ordinary Britons taken to the streets to demand that Brexit goes ahead? Have there been mass demonstrations demanding the resignation of Theresa May? Have the ordinary British people done anything to force their absurdly anti-democratic Parliament to respect the will of the people?

Have the ordinary people been asking why they pay taxes to support an utterly useless pretend monarch who simply stands by and does nothing during the greatest constitutional crisis since 1688?

Maybe these things have been happening and we just haven’t heard about them here in Australia.

Sunday, March 24, 2019

the rulers and the ruled and mutual obligations

I just want to amplify a point I made in response to a comment on an earlier post. I think that any legitimate political regime or system of government has to be based on mutual rights and obligations on the part of the rulers and the ruled.

Of course people who believe in mutual rights and obligations are also likely to believe in the usefulness of hierarchies and in traditional social rôles.

All of these things seem to be regarded today as outdated beliefs.

The institution of kingship was based on mutual obligations - the duties of the subject to the king and the duties of the king towards his subjects and towards the nation. There are no longer any European monarchies that work that way.

What we have today is a ruling class that sees itself as having no obligations to anybody or anything outside of itself. The ruled obsess over over meaningless rights but also have little interest in the idea of obligations.

Is it impossible to have a ruling class with a sense of its obligations and duties without a genuine monarchy? My feeling is that unless you have genuine kingship or a living religious faith, or preferably both, it really is impossible.

There’s certainly no way that mutual obligations can function in a society based on the ideals of liberalism. There’s also no way that any of the supposedly democratic regimes of the modern West can ever produce a ruling class with a sense of responsibility.

Saturday, March 23, 2019

the decline of feminine beauty

One of the more subtly disturbing trends of the past twenty years or so has been the decline in the attractiveness of young women in the West. You just don’t see as many attractive young women as you did in the past.

The disturbing part is that most of these young women do not have to be unattractive. They could be quite pretty, except that they’re fat and they disfigure themselves with tattoos, they dress poorly, their hair is often awful and they seem to struggle with the basics of makeup.

This really is a revolutionary change. Has there ever been another example of a civilisation in which young women have chosen to make themselves ugly?

This is presumably one of the results of the feminist war on women. To feminists any reminder of the femaleness of women provokes anger. Feminists worship the masculine. They want women to aspire to male professions, male interests, male attitudes and male sexuality. It would not therefore be surprising if they were using their stranglehold over education to indoctrinate girls into a dislike of their own femininity and their own female bodies.

Girls today certainly seem to be conflicted about their bodies. Wanting to celebrate fatness is positively bizarre. Wanting to celebrate sluttiness is equally bizarre and is equally a rejection of femininity. It seems to be another way of expressing hostility towards normal female sexuality.

Maybe it’s not a big thing but it is another depressing sign of our cultural and social degradation.

Wednesday, March 20, 2019

patriotism and conflicting loyalties

These days words have a way of changing their meaning to suit the politics of the speaker. We need to know exactly what we mean by a particular word as used in a particular argument.

Nationalism and patriotism are words thrown about by liberals, by conservatives and by traditionalists. To liberals nationalism is just another generic insult - calling someone a nationalist is like calling him a fascist. Conservatives (who are merely right-leaning liberals) sometimes try to distinguish between nationalism (which is evil and basically nazi) and patriotism (which is good and honourable).

Nationalism gained a bad reputation because it was responsible for the horrors of the two world wars. Of course those wars actually had more to do with clashes between competing empires than nationalism but a scapegoat had to be found and once nationalism was cast in that rôle it was always going to be pretty much impossible to rehabilitate the concept.

The problem is that even if patriotism is possibly a good thing it’s not so easy to define. OK, it’s love of one’s country, but what does that mean? What does it mean if you live in an artificial country like Belgium, or Canada, or the United States? Or Australia? If you’re an Australian of entirely British stock should your patriotic feelings be directed towards Australia or Britain? And if you’re lucky enough to live in a nation of immigrants what exactly is the nature of any patriotic feelings those immigrants might feel?

Tony Abbott used to waffle on about Team Australia. Apparently to a modern conservative patriotism is a bit like choosing which football team you support.

Americans often go on about the proposition nation idea but the first problem with that is that the original proposition has now changed radically. If the proposition can keep changing then the nation has no actual existence, no actual identity. It’s just a temporary political allegiance. Politicians have also been known to resort to the shared values argument, the problem there being that there is no evidence that these shared values actually exist. The shared values are imaginary items manufactured by opinion polling.

There’s also the question of distinguishing between loyalty to the nation and loyalty to the regime (there used to be another option, loyalty to the monarch, but there are no monarchies any more). The French are rather big on the idea of loyalty to the ideals of Republicanism which it seems to me is putting loyalty to regime and to ideology before loyalty to the nation.

Even assuming that we should put loyalty to the nation before loyalty to regime or ideology  there is the question of whether an evil regime should cancel our loyalty to the nation. Were those Germans (clearly the majority) who remained loyal to Germany even under the Nazis right to do so? Can we justify treason to the nation because we don’t like the regime? Many traitors do in fact believe, quite sincerely, that loyalty to their principles overrides loyalty to their country. I think it’s probably fair to assume that Kim Philby believed he was doing the right and honourable thing by putting his loyalty to communism ahead of his loyalty to Britain. I am not certainly not suggesting that he was right, but I do think that he felt that he was right.

And given the fact that today in the West we live under a corrupt, degenerate hostile regime do our patriotic feelings towards our nations compel us to serve such an evil regime?

I’m not claiming that I have the answers to these questions. But the questions do worry me.

Tuesday, March 12, 2019

women and alpha and beta men

There’s an excellent comment (left by a woman) on the recent (extremely good) post We are playing by girl's rules at Oz Conservative.

The post concerns the destructive effects of the sexual strategies pursued by modern women. The commenter notes that the average woman is sexually attracted to dominance in men and goes on to point out that the collapse in masculinity in the West has led women to look for the wrong sort of dominant men.

I think this is absolutely spot on. We hear a lot about alpha and beta men but these terms often mislead people.

Women are attracted to dominant men because they’re supposed to be. It’s basic biology. It’s human nature (and whether you believe that human nature is the result of evolutionary pressures or God’s wisdom doesn’t really matter here). The survival of society has always depended on traditional sex rôles and the maintenance of those rôles requires that women should choose men who are capable and decisive. Dominant men.

The dominant men to whom women are attracted are not necessarily men who wrassle gators bare-handed. A woman wants a man who is strong emotionally, forceful, decisive and confident. A man who can assert his authority. Including his authority over his woman. That doesn’t mean slapping her around. A man who does that is demonstrating his weakness and lack of authority. A strong man asserts his authority without the need for such things.

But there aren’t any such men any more. Feminism has thoroughly emasculated western men. Women can no longer find genuine dominant men so they choose what appears to be  the only viable option. They go for allegedly alpha men - men who are bad boys, men whose selfishness and duplicity pass for strength and confidence, men who seem sexually potent but are really just overgrown teenagers. These fake alpha men have neither the inclination nor the ability to hang on to a woman so the women drift from one man to another. Feminism tells them that being a slut is empowering and the fake alpha men do nothing to discourage them from such behaviour.

Then the woman sees the wall approaching. She’s in her late twenties or early thirties and the sexy bad boys aren’t interested any longer - they can get younger female flesh. And the biological clock is ticking. Suddenly marriage, a home, security and children seem more important than sexual pleasure. So the women go looking for a beta male. The stereotype of the beta male is the decent hard-working responsible man prepared to be a good provider. The sort of man women used to see as ideal husband material.

But even the beta men today are emasculated. They’re the ones that fully internalised decades of feminist propaganda. They believe the whole liberal agenda. They are doormats just waiting for a woman to step on them. Women of course despise weak men. And they feel zero sexual attraction to weak feminised men. So as soon as they’re in a financial position to do so the woman gets a divorce, and goes back to trying to chase the hot alpha men who no longer want them.

The beta males of the 1950s were a different story. They may have been responsible and hard-working family men but they had not had their masculinity stripped from them. Women who married such men were generally pretty happy.

So the alpha and beta males of today are both in their own ways less than men. It’s no wonder women end up regarding all men with contempt.

Of course feminism is to blame for all this. More importantly it is the fault of everyone who has advanced or enabled the feminist agenda. Including Christians. Especially Christians, who have responded to the mortal threat posed by feminism with grovelling and surrender.

What can be done about this? I honestly don’t know. The feminist agenda is now so firmly entrenched that it seems unchallengeable. It’s been pushed so far that even the mildest criticisms are greeted with outrage. There’s certainly no way that the basic biological fact that being dominated by a man is sexually and emotionally exciting to a woman and will in the long run make her happy is going to get listened to.

Saturday, March 9, 2019

conspiracy theories, history and the need for meaning

I was both amused and slightly horrified by a recent comment thread elsewhere on the subject of conspiracy theories. I was particularly struck by the vehemence with which so many people hold such theories, and the savagery with which they defend them.

Now I can understand why people are reluctant to believe the official version of events. Politicians do lie to us. Civil servants lie. Journalists lie. We should be sceptical of anything these people tell us.

I’m inclined to be supportive of mild historical revisionism. History is mostly interpretation and it’s good to see interpretations other than the conventional long-accepted ones. That doesn’t mean we should accept every alternative interpretation. Some alternative interpretations are complete poppycock. But some are plausible. A few are even fairly convincing. Undoubtedly in some cases the alternative interpretations are correct.

But many conspiracy theorists go beyond merely doubting. They not only consider alternative explanations for events, they adopt those explanations with religious fervour. Anyone who doubts their conspiracy theory is dismissed as a fool who believes everything the media tells him.

More dangerously they often get to the stage of abandoning the idea of relying on evidence. If you point out that there is no evidence to support their theory they’ll tell you that such evidence certainly exists but it’s been suppressed by the government. If you point out that there is evidence contradicting their theory they’ll tell you that it must have been faked. The problem here is that they end up believing things out of pure emotional conviction rather than evidence. Of course when it comes to political beliefs we’re all inclined to do that but it’s still a dangerous tendency.

What’s more interesting to ask is why have conspiracy theories become so popular?

Of course it’s partly because these days politicians, journalists, etc are more obviously dishonest. I don’t think that’s the complete explanation though.

I suspect that like so much in our modern civilisation it’s at least partly the collapse of religious faith. People don’t want to believe that history is random and meaningless. They don’t want to believe that wars happen because politicians simply bungle their way into them. They don’t want to believe that major historical events occur due to chance, or to mistakes. History should make sense. It should mean something. Millions of people should not die in a war, as they did in the First World War, for no good reason whatsoever.

In the past few decades we’ve also seen the collapse of one of the more fully developed secular religions, Marxism. Religion makes history meaningful because it’s the unfolding of God’s plan. Marxism makes history meaningful because it’s (allegedly) scientific and it sees history as being the result of vast and important social and economic forces at work. With Marxism now pretty much dead how can history be made to make sense?

Conspiracy theories provide an answer because paradoxically it’s more comforting to believe that disasters are caused by satanic conspiracies, or communist conspiracies or fascist conspiracies or whatever rather than by bad luck and bad management.

Of course it’s possible that some conspiracy theories are true. I’m inclined to think most are mistaken. Bad things really are happening and our leaders really are betraying us but mostly they’re doing it pretty openly. In the majority of cases there’s no need for elaborate conspiracy theories to explain why the world is going to Hell in a handbasket.

Sunday, March 3, 2019

modern politics and the new class

Post-World War 2 politics seems bewildering. The old political divisions such as left and right don’t really seem to explain any of it satisfactorily. Perhaps the answer is that we need to think sociologically rather than politically.

Of course sociology is a dirty word to most self-styled conservatives but it can offer us some useful insights.

Post-WW2 politics is quite different from the politics of the preceding century. It’s just as class-based but what has changed is the nature of the classes. For Marxists there was the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Class membership was based on power and wealth and was strongly hereditary. Most people were born into their class and remained there.

A new class took power after the Second World War. They were the spiritual descendants of the intellectuals who who worked so hard to destroy civilisation in the 18th and 19th century but with some crucial differences - they were now much more numerous and they were no longer obscure professors, penniless students or failed writers. They had gained access to power. They were now senior bureaucrats, influential journalists, lawyers and career politicians. Some sociologists refer to them as the new managerial class. They saw society as something that needed management, and if necessary micro-management. And not just economic management, but social management.

They were not like the old bourgeoisie. They were not necessarily rich. They did not necessarily own factories.

Importantly, they were not born into this new class. Membership was gained  by going to the right universities and doing the right sorts of degrees and by subscribing to the right kind of thinking.

These are people who, whether they were born in a mansion or a hovel, now see themselves as belonging to a superior class. The class markers now are not wealth or birth but membership of a class that sees itself as an intellectual elite. They believe they are set apart from the masses by superior intelligence, education and virtue. In fact they see themselves as an Elect, predestined to rule.

What is important in political terms is that for the past half century or so virtually every politician regardless of supposed party allegiance has come from this new managerial/intellectual class. We no longer have different parties representing different class interests We now have different parties that all represent the same class interest. Which explains why the policies of the major parties are more or less interchangeable. It explains why there is no discernible difference between Tony Blair and Theresa May, or between Bill Shorten and Scott Morrison. It explains why Americans keep electing different presidents but end up getting the same misgovernment.

The nature of this managerial/intellectual class has other consequences. These are people who believe they have a duty to manage other people’s lives. They also believe they have a duty to police public opinion. They are the superior people and they know what’s best for the rest of us. If we don’t agree then we must be made to agree. It’s for our own good.