Wednesday, December 13, 2017

unlocking the power of hate

Never underestimate the power of hatred. Or more specifically, never underestimate the positive effects of being hated.

Take the Jews. How on Earth could they have survived as a distinct ethnic/religious/cultural group through the 2,000 years of the Diaspora? The answer is simple. They survived by being hated.

The Jews maintained their own traditions and beliefs and ethnic identity because they were regarded as outsiders, and regarded with suspicion and dislike. Most of the time they weren’t actually persecuted or even hated but simply looked upon with suspicion. But there were times when they were actively hated and persecuted and this proved to be their salvation as a people. They were not only considered to be outsiders, they thought of themselves as outsiders.

This was a powerful incentive to avoid what was in fact the greatest threat to their survival - marrying outside their own community.

It strengthened their faith and it made their traditions seem very precious indeed.

Other cultural groups have benefited from being hated, although none so spectacularly as the Jews. For centuries the Irish Catholics maintained their faith and jealously preserved a distinctive cultural identity. The force that bound them together was the oppression they suffered at the hands of the English. Then in the latter part of the 20th century the English did something very terrible. They gave up oppressing the Irish. The Irish response was immediate. They abandoned their faith, they abandoned their identity and they set about committing national suicide. Within a few decades from now the Irish will have disappeared as a distinct people.

It’s not necessary to be oppressed to enjoy these benefits. Having an external enemy who hates you and wants to destroy you can be almost as good.

It’s worth taking a bit of a look at the history of Christianity. In its early centuries it suffered sporadic persecution at the hands of the Romans. These were boom times for Christianity.

By the 4th century AD Christianity was the official religion of the Empire but luckily there were still plenty of enemies. Most of Europe was still pagan. Even within the Empire paganism was down but not out. When the Empire in the West collapsed it was by no means certain that Christianity would triumph. The surviving Empire in the East had plenty of very real non-Christian enemies. And would soon have a new and very formidable enemy in the shape of Islam. Islam would even threaten the territories of the now-defunct western Empire.

For centuries to come Christianity would have real enemies and Christians with a taste for martyrdom could find endless opportunities for indulging that taste.

The boom times came to an end at the end of the seventeenth century. The Islamic threat to Europe was over. European Christianity had no viable enemies. And Christianity began its long slow decline.

The interesting bit is that the boom times might soon be back. Liberals (and I use liberals as shorthand for the globalist elites and their SJW foot soldiers) have hated Christianity for a long long time but up till now they’ve been content with harassment. This is clearly going to change, probably within the next decade. They’re going to move towards full-blown persecution.

This may be the salvation of Christianity. Being a persecuted minority once again might lead to a Christian revival. At the very least it should eliminate most of the mainstream churches, and that would be a very good thing indeed for Christianity.

Sunday, December 10, 2017

losing touch with reality

My recent post how dumb do feminists need to be? and a recent post at The Knight and Drummer, The Survivability of Men and Women both deal with the issue of feminists being hopelessly out of touch with reality. It’s not just a problem with feminists though. It’s more and more a problem with our whole society.

As an example, there has always been a city-country divide. City dwellers have always despised rural folk. And city dwellers have always been a little vague as to how reality actually works. They have a vague notion that food comes from farms but they’re pretty sketchy on the details. They probably know that milk comes from cows, but they’ve almost certainly never seen an actual cow. The fact that farming is hard work undoubtedly never occurs to them. It is very unlikely that any city dweller realises just how dangerous an occupation farming is.

That city-country thing has always existed of course. But there are other divides that are just as dramatic, and becoming more dramatic. Middle-class urbanites generally have no notion whatsoever that they are dependent on nasty horrid working class people for their very existence. They assume that when you flick a switch you get electricity, and when you turn the tap you get clean fresh water. They do not comprehend that such miracles only occur because blue-collar workers labour night and day to keep them happening.

Middle-class urbanites also never stop to wonder how all that food and other stuff gets onto the shelves at the supermarket. They remain blissfully unaware that some dreadful working-class man drives the truck that brings those things to the supermarket.

They have no comprehension of the full extent of their dependency. If those blue-collar workers weren’t there for even a brief period it would be more than just an inconvenience. Within a few days people would start dying, In large numbers. Middle-class city dwellers would start dying. A city without electricity, running water and trucks to deliver food would become a very very unpleasant place very quickly.

The things that blue-collar workers do for a living tend to be the things that keep us all alive. The things that a large proportion of those urban middle-class people do for a living are often entirely useless. What would happen if all the sociologists, psychologists, investment counsellors, financial advisors, insurance brokers, diversity officers, advertising execs, aromatherapists, interior decorators and social workers disappeared? The answer is that it would have no effect on society whatsoever. Life would go on. The same applies to the majority of bureaucrats.

It’s not just that women in the workforce generally contribute little or nothing productive to society. A very large chunk of middle-class males don’t contribute anything either.

This has become more pronounced as we have moved towards being a service economy, as distinct from an economy that actually makes stuff. The great thing about a service economy is that you end up with a situation where the majority of people do entirely useless jobs. They are mere drones, supported by a small number of men (yes, men) who do the work that keeps everybody else alive.

And the drones develop an extraordinary detachment from reality. They don’t even know of the existence of the people keeping them alive.

Saturday, December 9, 2017

how dumb do feminists need to be?

Are we really getting dumber? It’s difficult to know because often we’re dealing with a mixture of stupidity and craziness, but it’s hard to resist the conclusion that intelligence is in increasingly short supply.

Feminists are an interesting case in point. Just how dumb do you need to be in order to be a feminist? The answer is, very dumb indeed.

Recently I came across yet another feminist spouting the line that if only all men could be removed from the planet women would be able to live in a safe peaceful Garden of Eden.

Apparently it had never occurred to this woman that a world free of men might not be so wonderful. For instance, there would be no electricity. No running water. No internet. No telephones. All these things have been built and are maintained by men. There would be no fire brigade so if your house caught fire you could be in trouble. There would be nobody to collect the rubbish.

In fact women probably wouldn’t live long enough to have to worry about most of the consequences because within a few days there would be no food in the stores. Farming, fishing and all forms of food production are done by men. Of course even if there was food it wouldn’t help since there’d be nobody to drive the trucks to deliver the food to the stores.

This is all pretty obvious. Civilisation was created by men and it’s men who keep it running. And women are absolutely dependent on civilisation. I don’t believe any woman in the 1950s (or any earlier period in history) would have been dumb enough to think that women could survive more than a few days in a world without men. But today our universities are full of women who believe such nonsense. They really are completely unaware of how the world actually works.

Of course if you’re a feminist today such mind-boggling ignorance is not enough. You also have to believe that a man wearing a frock is just as much of a woman as any actual woman, and is entitled to all the privileges that go along with being female.

Is it stupidity or craziness? Like I said earlier, it’s difficult to tell. Maybe a bit of both.

I suspect that most older feminists don’t believe this kind of silliness. They believe some of it, but not all of it. At the very least, they have some serious doubts about the magical power of a frock to transform a man into a woman. They don’t say anything because they’re afraid to. The younger feminists really do seem to believe the whole insane package. If they’re college-educated they believe it, without any doubts at all.

The obvious conclusion is that universities make people dumber. Much dumber. They’re not the only factor making people dumber, but there’s a certain level of stupidity mixed with insanity that can only be attained through a university education.

All this is worrying enough, but even people who don’t identify as feminists are inclined to believe this kind of madness. Such beliefs are common among the sad pathetic creatures known as male feminists.

The interesting and amusing thing is that while the world would collapse with terrifying rapidity without men, if you somehow removed all the feminists from the world civilisation would suffer no adverse effects at all. The contribution of feminists to civilisation is zero. The contribution of male feminists to civilisation is less than zero.

Wednesday, December 6, 2017

Christianity and capitalism

Of all the enemies that have combined to bring about the downfall of Christianity in the West none has been more deadly or more relentless than capitalism. The fact is that it is impossible to imagine two systems more completely incompatible than Christianity and capitalism.

Capitalism is the most thoroughly materialistic ideology that can be conceived of. Capitalism is interested only in things that can be objectively measured, and in the capitalist system there is only one standard of measurement - money. More money is good. Less money is bad. This standard applies to people as well as things. A person’s success in life is measured by how much money he has. Nothing else is relevant.

The incompatibility between Christianity and capitalism should have been obvious from the start. And it was obvious to some Christians. Unfortunately most Christians chose to shut their eyes to the contradictions. Even worse, many American Christians convinced themselves that capitalism was Christian. This is why American Christianity has failed so spectacularly. American Christians have embraced an ideology that was always inevitably going to destroy them.

There is no room for morality in capitalism. You can’t measure morality in monetary terms so therefore morality has no validity. More seriously, morality interferes with profits. Profits are good. Therefore morality is bad.

The big mistake Christians (especially in the US) made in the culture wars was to think that they could fight moral issues as individual battles. They focused on specific attacks on Christian morality, such as abortion and homosexuality. They were certainly correct in seeing abortion and homosexuality as evils, but they failed to see the big picture. They failed to see that they weren’t dealing with isolated attacks on Christian sexual morality. They were dealing with a system, capitalism, that was hostile to all Christian morality and all Christian values. And they were dealing with a system that was not going to compromise. This became (or should have become) clear with the emergence of globalist capitalism. The globalist capitalists intended to remove every obstacle in their path.

A major potential obstacle was Christianity. The idea that money is the measure of the good was obviously in pretty serious conflict with Christian teachings. The idea that the only motivations anyone should have were the accumulation and spending of money was not exactly in harmony with Christianity.

Global capitalists today are intensely hostile to Christianity but even without this overt hostility capitalism would still have the effect of undermining and eventually destroying Christianity. It’s simply in the nature of capitalism.

American Christians made another catastrophic mistake. Back in the 50s they convinced themselves that the real enemy was communism. They became obsessed with the communist threat. This led them to a tragically mistaken conclusion. Since communism was bad, capitalism must be good. Since communism was ungodly, capitalism must be godly.

Communism was a threat, but it was never anywhere near as serious a threat as capitalism.

Christianity can survive under communism. Communists might not approve of Christianity but they have no absolute need to destroy it. It’s not really particularly incompatible with communism. On the other hand Christianity cannot survive under capitalism.

Unfortunately Christians have made yet another strategic error, getting distracted by the social justice nonsense. Again they’re wasting their energies and failing to see the big picture. They’re putting themselves in a no-win situation. If they oppose the SJWs they’ll be painted by the media as nasty meanies. If they support the SJWs they’ll simply look weak and pathetic, and showing weakness to SJWs is a fatal mistake. Christians should focus on the real enemy, the globalist capitalists. Defeat them and the social justice nonsense will simply evaporate.

Monday, December 4, 2017

can liberalism ever be stopped?

In a reply to my previous post, Accepting the consequences of the red pill, бармаглот makes a quite valid point:

"The question is, why care so much about the names? I believe as long as the system is alright, it doesn't matter whether it can be considered liberal or conservative. Edwardian Britain, the US before 1950s, First Czechoslovak Republic, Poland, Hungary, and Romania of the 1920s and 1930s, pre-WWII Yugoslavia, France, Austria, and Italy, the Russian Empire between 1906 and 1914 - who cares whether these systems were liberal or conservative as long as they're, well, not too bad (but not perfect by all means)?"

This is a valid point. And I agree that the societies listed above were all quite civilised. If those societies had stayed as they were then everything would have been fine.

The problem is that liberalism (in the form of both liberal institutions and liberal ideas) is a kind of self-destruct mechanism. Liberalism is not static. A conservative (an actual conservative) would look at any of those societies and think this is pretty good, what we need to do is to make sure it stays that way. We need to be incredibly reluctant to change anything. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

A liberal on the other hand would look at such societies and exclaim, “We have so much work still to do.” And would immediately start demanding change. A good society is not enough. It has to be made perfect. Their efforts to achieve perfection always end in destruction.

Liberalism therefore creates ever-increasing instability.

Liberal institutions and beliefs are by their very nature sources of instability and social decay. Representative democracy is inherently corrupt. It’s political prostitution. And it always tends to ever-greater corruption and cynicism. Liberal scepticism will always lead to despair and nihilism. Liberal tolerance always leads to degeneracy. The mild forms of feminism that existed in those societies ends with the toxic feminism we have now.

And the dishonesty of liberals posing as conservatives fools voters into thinking they're voting for stability when they're actually voting for the opposite.

I guess the big question is whether there is anything to stop a liberal society from destroying itself? Was there ever a point at which the march of liberalism could have been halted? Is liberalism unstoppable once it gets going?

I do have a suspicion that it was the Second World War that changed everything. Prior to that our civilisation had not quite developed a full-blown death wish. After that war it seems like it was just downhill all the way. There was a complete loss of civilisational confidence. Taken in conjunction with the First World War there was also the total discrediting of the established order and established authority. It became very easy to sell people on the need for drastic change, sweeping reforms, a major assault on injustices and oppressions. Everything old became bad, because it was supposedly the old ways of doing things that had led to disaster.

Of course it’s questionable whether WW2 could have been avoided. It’s possible that the First World War made the second inevitable.

The world wars may well have caused conservatives to lose faith in conservatism. They started to speak the language of change and reform as well. Whatever actual conservative principles they may have had were abandoned.

The trouble is that once our civilisational confidence and our belief in any kind of traditions was shaken the process seems to have built up an unstoppable momentum. Our obsession with trashing the past becomes ever more extreme. Liberalism hasn’t merely continued on its course, it has steadily accelerated.

Sunday, December 3, 2017

accepting the consequences of the red pill

Being red-pilled is a disturbing experience. In some ways the most disturbing moment is when you realiser that all the traditional conservative values and beliefs that mainstream conservative political parties and pundits and think tanks have been trying to sell you are actually not the least bit conservative or traditional. They are liberal beliefs and values. The very values and beliefs that have destroyed our civilisation.

I’m not suggesting that political conservatism has been infiltrated by liberal ideas. I’m saying that political conservatism has been entirely and thoroughly liberal right from the start.

There is really no such thing as political conservatism.

This is disturbing because when you’re a liberal or a leftist who has lost faith in those ideologies your natural first impulse is to drift towards political conservatism. It comes as a shock when you discover that political conservatism is just liberalism under another name.

Once you do make this discovery your next natural impulse is to drift towards the strange archipelago of the alt-right and all the other weird and wonderful alt movements. The problem is that many if not most are still liberals at heart. They have internalised a great deal of the liberal propaganda. There are always the neo-reactionaries of course, some of whom are quite sound.

The intellectual class has been solidly liberal since the Enlightenment, even before liberalism had been given a name. The only real challenge to liberalism among the intellectual class has been Marxism. Marxism enjoyed great success among intellectuals from the 1930s up to the 1970s. Most of the Marxist intellectuals have now died off and sadly most of the survivors have sold out to liberalism. Intellectuals understand very few things but there is one thing they understand very clearly - they know which side their bread is buttered.

The ruling political class has been liberal since the early 19th century. That’s the secret to understanding the cuckservative mindset. Cucks are not weak or silly. They haven’t betrayed their conservative principles. They never had any conservative principles to start with. They are, and always have been, liberals. They push the liberal agenda because it’s their agenda.

If you want to find actual traditional values and beliefs you have to go back to pre-Enlightenment days.

This argument also applies to a lesser extent to social conservatism. Most self-described social conservatives are essentially liberal in outlook. Many if not most do not even realise the degree to which they have accepted core elements of the liberal agenda. It applies very strong to socially conservative Christians. These people want a softer milder version of liberalism. The Christians want a moderate liberalism that will tolerate Christianity. They can’t comprehend the fact that there’s no such thing as moderate liberalism. And there’s no such thing as a liberalism that will tolerate Christianity.

The Enlightenment was an anti-Christian movement. The driving force was a virulent hatred of Christianity. All the offspring of the Enlightenment, including especially liberalism, share this anti-Christian hostility.

The difficulty of course lies in persuading people to accept the full consequences of the red pill.

Wednesday, November 29, 2017

sex, feminism and liberalism, part two

Part one can be found here.

Female sexuality is an absolute nightmare for feminism. It all but tore feminism apart during the feminist sex wars. The feminists who started spouting their slogans about all men being rapists, all sex being rape, about pornography being exploitation of women, about the wickedness of awful things like BDSM (bondage dominance and sado-masochism) that the patriarchy imposes on women. They naturally expected their pronouncements to be met by a chorus of praise from women.

Much to their horror many women, even fully paid up members of the feminist sisterhood, violently disagreed with them. These women objected that they actually liked having sex with men, many of them had no real issue with pornography (some of them enjoyed pornography). Even worse, it transpired that there were women who were happily engaging in consensual BDSM sex (even more embarrassing was the revelation that BDSM was incredibly popular among lesbians).

The stage was set for the bitter long drawn out war between the anti-sex feminists and the sex-positive feminists. It ended with a virtually complete victory for the sex-positive feminists.

This might sound like a happy ending. The anti-sex feminists like Andrea Dworkin were a crazy miserable lot and totally out of touch with the reality of female sexuality. Unfortunately we’re talking about feminists here so it goes without saying that there was and is lots of craziness on both sides. The sex-positive feminists can be pretty loony as well, and they’re the ones who’ve been supportive of much of the trans madness.

And being feminists even the sex-positive feminists tend to be control freaks. It’s not enough for them to be tolerant of outright perversions - they have to force everybody else to celebrate those perversions.

The problem of female sexuality remains unresolved for feminism. One problem is that for most women sex means sex with a man. The danger in that is that the man might enjoy it. Feminism can just about deal (with certain very stringent limitations) with the idea of a woman enjoying sex, but a man enjoying sex is definitely problematical.

Much more problematical is the feminine desire for dominant men. The reality is that lots of women actually enjoy feeling dominated, at least to a limited degree, in the bedroom. And some women take that desire to its logical conclusion and enjoy sexual practices that feminist theory simply cannot cope with. Feminist theory tells feminists that all that nasty stuff used to be forced on unwilling women by the patriarchy. There’s no room in feminist theory for women who think that the beastliness and aggressiveness of male sexuality is incredibly exciting and they want it. And feminists cannot abandon their theories - that would be terrifying.

Pornography was the main battlefield of the feminist sex wars. The total victory of the sex-positive feminists has to a large extent ended the debate on pornography. There are still Christians who are opposed to pornography but no-one listens to them.

One other thing that needs to be remembered is that male sexuality as it exists could not have survived the process of evolution unless it had a great deal of appeal to women. Sexual selection is a very potent evolutionary force. And female sexuality as it exists could not have survived unless it had a great deal of appeal to men.

An essential tenet of both feminism and liberalism is that men and women are basically interchangeable. Sex presents them with an enormous problem. No matter what they do they can’t eradicate the profound differences between male and female sexuality, and no matter what they do neither male nor female sexuality will conform to good liberal principles. Women will continue to want strong masculine men and men will continue to want pretty feminine women.