Monday, July 19, 2021

the defeat of liberalism

Liberalism is now the world’s dominant ideology and is now entering its triumphalist phase. But has liberalism really triumphed?

If you define liberalism as an ideology based on freedom and autonomy I’d argue that liberalism has suffered almost complete defeat.

Society in the Anglophone world is now more oppressively conformist than at any time since the Middle Ages.

Political freedom is largely an illusion. The ideological differences between the major political parties are mostly differences of detail.

Freedom of speech is now just a memory.

Women now have the freedom to do whatever the feminists think they should do.

We have sexual freedom. Sort of. In reality sexual freedom is confined within rigidly defined channels, policed by feminists and the LGBTetc lobby. Certain disgusting sexual practices, such as flirting, are now effectively prohibited. Men do however have the freedom to wear frocks.

Art, literature and movies are frighteningly conformist. You’re allowed to be subversive as long as you’re subverting Christianity or heterosexuality. If you want to subvert anything else, forget it.

We have the right to protest, as long as we’re protesting against the right things.

Just remember that Conformity is Freedom and you'll be OK.

Sunday, July 11, 2021

indoctrination and how it works

This is a slightly expanded version of a comment I left elsewhere, the subject being whether things like Wokeism and Social Justice are organic beliefs that have developed or whether they’re purely the results of indoctrination.

In my view indoctrination works much much more effectively if you're trying to indoctrinate people into something that is at least roughly consistent with what they already believe. It works better if people are already to some extent receptive to the idea with which you’re trying to indoctrinate them.

Wokeism and Social Justice have been so successful because people already believed that equality, fairness, justice and tolerance were good things. Americans in particular already believed in the whole "all men are created equal" thing. They already believed that racial equality was a worthwhile goal. It wasn't difficult to convince people that racial equality was being thwarted by dark sinister forces like institutional racism, or that racial equality was being thwarted by bad people.

It wasn't difficult to persuade people to accept homosexual marriage because they already believed in tolerance for homosexuals. Homosexual marriage could be sold as a logical extension of that.

Even the trans thing wasn’t really all that hard since people were already receptive to the idea that "everyone should be free to be whatever they want to be.” It was in some ways the liberal belief in autonomy taken to an extreme, but the belief that autonomy is a good thing was already well established.

On the other hand it would be vastly more difficult to indoctrinate people into beliefs that are inconsistent with what they already believe. If you tried to persuade people that the vote should be taken away from women, or that fornication should be a criminal offence (and I've encountered dissident rightists who push those very ideas) you'd be taking on an immensely difficult task. In the former case you'd be swimming against a tide that has been running in the direction of female equality for a couple of centuries.

You can sell an idea that is just outside the limits of the current Overton Window but it's very difficult to sell an idea that is miles and miles outside the current Overton Window.

Thursday, July 8, 2021

pushing back

In a discussion elsewhere the conversation turned, as so often, to the possibility of some kind of pushback against the excesses of Wokeism and SJWism.

In my view one area in which there might well be a major pushback is #metoo-ism. The #metoo thing is not just targeting Evil White Men. Every single man, black or white, liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, Jew or Gentile, is a potential target.

There are a lot of rich liberal men who are very nervous at the moment. They could get fed up and start pushing back.

It has now become obvious that if you’re a man and you’re accused of a crime involving sex then you have zero chance of a fair trial. Whatever your race or religion or political alignment, you still have zero chance of a fair trial.

I’m sure that some of the men who’ve been #metoo’d have been guilty, but I think it’s very obvious that many have been entirely innocent, or at worst have been guilty of misbehaviour so trivial that it should not be a matter for the law.

If the current Cosby fiasco discredits #metoo then that’s a very very good thing. And an opportunity to inflict a genuine defeat on the Cultural Left.

Even some liberal women must be getting concerned at the prospect of seeing husbands (or fathers or sons) destroyed by insane and malicious accusations. And destroyed by ambitious and cynical prosecutors.

I'm inclined to think that if there's going to be a fightback then #metoo is the most promising battlefield on which it might happen. I'm not saying I'm wildly optimistic, but maybe there is a chance.

Tuesday, July 6, 2021

sexual revolutions old and new

There are many aspects of the current Cultural Revolution that are, in my opinion, deceptive. What appears to be going on is not what is really going on. That’s particularly the case with sex and gender identity. I’ve written abut this before but I’m trying to flesh out my ideas a bit more.

It’s easy to assume that the explosion of pornography and the growing influence of gender identity politics is just an extension of the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s and 1970s. I don’t think that’s the case. The 1960s/70s Sexual Revolution was all about sex. The objective was more sex and better sex. To an extent it succeeded. The amount of sex that people were having in the 60s and 70s has been exaggerated but there’s little doubt that overall people were indeed having more sex.

The current Sexual Revolution isn’t about sex at all. It’s about identity. To a considerable extent it represents a flight from actual sex. It’s a way of avoiding actual sex. Young people appear in practice to be having less sex than young people in the 60s and 70s.

One interesting thing is that while it appears that sex has never been more widely and more openly discussed that appearance is slightly deceptive. In the 60s and 70s people really were talking widely and openly about sex. There was also a real enthusiasm for finding out how human sexuality actually worked. In academia people like Masters and Johnson were trying to investigate sex in a rigorous scientific way. Their books were bestsellers. There were lots of other bestsellers on the subject. Some were scientific nonsense (such as Shere Hite’s infamous book which was rendered useless because it relied on self-selected samples) but they were all indicative of the interest in the topic.

Another fascinating phenomenon of the time was bestselling books on female sexual fantasies, and those books were indicative of a genuine desire to understand female sexuality.

I don’t see that sort of thing so much these days. The focus is on identity rather than on sex itself. People might identify as a polyamorous genderfluid queers but I get the feeling that many of those people aren’t getting any sex and may well be afraid of sex. Back in the 70s people didn’t worry about which of the 117 different gender identities they belonged to. They were more likely to just say, “Let’s take our clothes off and see what happens.”

I have a suspicion that the change of focus occurred because many people, especially feminists, started getting nervous about what was being discovered. They were worried that men and women might really turn out to be different. They were worried that male sexuality and female sexuality might really turn out to be totally different. To some extent the 117 genders we have today may be an attempt to evade the unpleasant truth that men and women are not the same sexually.

Feminists were also pretty worried about those books on female sexual fantasies. They thought women should be having fantasies about equality but instead women were fantasising about being gang-banged or being tied up by a man and spanked. I remember being very amused when a hardline feminist friend admitted to having lurid and extremely satisfying fantasies about being a harem girl. And being even more amused when another hardline feminist friend was driven into a sexual frenzy by watching The Story of O.

Which brings us to another point - how curious it is that these days only a very narrow range of alternative expressions of sexuality (as distinct from gender) is celebrated. I’m still waiting to see a BDSM Pride March or a Foot Fetish Pride March.

We live a very curious age. In some ways we’re a lot more sexually repressed than the Victorians.

Tuesday, June 29, 2021

get ready for World War V

We've had World War G and World War T and people are wondering that's coming next. My guess is that the next war will be World War V. World War Vegan.

It's already started in Australia. Suddenly within a few months supermarket shelves are packed with vegan food and non-vegan food is disappearing from those same shelves. The current push behind veganism is extraordinary.

My prediction is that over the next few years we will see a very strong push to de-normalise meat-eating. Not just to de-normalise it, but to demonise meat-eating.

Within ten years people will be getting cancelled when it's discovered that at some point in the past they were meat-eaters.

Monday, June 28, 2021

economics, marriage and social change

In another discussion elsewhere a claim was made that the mid-20th century in the West was an unusual period of history because at that time monogamy was socially enforced and marriage and children just fell into place for most men. He made the further claim that the Sexual Revolution changed all that and created a situation in which marriage and having children are not achievable goals for a very significant proportion of men.

I think there’s some truth to the claim. I think however that what made the mid-20th century unique was that it was a time in which most men could get decent well-paid secure jobs. Secure being the really important factor. For the only time in human history most men were very attractive marriage propositions for women.

The crucial change was not the Sexual Revolution but the disappearance of those decent well-paid jobs and the ending of job security. And bear in mind that job security has largely disappeared for many lower middle-class men as well as working class men.

Women have to be hardheaded when it comes to marriage. If a man does not have at least a reasonably decent wage and more crucially if he does not have a secure job it is simply reckless for a woman to regard him as husband material. You can’t blame women for that. If a woman wants to have children she needs financial security.

So this is an example not so much of technology but of changes to the economic system driving social change.

Sunday, June 27, 2021

technology and social change

This is a kind of a follow-on from one of my recent posts and it’s also inspired by discussions I’ve been involved in elsewhere.

Those of us who are concerned about the massive social changes that have transformed the West since 1945 usually assume that those changes were mostly ideologically driven. In many cases that’s true of course but in fact a lot of social change is driven mostly by technology. Technology has changed social behaviour, sexual behaviour and family life in profound ways.

This has always been the case. Railways changed society. It’s often not appreciated that prior to railways people mostly spent their entire lives in an incredibly restricted geographical area, in some cases never travelling more than twenty miles from their place of birth.

The invention of the automobile changed society. To a large extent it made suburbia possible.

Television changed society. Instead of getting out of the house regularly to go to the cinema or the theatre or to music halls people got their entertainment at home.

Improvements in contraceptive technology made the Sexual Revolution possible. Sex became a recreational activity.

From the early 1970s to the late 1980s several technologies suddenly became mainstream and became major drivers of social change. Cable TV started to take off in a big way. Home video became cheap and readily available (the VHS format hit the market in the late 70s). The World Wide Web was launched in 1989.

We didn’t know it at the time but these technologies were going to have an effect on sexual attitudes and behaviours. By the mid-80s the explosion in pornography on cable TV and home video had begun. When the World Wide Web was launched it took about ten minutes for someone to figure out that this was going to create an immense market for pornography.

Social media and smartphones have created massive social changes.

While ideological forces have been involved there’s little doubt that without these technological changes society today would be very very different. Family life, sex, love, marriage have all been changed and technology has been a very major driver. Perhaps even the most important driver.

Which is a problem because it seems that no matter how useless and destructive a technology is nothing effective can be done to prevent that technology from spreading.

To a considerable extent the Culture War has been a technological war.

Friday, June 11, 2021

neoliberalism as the real enemy

There’s an excellent recent post, It's not just the left, at Oz Conservative on the subject of neoliberalism. Or, as Mark prefers to call it, right-liberalism (and I think he’s correct in seeing right-liberalism as the better descriptive term).

This is a bit of a hobbyhorse of mine as well. Right-liberalism is in fact the biggest single menace we face. It’s actually a more pernicious threat than any current variant of leftism. And it's a major problem throughout the West, and especially in the Anglosphere.

The post is well worth reading.

Wednesday, May 26, 2021

Graham Greene’s The Comedians (book review)

Graham Greene’s The Comedians was published in 1966. Greene was important for many reasons, one of them being that he was one of the last novelists to bridge the gap between serious literature and popular entertainment. In the early part of his career he divided his books into “novels” (dealing with serious themes) and “entertainments” (which were not only entertainments but also genre fiction). He eventually realised that, as far as his own work was concerned, the distinction was an artificial one and he abandoned it.

The Comedians is set in Haiti during the rule of the infamous dictator Fran├žois Duvalier, known popularly as Papa Doc. Greene had spent some time in Haiti.

But in fact The Comedians, like most of Greene’s books, takes place in Greeneland. Greeneland is a land of defeat and pessimism.

The narrator, Mr Brown, is returning to Haiti on the S.S. Medea. Mr Brown, a man in his late fifties, does not think Haiti is a very good place to be but he has his reasons for returning. He owns a hotel in Haiti. It is the only thing he has ever owned. And there is a woman in Haiti, Martha Pineda, the wife of a South American Ambassador. Brown has been having an adulterous affair with Martha for several years. He doesn’t know if he’s in love with her but he has realised he cannot live without her.

Brown is amused that the very small group of passengers on the Medea includes a Mr Smith and a Mr Jones. They all sound like aliases and since his own claim to the name Brown is doubtful he can’t help suspecting that Mr Smith and Mr Jones might have equally dubious claims to their names. Mr Jones in fact claims to be Major Jones, with a distinguished war record in Burma. Brown is very sceptical.

Major Jones, like Brown, is a typical inhabitant of Greeneland. They both have murky pasts which include unfortunate misunderstandings with the police. They are both expatriates. Neither believes in anything very much. Both men have about them an air of defeat. Both have a certain disreputable charm. They are not bad men, but they’re not especially good either. Greene famously said that human nature is not black and white, but black and grey. Brown and Jones both fall into the grey category.

When the Medea arrives in the capital, Port-au-Prince, it soon becomes obvious to Brown that things are just as bad as they were when he had left a few months earlier. Duvalier is crazy and paranoid and never leaves the Presidential Palace. The economy is in ruins. The people are close to starvation. The tourists have long gone. The secret police, the Tontons Macoute, are continuing their reign of terror.

Graham Greene had been a real-life spy, working for MI6 where his supervisor was a chap named Kim Philby (Greene later wrote a foreword to Philby’s excellent autobiography My Silent War, a book I thoroughly recommend). The world of espionage and counter-espionage fascinated Greene and it plays a part in many of his novels. Spies live in a world of deception and, often, self-deception. Just like many of the inhabitants of Greeneland. The Comedians is not a spy novel as such (although the Tontons Macoute are a counter-espionage outfit) but it is concerned (among other things) with the shadowy worlds of international intrigue, diplomacy, gun-running and revolution.

Mr Smith is another very Greene character. He is an American and he is introduced as the Presidential Candidate. It turns out that he really had been a presidential candidate in 1948 but since he only gained 10,000 votes nation-wide he did not provide much competition for Harry Truman. Mr Smith and his wife are idealists. They believe that most of the world’s problems are caused by excessive acidity and that once people are converted to vegetarianism most of those problems will disappear. Mr and Mrs Smith are also liberals, and like so many American liberals they are entirely disconnected from reality. Like Alden Pyle in The Quiet American Mr and Mrs Smith are sincere idealists of the type that actually causes most of the world’s problems. And like Alden Pyle they do have the courage of their convictions.

The Comedians is partly of course a political novel although Greene’s political beliefs tended to be, like his religious beliefs, complex and contradictory. As in The Quiet American the U.S. does not appear in a favourable light in this novel. They know the horrifically brutal nature of Papa Doc’s regime but they’re prepared to prop him up as a “bulwark against communism” - as was the case with Vietnam their foreign policy was simplistic and deluded.

Mr and Mrs Smith intend to establish a vegetarian centre in Haiti. Brown tries to persuade them that their plan is going to land them in trouble. Major Jones has his own plans which Brown suspects (correctly) are not strictly legal and which he also suspects (correctly) are going to get him in a lot of trouble. Brown does not want trouble. He just wants his hotel and he wants Martha. He’s going to find trouble anyway. He knows that when he finds the body of the Secretary of Social Welfare in his hotel’s swimming pool.

Brown envies Mr Smith because Smith believes in something, even if it’s crazy and futile. He also envies Jones because Jones has a dream, even if the dream is a delusion and even if Jones himself knows it’s a delusion. Believing in something is good but in Greeneland things are not so simple. Believing in things can also destroy a person, and destroy other people as well.

Faith can be destructive, especially when it’s combined with innocence (and innocence terrified Greene). Brown’s friend Dr Magiot and Henri Phillipot, son of the deceased Secretary of Social Welfare, are inclined to put their faith in revolution. Which can be just as dangerous and futile as Mr Smith’s faith in vegetarianism.

The Comedians is not one of Greene’s more highly regarded books. Perhaps it’s not quite top-tier Greene but even second-tier Greene is better than almost everything published in the past fifty years. Highly recommended.

Greene wrote the screenplay for the 1967 movie adaptation.

Sunday, May 16, 2021

Social and cultural changes - inevitable or engineered?

Enormous social and cultural changes have swept the western world since 1945. The roots of some of these changes go back much further, in some cases to the 19th century. Feminism, the Sexual Revolution, the rise of antiracist ideologies, the LGBT movement, changes in how marriage is viewed, Political Correctness and more recently Wokeism. Social conservatives and many on the Right deplore most of these changes (in some cases they deplore all of these changes). Which is understandable. The western world today differs radically from the western world of 1945.

There’s nothing startling or controversial about this. It’s merely stating the obvious.

We need to ask two questions. Firstly, were these changes inevitable? And secondly, can anything be done about it?

Social conservatives and dissident rightists seem to favour the view that these changes were deliberately engineered, or were even the result of a conspiracy (or conspiracies).

I suspect that it’s possible that many (possibly most, possibly even all) of these social and cultural changes were to a large extent the inevitable result of the rise of mass media, mass education, democracy and capitalism plus various technological advances. They were the end result of processes that began in the 19th century.

Those social and cultural changes may have been, to a large degree, unstoppable.

What can be done about it? I think that the desire of many social conservatives and dissident rightists to completely undo all those changes is hopelessly unrealistic. It would be a bit like trying to undo the Industrial Revolution. It would require a complete social and cultural revolution and (barring some extraordinary apocalyptic event that brings present-day western civilisation to its knees) it seems unlikely that the conditions necessary for such a social and cultural revolution are going to arise.

Maybe the best that we can hope for is to ameliorate the worst features of these changes in the way that the worst features of the Industrial Revolution were eventually ameliorated. Maybe.

Maybe we can learn to live with most of the social/cultural changes if some of those worst features can be ameliorated. Perhaps we need to ask ourselves how much amelioration of the more extreme changes would create a world that we could live with.

I know, it’s not a very optimistic viewpoint from the point of view of social conservatives. It’s not even a very optimistic viewpoint from the point of view of more moderate social liberals.

Thursday, May 6, 2021

health nazis, food nazis and puritanism

Further to my recent post on libertinism versus puritanism, another example of the increasing puritanism of modern western society has been the rise of the health nazis, and more recently the food nazis.

When you have a widespread belief that the government should have the power to exercise a high degree of coercion in regards to what people do with their own bodies that doesn’t sound to me like a libertine society. It sounds like a puritan society. A society that considers unhealthy lifestyle choices to be evidence of wickedness that sounds like a puritan society.

It’s difficult to see the modern Nanny State as anything other than puritanism. Puritanism mixed with totalitarianism, but then puritans have always had a totalitarian outlook.

Australia has been in some ways Ground Zero for this. Australia is now the Nanny State on steroids. Innocuous medications which used to be available over the counter are now available only on prescription, and if you have a chronic pain problem it is immensely difficult to get the medications needed to control that pain. Now the Australian Government wants to stop people from vaping. Vaping is a whole lot better than smoking so you’d think that a sane government would want to encourage the practice. But the puritan impulse is too strong.

The food nazis are the latest manifestation of puritanism. They want to shame us for eating meat, or liking sugar.

What it comes down to is that people with a puritan mindset are horrified that there are people out there doing things that they enjoy. There are people who like eating steaks and they are still eating steaks. They must be stopped.

Any kind of freedom is now regarded as problematic. Whether it’s freedom of speech, freedom of thought or even the freedom to eat what you want to eat. Doing anything solely for pleasure is now regarded as problematic. People used to enjoy food. That’s so wrong.

The main impulse behind our increasing drift towards totalitarianism and complete social control has nothing to do with leftist politics as such. Right-wing governments (such as the Morrison Government in Australia) are just as committed to social control as parties of the left. The Tories in Britain are as committed to totalitarianism as Labour. We’re drifting towards totalitarianism because of an increasingly puritan outlook. It’s an outlook that demands that people should be forced to be virtuous. We must be forced to be virtuous in our speech, in our thoughts and in our private lives and personal habits.

Saturday, May 1, 2021

is our modern society actually libertine?

There’s a widespread assumption that western society has become increasingly libertine about sexuality over time and that we now live in an age of sexual degeneracy and sexual libertinism. But is that really true?

In some ways we're more puritanical about sex than ever before. Engaging in mild flirtation can now lead to the loss of your job and your career.

The libertinism of today may be more apparent than real. Society is more tolerant of homosexual libertinism than ever before, but arguably it's less tolerant of heterosexual libertinism. A man who has consensual sex with a woman can have his life destroyed if the woman changes her mind after the act. If it wasn't as magical and meaningful as the woman expected it's rape. The #metoo hysteria is a prime example of the New Puritanism.

Surveys suggest that young people are having less sex than previous generations. Which would not be surprising. Engaging in entirely consensual heterosexual sex is now a high-risk activity. Engaging in the normal human activities that have always been part and parcel of courtship is now like wandering through a minefield.

Read Steve Sailer's recent post on the professor accused of sexual misbehaviour. The behaviours in which he engaged were so innocuous that twenty years the women involved would simply have laughed the whole thing off.

I'm not even convinced that monogamy has gone out of fashion. It still seems to be the norm, even among young people. In fact, especially among young people. Not necessarily marriage but monogamy in some form. It’s easy to see internet hookup culture as proof that young people are highly promiscuous but I suspect that promiscuity is less common today compared to fifty years ago. The high tide of modern sexual libertinism was the 1970s. The tide of libertinism has been receding ever since.

Our real problem is that so many people are getting married and are remaining monogamous, but they're not having children. That's a problem with multiple causes but I don't think it has anything at all to do with a rising tide of libertinism.

I don't think there is a rising tide of libertinism. Quite the reverse.

The trans thing is interesting. As Steve Sailer has pointed out, much of the trans mania actually seems to be driven by avoidance of sex. If people are having their genitals surgically destroyed or pumping themselves full of the hormones of the opposite sex and thereby destroying any possibility of an actual functional sex life that doesn't sound like libertinism. That sounds like a twisted form of puritanism. It sounds like a phobia of sex. Especially in the case of young girls deciding that they’re really young boys what really seems to be happening is a flight from adulthood and from normal sexuality, or from any sexuality at all.

I want to emphasise that I'm not arguing that everything is hunky-dory and that our modern society is healthy and there's nothing to worry about. Our modern society is very very unhealthy.

But the real problem is that completely normal heterosexual desires and completely normal heterosexual behaviours are now seen as problematic. Completely normal heterosexual behaviours have been pathologised. Such normal behaviours are now seen as wrong and oppressive.

A big part of the problem is of course feminism. Back in the 90s when the anti-sex feminists lost the Feminist Sex Wars we thought we wouldn't have to worry about those crazies any more. But we were wrong. The anti-sex feminists have made a major comeback. They're as crazy as ever and they're as aggressive as ever.

I’m not advocating for sexual libertinism. I’m merely arguing that the dysfunction in our society is not actually sexual libertinism, but increasing anxiety about sex and fear of sex. We’re obsessed with the subject, but then puritanism is also driven to a large extent by an obsession with sex.

I don’t think the current situation is as straightforward as it seems to be.

I'm more worried about the de-normalisation of healthy heterosexuality than about a largely imaginary libertinism. The de-normalisation of healthy heterosexuality is a fundamental attack on the foundation of any sane healthy society.

Thursday, April 22, 2021

counter-cultures then and now

I've been thinking a lot recently about the counter-culture of the 60s and its relevance today.

The first thing that needs to be stated is that the counter-culture was not actually a phenomenon of the 1960s and it was not the Baby Boomers who started it. The counter-culture began in the mid-1950s. It was the creation of the Silent Generation and in particular the “war babies” (born between 1935 and 1945) and in fact many of the founders of the counter-culture were even older.

The counter-culture really started with the Beats. The Beat sub-culture was well established by the late 50s. The Flower Children and the hippies of the 60s were a later manifestation of the counter-culture but they were for the most part merely picking up on ideas that the Beats had propounded.

The counter-culture represented a conscious rejection of many of the social attitudes and social norms of the 1950s. And it has to be said that some of the criticisms made by the Beats had some validity - that society had become too materialistic and status-obsessed, that war was a bad thing, that nuclear armageddon was not an inviting prospect, that 50s sexual mores were too restrictive, that censorship was a bad thing and free speech was a good thing, and that personal freedom was important.

The 1950s/60s counter-culturalists were of course wrong about many things, but it has to be admitted that they weren’t wrong about everything. The counter-culture of that era was an understandable reaction to many of the negative aspects of 50s society.

It needs to be stated emphatically that the Wokeism and Social Justice cults of today are not just logical extensions of the 50s/60s counter-culture. They differ in many important respects. The 50s/60s counter-culture was a consciously oppositional movement. They were the enemies of the Establishment of their time. The Wokeists and SJWs of today serve the Establishment. They are on the side of the status quo. They may not see it that way, some of them may delude themselves into thinking that they’re brave fighters against the Establishment, but they are in reality servants of the current political/economic Establishment.

To be honest the dissident right of today has more claims to being a genuine counter-culture than the Wokeists do. It is at least a consciously oppositional movement. Like the 50s/60s counter-culturalists the dissident right is correct on some issues and wrong on others. Like the 50s/60s counter-culture it looks like it is going to fail.

The counter-culture of the late 50s, 60s and 70s achieved some of its short-term objectives but it ultimately failed. They did not succeed in smashing the system. Society is just as materialistic today as it was in the 50s. Wars go on. Interventionism remains the basis of foreign policy. Large corporations have more power than they had in the 50s. Any genuine criticism of capitalism is stifled. There was a cultural revolution of sorts but there was no social revolution and no political revolution.

One of the reasons the counter-culture of the late 50s, 60s and 70s failed is that the "Establishment" proved to be very good at co-opting its enemies.

If you were a young student radical of that era then once you left university you were forced to abandon many of your principles if you wanted to get ahead. At university you could be opposed to capitalism but if you wanted to get a job in the corporate sector after university you suddenly had to learn to love capitalism.

As a young student radical you could be opposed to America's interventionist (or imperialist, depending on your perspective) foreign policy but if you wanted to have a long-term political career you had to accept the reality that there immensely powerful vested interests that were determined to continue that interventionist foreign policy. So you had to switch from opposing interventionist wars to supporting them.

Counter-cultures are worth studying, both for their successes and failures.

This post was more or less inspired (or at least I was inspired to actually sit down and write it) by the recent post Will Wokeness Win? at the Upon Hope blog.

Saturday, January 2, 2021

Richard Nixon quotes

Some quotes from Richard Nixon.

“Never forget, the press is the enemy. The establishment is the enemy. The professors are the enemy. Professors are the enemy. Write that on a blackboard 100 times and never forget it.”

“Politics would be a helluva good business if it weren't for the goddamned people.”

“Honesty may not be the best policy, but it is worth trying once in a while.”

“Idealism without realism is impotent. Realism without idealism is immoral.”

“The worst thing a politician can be is dull. At least I'm interesting.”

“Yet we can maintain a free society only if we recognize that in a free society no one can win all the time. No one can have his own way all the time, and no one is right all the time.”

“Let us remember that the main purpose of American aid is not to help other nations, but to help ourselves.”

“Television is to news as bumperstickers are to philosophy.”