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.

Advertisements

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.

sex, feminism and liberalism, part one

There’s an extremely good post over at Oz Conservative, Accepting our monstrosity?

Canadian writer Stephen Marche, clearly a whiny male feminist, is aghast at the reality of male sexuality. Nothing unusual about that. Anything pertaining to reality always surprises liberals. But rather than merely mocking and laughing Mark carefully unpicks Marche’s babblings and in the process makes some very good points. And he demonstrates that Marche, in his own way, has uncovered some unpleasant truths. Being a liberal Marche naturally cannot deal with these truths or accept any of the conclusions they might lead to.

Marche is very upset over the brutality of male sexuality. Being a good male feminist he is ashamed of being male. Men are so beastly!

Mark quite rightly makes the point that

“there is an element in sex of men as the active and aggressive part and women as the responsive and receptive part.”

This is true, and of course it’s obvious to anyone with experience of the real world.

But the thing that really really upsets liberals, the thing they really will not face, is that on the whole women want sex to be this way. They like it. The big problem for liberals is female sexuality. Female sexuality just doesn’t work the way liberals want it to work. Amazingly enough most women are nauseated by the idea of having sex with whiny male feminists. They want to have sex with virile masculine men. No matter how virulently and enthusiastically they espouse feminist principles, no matter how bitter and angry they might be towards men, when it comes to the nitty gritty it is to a very large extent those beastly brutal masculine men who get women sexually aroused.

Women might like nice guys, but that doesn’t mean they want to sleep with those nice guys. Women might in an intellectual sense strongly disapprove of bad boys but they still get sexually excited by them and they still sleep with them.

None of this is surprising. Our survival as a species depended on having effective mating strategies. Women being attracted to the strongest most aggressive members of the tribe was a very effective mating strategy. Those were the men who could, if necessary, defend them. Men being attracted to the prettiest and most feminine females was an equally effective mating strategy. They were the females most likely to be fertile and most likely to be capable of successfully raising offspring.

The unpleasant truths (unpleasant for liberals and feminists) are that it’s perfectly normal and perfectly healthy for men to be masculine, that masculinity does indeed contain an element of aggressiveness, and that the aggressive element in masculinity is part of male sexuality. The other unpleasant truth is that it’s perfectly normal and perfectly healthy for women to respond sexually to this.

Liberals and feminists have now created a world in which the expression of masculinity has been all but outlawed. What this means in practice is that normal healthy masculinity has been repressed, so women in search of masculinity go looking for any kind of masculinity they can find. They usually find it in the sort of men who are obviously men they should have nothing to do with but the women can’t help themselves. Fundamental biological urges cannot be denied.

part two will follow

conservative delusions – the War of the Cradle

Conservatives like to think that liberals live in a world of fantasy and theory while conservatives are hard-headed realists. Unfortunately that’s only partly true. Conservatives cling to all sorts of delusions. One of the most persistent is the War of the Cradle delusion.

The idea is that conservatives must triumph in the end because they have more children than leftists. A variation is that Christianity must triumph because Christians have more children than atheists.

Unfortunately there’s a huge flaw in this argument. Liberals don’t need to have children. They know they’re going to get the children of conservatives and Christians. Conservatives and Christians still don’t really get this. Once their kids go to school they’re lost. You might delay things by home-schooling but not every conservative and/or Christian home schools. It doesn’t matter anyay, because once their kids to to university, even if they’ve been home-schooled, they’re lost. They’ll turn into blue-haired freaks screetching about social justice. And no matter what you do, if your kids are exposed to mass media and/or social media you’re going to lose them.

It’s no good thinking you can get around the problem by sending your children to a Christian school, or a Christian college. Many of these are worse than state schools, and even more infected by social justice ideology.

Let’s say that for every fifty children born to liberal parents there are a hundred born to conservative and/or Christian parents. Of those hundred children liberals only to need capture thirty. If they do that then out of the total of 150 children born 80 will end up as liberals and liberals will continue to win the numbers game. In reality they’re more likely to capture more than 30 of the hundred kids, so the liberals end up even further ahead.

That’s how liberals reproduce. It’s a very effective reproductive strategy. It’s why they’re winning.

Of course homosexuals reproduce in the same manner, which is one of the reasons why they’re so extraordinarily interested in children and the education system. You’d think that the education system would be of no interest to people who can’t have children but you’d be wrong. They’re very interested indeed. The schools are where the next generation of homosexuals will come from.

Conservatives and Christians surrendered control of the schools and universities to liberals at least half a century ago. That’s when the Culture War was lost.

intellectuals and their delusions

One of the most amusing thing about intellectuals who identify as being on the Left is their sense of their own importance combined with a startling degree of naïvete and outright delusion. They are all convinced that once the Glorious Socialist Revolution is achieved that they will be leaders or, at the very least, high-ranking commissars.

In fact of course as far as the people pulling the strings are concerned intellectuals are disposable. They have their uses in creating the instability that makes revolution possible but once a revolution actually succeeds those intellectuals become not merely useless but a positive embarrassment.

The problem is that once a revolution succeeds instability is no longer a desirable thing. The aim of all revolutionaries is power. Achieving power, and then maintaining it. The last thing they want once they have power is people who create instability. Once the revolution succeeds the intellectuals are most likely to be the first people lined up against a wall and shot.

Back in the 1930s effete western intellectuals were hopelessly in love with communism. They looked forward eagerly to the coming of communist revolutions in the West. Their admiration of the Soviet Union was embarrassingly adolescent. What they failed to understand was that if they had been in the Soviet Union during the 30s the best fate they could have hoped for was to be sent to a labour camp. Far from being welcomed as leaders these intellectuals would have found themselves cowering in cells in the Lubyanka, begging for their lives, followed shortly thereafter by an appearance at a show trial in which they would have been making grovelling apologies for counter-revolutionary crimes and facing the prospect of a bullet in the back of the head as a reward for their loyalty to the revolution.

What intellectuals always fail to understand is that actual revolutionaries, or at least the successful ones, are hard-headed practical and unsentimental. Successful revolutionaries recognise that intellectuals are a menace. Successful revolutionaries are concerned with power, not ideology.

The globalist elites are no different. Once their aims have been achieved they will have no further use for the hordes of worthless academics with professorships in gender studies. At the moment the globalist elites want instability, but they want instability as a means to an end. Once their power has been established beyond question then instability will no longer be a desirable thing. That’s when the purges will begin, and those being purged will be professors of gender studies and other similarly worthless academics. Those further down the food chain, the armies of paid activists and agitators, will be seen as not just expendable but dangerous. A potential threat that must be liquidated.

The most extraordinary thing about intellectuals is their complete incapacity for learning from experience. Reality always surprises them because reality plays no part whatever in their theories. They never learn, and they never will learn.

the case for Christian Wahhabism

You might think that for an atheist I’m a bit obsessed with Christianity. And you’re probably right. The thing is I really do believe that secularism is a dead end. I believe that the greatest enemy that the West has ever faced is liberalism and I don’t see any way to fight liberalism by purely secular means.

The only secular alternatives to liberalism that ever seemed viable were communism and fascism. They weren’t terribly pleasant and they certainly don’t look viable any longer.

The only way to combat liberalism is, I believe, some kind of religion. There are several alternatives but most seem very unpromising, or unpalatable, or both. The least unpalatable alternative would be a revival of Christianity. The question is, is such a revival possible?

It’s instructive to take a look at the history of Islam over the past hundred years. A hundred years ago nobody took Islam seriously. The Ottoman Empire seemed to be tottering towards destruction and the universal view in Europe was that quite naturally the European great powers would carve up the corpse of that empire between them. The idea of Muslims putting up any kind of resistance seemed too fantastic even to consider. And in fact when the Ottoman Empire did collapse most of it was carved up by the great powers. The European powers pursued a policy towards the Middle East that was cynical, hypocritical, vicious, short-sighted and foolish. After the Second World War the Americans naturally assumed that the Middle East would be within their sphere of influence, and they proceeded to pursue policies that were even more cynical, hypocritical, vicious, short-sighted and foolish.

Much to the surprise of the great powers there was a reaction within the Islamic world. In fact there were two responses. One was the growth of Arab nationalism, but the Americans were determined to put a stop to that. The other response was the explosive growth of a new kind of Islam – the kind of militant radical Islam with which we are now familiar. This didn’t really exist to any great extent a hundred years ago. Wahhabism existed but was confined almost entirely to what is now Saudi Arabia. The spectacular growth of movements like the Muslim Brotherhood and Wahhabism was a response to what many Muslims saw as an existential threat.

There’s no question that the West in the 21st century faces an existential threat at least as serious as that facing Islam in the 20th century. Christianity as it currently exists is not going to be any help. In fact mainstream organised Christianity is part of the problem, not part of the solution. It is merely secular liberalism with a feelgood gloss. It’s a more emotional, more effeminate, secular liberalism.

Of course I am aware that Not All Christians Are Like That. Of course there is still a very small minority who still follow the teachings of actual Christianity, and a small number of Christians who are still prepared to fight for their faith. However the sad truth is that most of the people who currently identify as Christians are secular liberals, and globalist SJWs.

If Christianity is to play a part in defending the West it will have to reinvent itself the way Islam did. It is significant that Wahhabism started as a movement to purge Islam of what were considered to be un-Islamic innovations. A viable Christian revivalism requires a similarly ruthless purging of non-Christian innovations, and that means it must be purged of liberalism. Purged thoroughly and completely. No compromise is possible with liberalism. No compromise at all. A pre-Enlightenment Christianity is what is needed. I do not believe that any existing mainstream Christian church can be reformed sufficiently to be able to play a useful role. A new Christianity will have to be built, from scratch. The existing churches need to be consigned to the scrap heap. They are too thoroughly infested with liberal ideas to be saved.

The new Christianity will need to be a radical militant Christianity, somewhat on the lines of radical militant Islam. Many Christians (and many on the right) are not going to like the idea of learning from Islam. They are also going to be reluctant to abandon many of their cherished liberal ideals, ideals that they often do not recognise as the liberal poison that they are (I enumerated many of these ideals in a previous post on conservatives and Christians defending liberal ideals).

The struggle against liberalism is a war, and it’s a war to the death. It’s about time we accepted that reality. A Christian wahhabism may be our one slim chance of survival.

urbanisation, decadence and western decline

An overlooked factor in the decline of the West over the past two hundred years is urbanisation.

Urbanisation lowers inhibitions. You can get away with degenerate behaviour that you could never get away with in a small rural community. The anonymity of urban life makes it easy to abandon all the time-honoured rules of decorum. Adultery and other sexual misconduct will earn social disapproval in a small town or village. In a city no-one will care.

And no matter how esoteric your perversion might be you’ll find someone in a big city with whom to share it.

Now of course we have the internet, and social media, so urban degeneracy is available to everyone. The entire world is now effectively urbanised.

City life is remote from unpleasant realities. In a rural community it’s difficult to avoid manual work, and a good deal of rural work is dangerous. In the city it’s easy to avoid getting your hands dirty.

Cities turn men into soy boys. The lowering of inhibitions turns women into sluts.

The more urbanised a society is the more decadent it will become. It’s no coincidence that we’re approaching peak decadence at the same time that we’re approaching peak urbanisation.