the law exists for the purpose of social control

One positive thing that might emerge from the recent events in Charlottesville is a realisation by those on the dissident right that the police are not only not our allies, they cannot even be relied upon to be neutral. They are firmly in the enemy camp.

The truth, which mainstream conservatives have never been able to accept, is that the law exists for the purpose of social control. The police and the courts do not exist in order to serve justice. They are there to preserve the existing social order. Conservatives live in a fantasy land in which law and order is a conservative value. It isn’t. The law serves the existing social order, whatever that might be. Policemen and judges are not inherently conservative. No communist regime has ever had a problem recruiting police and judges loyal to the regime.

And the existing social order today is firmly and unequivocally liberal. Liberals are the establishment. Liberals like to pretend that they are the brave rebels battling the evil conservative establishment but nothing could be further from the truth.

Policemen and judges also have a very strong loyalty to those who pay their salaries and their pensions. They are therefore instinctively and fanatically loyal to the government. Whatever their personal views might be they know who pays their salaries.

And the police and the courts are now ideologically committed to the liberal establishment as well. Conservatives need to abandon their delusion that the average cop is sympathetic to conservative values. Liberals have not only captured the bureaucracy, the media, academia and the schools they have also captured the police. The average cop actually believes that the alt-right is made up of dangerous violent Nazis. They have been indoctrinated to believe this and they are no more immune to propaganda than anyone else. They see us as the enemy.

The law has always existed in order to protect the interests of those in power. The law is there to protect the government, not to protect ordinary people. It has always been this way.

It might also be time to abandon any fantasies we might have about the military being made up of natural conservatives, but that’s possibly a subject for a future post.

the social function of the church

Churches in the modern world are irrelevant. They’re just social clubs. They perform no useful social function. They exist in order to provide a warm fuzzy feeling of self-righteousness and niceness. 
This might seem paradoxical since churches today appear to be obsessively concerned with their social rôle. This is an illusion. They are serving the liberal agenda, not a Christian agenda. They are merely acting as another propaganda arm of the state. They are serving the state and the corporate interests that control our society. They do not promote Christian values. They promote the values that the state and the corporate interests wish to impose on us. They have abdicated their actual social rôle.
Churches are not guided by scripture or by their own teachings. They are guided by opinion polls and by the media. They have become political entities (it’s a major feature of our society that every aspect of life is politicised). The churches do not lead. They follow. They follow the power and the money. 
They decided back in the mid-20th century that they needed to become more relevant. In fact they’ve become entirely irrelevant. They’re not much more than a branch of the entertainment industry. They sell good feelings.
The churches have abandoned actual religion and they have abdicated their function of providing a moral framework by which to live. They promote whatever values happen to be popular, which are of course the values of the state and corporate interests.
Christianity has become a purely personal thing. The churches have forgotten that they have a rôle to play in promoting an actual Christian society. If a religion does not provide a moral framework by which to live then it’s difficult to see what purpose it does serve, other than making people feel smug and self-righteous.

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Helvetica; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000; min-height: 13.0px} p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Helvetica; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000} span.s1 {font-kerning: none}

There are still Christians who desire to follow Christianity as an actual religion but there is no place for such people within modern institutional Christianity.

freedom of speech and ideological warfare

Those with conservative leanings (and especially those with cuckservative leanings) put great store in freedom of speech. The trouble with this is that it’s essentially a defensive strategy. It means accepting the liberal paradigm, and then begging for permission to express the occasional dissenting viewpoint. It’s tantamount to asking to be allowed to argue for minor adjustments to a system that is corrupt to the core.
What we’re seeing is a clash of ideologies. It’s an ideological war to the death.
We need to forget freedom of speech and other liberal fetishes, all of which are basically misguided Enlightenment nonsense. We need to attack the entire structure of liberalism. The objective should not be freedom of speech, which is merely the right to write indignant letters to The Times. The objective should be to replace the entire liberal paradigm.
Conservatives like to argue that a healthy democracy depends on tolerance of noxious opinions. This is nonsense. For half a century we have tolerated noxious viewpoints such as feminism, the absurd notion that homosexuality is natural and healthy and the even more ludicrous notion that “gender” is a social construct (in fact gender is merely a grammatical term – people don’t have gender). We have tolerated these poisonous views and they have destroyed our civilisation. Societies that tolerate noxious viewpoints are doomed societies.
The truth is not a matter of opinion. It’s not like expressing a preference for French food in preference to Italian food. That there are profound differences between men and women is not an opinion. It is a fact. That homosexuality is unnatural and unhealthy is not an opinion. It is a fact. That biological sex is unchangeable is not a matter of opinion. It is reality.

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Helvetica; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000} p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Helvetica; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000; min-height: 13.0px} span.s1 {font-kerning: none}

Freedom of speech is and always will be a recipe for chaos and societal breakdown. It’s a refuge for those who don’t have sufficient confidence in the truth, and for those who don’t understand the nature of ideological warfare.

why feminism is fundamentally wrong

In the light of the discussion that my previous post, the myth of moderate feminism, kicked off I feel I should clarify my views on feminism.
Feminism is not like political ideologies such as communism or fascism or even liberalism, all of which are based on ideas that have some merit. Those ideologies do not work in practice but they are not inherently unreasonable. It is possible to engage with such ideologies on rational grounds. Feminism is not like that.
Feminism is based on ideas that are entirely false, mistaken and inherently unworkable and unreasonable. Thinking that it’s possible to engage with feminism in a rational manner is like thinking that it’s possible to engage in a rational manner with Flat Earthers.
Feminism is based on a belief that the differences between men and women are so insignificant that they can, and should, be made to disappear. This is entirely false. The differences between men and women are fundamental and profound. Men and women do not see the world the same way. Male intelligence and female intelligence are different. The emotional differences between the sexes are profound. Women are ruled by their emotions to a much greater degree than men. These are not weaknesses. If men and women stick to their traditional sex roles these differences are assets, not liabilities. 
Men and women differ in their experience of sex and their approach to sex. Men can to a large degree separate sex from emotion. Women in general cannot. For a man a one night stand is about sex. For a woman it is not purely about sex. 
The demands that feminists originally made sounded reasonable, but they were not reasonable because they were based on a complete misunderstanding of both men and women. The demand for equal pay was absurd. Women do not do the same work as men. This is partly because there are jobs that are suitable for men and other jobs that are suitable for women, and women have no desire to do many of the highly paid jobs that men do. Many of these jobs are highly paid because they are dangerous and unpleasant. Women do not want to do jobs that are dangerous and unpleasant.
Women should not receive the same pay as men because it is the duty of men to provide for their wives and children. A man needs to be paid enough to enable him to support a family. This is not the role of women.
Feminist wanted women to have equal access to higher education. Higher education is very expensive and it is not efficient to spend a fortune educating a woman for a profession that she will most probably practise on a part-time basis and with lengthy gaps for child-rearing. Women in general do not require expensive higher education.
A woman’s role is mainly to be a wife and mother. Feminists have managed to devalue these roles, which has been tragic for women.
The feminist demand for an end to the sexual “double standard” was equally wrong-headed. The double standard was there to protect women. Women face more serious consequences from living a promiscuous lifestyle. The idea that those consequences cannot be evaded by means of contraception and abortion is false – the contraceptive pill has severe health consequences and abortion has serious emotional consequences. Promiscuity is harmful for both men and women, but it is more harmful to women. The sexual double standard was simply a recognition of reality.
Feminism is also based on a deep hostility to femaleness. Feminists worship masculinity. They believe that women are worthless unless they turn themselves into pretend men.
Traditional sex roles existed because everyone used to understand that men and women were different. The things that make men happy are not the things that make women happy.
Feminism is an ideology that is based entirely on false premises. There is nothing reasonable about it. It’s wrong all the way through. It’s wrong for women. It has made women angry, dissatisfied and miserable. It needs to be rejected in its entirety.

the myth of moderate feminism

Some interesting feminism-related stuff on the web at the moment. Much of it concerns Jeanette Kupferman, a radical feminist in the 1960s and now a woman in her 70s. She’s now a grandmother and wondering if the world feminism has created is really going to be good for her granddaughter. 
Her doubts on this subject prompted these questions at The Knight and Drummer – Can a feminist be redeemed? Can a feminist  eventually turn out to be a good woman after all?
Reading what Kupferman has to say, I think we can answer those questions in the negative. 
The story has also been noted at Oz Conservative where it’s been pointed out that Kupferman still clings tenaciously to her core liberal and feminist beliefs. 
A feminist cannot be redeemed unless she is prepared to abandon feminism in its entirety. The truth is that there is no such thing as a moderate feminist, or a reasonable moderate feminist. Feminism is based on a fundamentally mistaken view of human nature. It’s wrong right from the get-go. There’s no way to do what Kupferman would like to do, to salvage the good bits of feminism. What she sees as the good bits are actually the very things that make it an unworkable and catastrophic ideology.
Also of interest in this context is this piece by Roosh V, Why The Female “Anti-Feminist” Is A Feminist In Disguise, in which he warns that women who claim to be anti-feminist should not be taken at face value.
I also read Dalrock’s blog fairly regularly. The comments are interesting as they provide a window into what really goes on inside mainstream American Protestant churches. The extent of the surrender to feminism is terrifying. The churches have made the classic mistake – they have assumed that with feminists they’re dealing with reasonable people. They have deluded themselves into thinking that there can be such a thing as a Christian feminist. It’s nonsense. You cannot be a Christian and a feminist. It simply isn’t possible. Women who claim to be Christian feminists are certainly feminists but they aren’t Christians.

Moderate feminists, like moderate liberals, are extremely dangerous because they can easily fool naïve conservatives into believing that feminists are capable of being reasoned with.
So can a feminist be redeemed? Yes, if she is prepared to admit that feminism is thoroughly and completely wrong from start to finish and if she is prepared to reject feminism totally and completely. Very very few feminists will do this. 
Can a feminist  eventually turn out to be a good woman after all? No, not so long as she clings to any part of the feminist ideology.

freedom – a good thing or a bad thing?

Everybody seems to agree that freedom is a very fine thing. “Conservatives” love talking about it. Libertarians get terribly excited by the idea. But what exactly does freedom mean, and are we quite sure it’s always a good thing?
If freedom means being able to do whatever you want then it seems to me that the only people in our modern world who are completely free are the billionaires. They are not constrained by financial necessity, or by the government (they own the government) or by the law (they own the law). A billionaire can wake up in the morning knowing that he can do absolutely anything he chooses to do that day.
For most people waking up in the morning means having to go to work, more often than not to a job that they hate. If you’re a wage slave you don’t really have freedom.
Free marketeers think economic freedom solves everything. The free market is kind of like magic.
Libertarians think freedom is great, unless one person’s freedom infringes another person’s freedom. 
The problem is that libertarians, and most liberals, do not understand how society works. It’s all very well to say that everything should be permitted unless it directly harms someone else but that overlooks the fact that so much of the harm done is done indirectly. If homosexuality is celebrated and children are taught in school that being homosexual is fun and liberating and cool and absolutely healthy and natural then how exactly am I going to raise my kids in such a way that they will recognise the dangers of what is actually a profoundly unnatural and unhealthy lifestyle? If every TV show and every Hollywood movie as well as the schools pushes the message of feminism how can I protect my daughter from a poisonous ideology that would condemn her to a life of anger and misery?
Freedom isn’t straightforward and it isn’t always good. 
Do people even want freedom? Today every child is free to choose any one of fifty-seven gender identities. When I was a child there was no such thing as gender, except as a grammatical term. There were two sexes, male and female, and whichever one you were born into you might as well make the most of it because it couldn’t be changed. In this case freedom just leads to insecurity, confusion and unhappiness. Maybe people are better off without some freedoms.
Today everyone is free to choose to indulge in a wide variety of sexual perversions. Strangely enough those who choose such perversions don’t seem to be particularly happy. They have high suicide rates and high rates of alcohol and drug abuse. Perhaps this sort of freedom is not a good thing?
Of course we have political freedom and no-one doubts that that is a good thing. If we don’t like the way Tweedledee is governing us we can throw him out and put Tweedledum into office.
On the whole I’m pretty dubious as to whether people really want freedom. What people want, more than anything else, is to belong. In order to belong they want to conform. This is in fact perfectly natural. Traditional societies weren’t very big on freedom but they were very good at giving people a sense of belonging. Not just belonging to a nation state but to an ethnicity, to a regional community, to a local community, to a religion, to a family. It seems to be the case that the more freedom you have, the less sense of community you have. Freedom tends to weaken social bonds. The entire history of liberalism is based on the belief that freedom is more important than social cohesion. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. I’m inclined to think that freedom is a rather tricky thing. Sometimes it turns out to be an illusion. Sometimes it comes at a high price. 
Looking at our society today, maybe freedom really is just another word for nothing left to lose.

From Bauhaus to Our House

Tom Wolfe’s delightfully savage 1981 account of the rise of modern architecture, From Bauhaus to Our House, remains as relevant today as ever. Most of all it provides a fascinating insight into the bizarre and disturbing ways in which cultural elites work.

The roots of the horror that is modernist architecture go back to the early years of the 20th century, a time when the worlds of art, literature and music were all beginning to embrace the cult of modernism. In architecture things really got going when Walter Gropius founded the Bauhaus. 
Of course no-one actually wanted the bleak, depressing and ugly architecture promoted by the Bauhaus. The only clients these architects got were socialist governments wanting to build housing for the workers. The workers, naturally, were not asked how they felt about having to live in these architectural horrors.
Modernist architecture got its big break when suddenly these European architects, people like Gropius and Ludwig Mies Van Der Rohe, arrived in the United States as refugees in the 30s. As Wolfe puts out, they were welcomed like great white gods who had consented to come down to earth and dwell among mortals. American architectural schools were falling over themselves to employ these godlike beings and young American architects eagerly abandoned any thought of trying to create distinctively American architecture in favour of a slavish colonial devotion to whatever the Europeans told them was the latest thing.
The result of all this was the abomination that became known as the International Style. Boxes. Boxes of glass, steel and concrete. 
The Bauhaus had been a kind of arty compound, cut off from the real world. The emphasis, as with modernist painting, was on theory. It was not necessary for the Bauhaus architects to have the buildings they designed actually built. Buildings that only ever existed on paper were just as good as real buildings. This emphasis on theory was something they brought to America with them. Getting academic posts was what counted. Once the modernists dominated the schools they could ensure that the International Style became the only approved style. It was the new orthodoxy and it was to be enforced.
An exclusive focus on theory was of course the hallmark of modernism in every field.
The horrors of modernism are of course mostly avoidable but architecture is kind of hard to avoid. People could not be forced to enjoy modernist paintings or modernist music but they could be forced to live and work in the soul-destroying boxes of modernist architecture.
Having done a brilliantly effective hatchet job on the modernists Wolfe then turns his attention to the post-modernists and proceeds to savage them as well, and rightly so.
In politics there is no weapon quite so devastating as ridicule and Wolfe is the master when it comes to wielding that particular sword. He’s in top form here. From Bauhaus to Our House is a very very funny book. Not just amusing but laugh-out-loud funny. But it’s not just funny, it offers extremely perceptive and important insights into the ways in which political and cultural elites operate. Wolfe understood right from the start just how vital cultural and artistic battles are.