feminism – root cause or consequence?

Feminism is without a doubt the worst plague ever to afflict the human race but was feminism a root cause of the evils that followed or merely a consequence of other social changes?

By the time second wave feminism made its appearance in the 1960s a number of crucial social changes had already occurred. The first and the most disastrous (possibly the single most disastrous event in human history) was the introduction of the contraceptive pill in 1961. That irrevocably turned sex into a recreational activity rather than a part of the sacrament of marriage. It made sex all about short-term pleasure. From that point on traditional marriage was doomed.

While in theory divorce was still difficult in many places it was clear that there was a trend towards making it easier in practice. And from about the 1920s onwards divorce had gradually become more socially acceptable. Divorce means marriage being transformed from a sacred unbreakable bond into a short-term arrangement to be terminated when it becomes inconvenient.

Women moved into the workforce in increasing numbers in the first half of the 20th century. That was not necessarily a problem. Women had always worked. But work was something women did until they got married. By the 50s it was becoming more socially acceptable for married women to work. This was a very unfortunate trend.

Even more disastrous was the expansion of higher education for women after the Second World War. In fact the expansion of higher education in general was a calamity. A university education is something that only a small proportion of the population (maybe 5%) will benefit from. For most people it is actually a bad thing. For all but a very tiny handful of women it is a disaster.

And of course the 20th century saw a continuation of the decline of Christianity. Without religion there is no basis for morality. Without morality there is only power (for the elites) and pleasure (for the masses).

These changes did not come about as a result of second wave feminism. These changes preceded second wave feminism, and in fact were largely responsible for making that horror possible. By the time the feminists got going western society had already started to lose its way.

There was also the Sexual Revolution, which was mostly a result of the contraceptive pill. The Sexual Revolution was of course very bad for women. Sexual liberation does not work fir women. They’re not wired that way. It simply makes women self-hating and miserable and chronically emotionally dissatisfied.

Men made the mistake of thinking the Sexual Revolution was going to be great for them. It would mean lots more sex. In fact it meant lots more sex for a very small number of men.

This is a large part of the explanation for the failure of men to stop feminism in its tracks at a time when that was still possible. Men were inclined to think that feminism was like the Sexual Revolution – they would end up getting more sex. Mostly they didn’t get the extra sex and what they did get was an ongoing nightmare. By the time the realities became apparent it was too late.

Feminism was largely a symptom of a society entering the terminal stages of decadence. It appeared at the same time as other symptoms like the drug culture and the worship of homosexuality. Maybe feminism could have been stopped but it would have required a willingness to confront other much more basic societal failings.

paganism and morality

I’ve talked before about the importance of religion to a successful society and to speculation as to whether Christianity should be abandoned as a lost cause and some kind of alternative sought. I’ve also talked about the extreme difficulties such an option would face and the dubious chances of success.

There are those on the dissident right who see a revival of paganism as a viable alternative. For a whole series of reasons I think the idea is a complete non-starter. The one thing in its favour is that paganism lacks the universalism of Christianity. That universalism was at one time an asset but it’s now a serious weakness. Paganism is parochial rather than universalistic so it’s certainly has some appeal to those who want to promote nationalism.

To me it seems that the big problem with paganism is morality. Paganism is essentially ritual-based religion. What matters is that the rituals should be performed correctly. Whether an individual is virtuous or not, whether a society is virtuous is not, is pretty much unimportant. If the rituals are carried out in the correct manner then one’s obligation to the gods has been fulfilled.

That’s not to say that the pagans of the ancient world were oblivious to the importance of morality, but morality was more of a social obligation than a religious obligation. In that sense the pagan approach was very similar to our modern approach and to the modern secular religion of liberalism.

That’s a less than ideal basis for morality. There’s a definite danger that moral behaviour  will end up being whatever you manage to convince yourself it is or even worse, whatever you think you can get away with.

In pagan religions even the gods seem to approach the matter in this manner.

Paganism probably worked quite well for societies at a low level of civilisational advancement in which most people lived in small close-knit communities and social pressures were strong enough to maintain the social order. Once pagan societies started to reach a high civilisational level decadence seemed to set in disturbingly quickly and disturbingly completely. The Romans achieved levels of decadence that even we were unable to aspire to until the 20th century.

Which raises an interesting question. Is full-blown decadence something to which only pagan or completely secular societies are prone to? And it raises a related question – is decadence inevitable in a pagan or completely secular society?

culture war, to the death

It’s now obvious that the objective of the globalist/liberal/SJW elites is not to achieve complete political dominance. Their objectives go way beyond that. They are aiming at nothing less than the total destruction of all opposition. They are aiming at zero tolerance for dissent.

We can forget the idea of live and let live. We can forget the idea that once we have been stripped of every vestige of power and influence and completely humiliated and subjugated that we might at least be allowed to live our lives in peace in our own way. That is not going to happen. If you dissent in any way from the new orthodoxy, if you are a social conservative or a Christian or even an old-fashioned leftist who is critical of capitalism, if you a liberal who thinks things have gotten out of hand, if you question orthodoxy in any way you are marked for destruction. For our new masters it is not enough to defeat their political and ideological enemies. Those enemies must be entirely eliminated.

If you have some fantasy that as long as you keep your head down you will be able to live your life your own way or raise your children in your own way think again. It is not just open dissent that is forbidden. It is forbidden to have doubts. It is forbidden to have any reservations about political orthodoxy.

The culture war was lost because most people on the Right didn’t think it was worth fighting because they didn’t think it really mattered. They failed to recognise that as far as the globalist/liberal/SJWs were concerned the culture war was going to be a fight to the death.

It is simply not possible for Christians or for social conservatives to share a society with liberals. Maybe there was a time when some kind of compromise might have been possible. Personally I doubt it, but I admit the possibility. In any case there is no question that at this point in time there can be no compromise, no peace. Either we destroy them or they destroy us.

postcards from the end of civilisation

So the Girl Guides now allow boys pretending to be girls to join. And they allow adult men pretending to be omen to become leaders. And these men are allowed to share showers and tents with the girls.

So what happened when unit leader Helen Watts suggested that maybe this stuff wasn’t such a good idea? You know the answer already, don’t you? Yes of course. They sacked her.

But don’t worry. The Girl Guides are concerned with the safety of their girls. So they’ve taken steps to exclude dangerous people, like Christians.

You’ll also be pleased to know that Girl Guides can now get achievement badges in how to protest.

So remind me again why we should be trying to save western society?

believing in inherently incompatible concepts

We live in an irrational age. We live in an age in which people seem to have surprisingly little difficulty believing in concepts that are inherently incompatible. People manage to do this by deluding themselves. They refuse to see the obvious incompatibilities.

There are for example people who consider themselves to be socialists and yet they believe in open borders. This is sheer nonsense. Open borders is death to socialism. Socialism works as a closed system with a homogeneous population. That’s the only way it can work.

There are also people who think you can have closed borders and capitalism. They’re wrong.

Maybe you can have closed borders and a system that incorporates a degree of capitalism but it can only hope to survive in the long term if capitalism is under very very tight government control (something like the present Chinese system). But you certainly cannot have free markets and controlled borders. If you want free markets you’re going to get open borders. There is simply no way to restrain the greed of capitalists for cheap labour and ever-growing markets. If you claim to believe in free markets and immigration restriction then you’re either lying or you’re severely deluded.

This of course does not mean that if you want to avoid the catastrophe of open borders you have to become a socialist. It does mean that you have to abandon free market capitalism and global capitalism. There are other alternatives. The idea that there is a continuum from communism to free market capitalism and that you have to place yourself (and your nation) somewhere on that continuum is total nonsense.

There are also people who think you can have capitalism and religion. In the long run it just doesn’t work. Capitalism will always end up destroying religion. The logic of capitalism is that money is all that matters. Anything that interferes with that must be crushed. Socialism and religion have been very uneasy bedfellows but there is no inherent conflict between the two. Certainly there is no inherent conflict between socialism and Christianity.

We live not merely in an irrational age but in an age in which people seem to genuinely think that if you just believe hard enough then the impossible will become possible. Sadly the world doesn’t work that way.

can we survive Christianity?

A horrifying quote from a recent post at A Political Refugee From the Global Village.

The former bishop of Caserta, Raffaele Nogaro, said recently
“Morally and as a man of faith I would be willing to turn all churches into mosques if it were useful to the cause and if it helped to save the lives of poor and unhappy men and women, because Christ did not come to earth to build churches but to help men regardless of race, religion, or nationality.”

We already knew that most of the leaders of most of the established Christian churches have abandoned Christianity in favour of secular liberalism but this quote is interesting since the bishop doesn’t even bother to try to hide the truth.

We have to ask ourselves, can our civilisation survive Christianity as it is now?

religion and politics don’t need to make sense

In my previous post I made the point that conservatives see politics as something that is open to debate while liberals see their own political beliefs as religious dogma that is not subject to debate. This is of course hardly original or startling although there are still conservatives who have failed to notice such an obvious fact.

There is something much more interesting that follows from this. Religion does not need to make sense. It is a matter of faith. You do not enter into debate on the subject. Rational argument is irrelevant to religious belief. It naturally follows that the same rule applies to any political ideology that functions as a substitute religion. Debate cannot be permitted.

What must be understood is that it’s not that liberals are unwilling to enter into political debate. They cannot do so. To do so would be to admit that their faith is subject to doubt. It would mean admitting that heretics might be right and the orthodox might be wrong.

The history of the decline of Christianity in the West provides compelling evidence that liberals are, from their point of view, quite correct in rejecting the possibility of discussion. They have a faith and they are satisfied with it. It gives them a reason to live, it gives them a feeling of moral superiority and it gives them a warm fuzzy emotional buzz. From their point of view their political religion works perfectly. The fact that it might make no sense at all and that it might all collapse like a house of cards if subjected to rational argument does not matter because they have no intention of allowing that to happen.

Conservatives just don’t get this. They still insist on assuming that politics is something that can be discussed and debated rationally. They still insist on thinking that political ideologies have to be logical and have to make sense.

This is why conservatism has failed. They can come up with impressive rational arguments in favour of their own economic and social policies but people don’t respond to rational arguments. People don’t decide how to vote based on rational arguments. They make such decisions based on emotions. If voting for a particular party makes them feel morally superior they will do so. If voting for a particular party gives them an emotional rush they will do so.

People do not vote based on a rational assessment of their own interests. There is nothing remotely rational about voting behaviour.

People do not choose their political beliefs by weighing up evidence. They choose the political beliefs that will make them feel good.

People need to feel that their lives have meaning. Choosing a political belief that is emotionally satisfying and that feels morally right helps to give a person the feeling that their life does have meaning and purpose.

Liberalism can only de fought and defeated by an opposing ideology that works the same way – an ideology that appeals to the emotions, that makes a person feel that they are fighting for something good and worthwhile, that feels morally right and that gives meaning to the life of those who believe in it.

looking to the past, but which past?

Traditionalists and social conservatives have a very natural tendency to look to the past. Gaining inspiration from the past is quite healthy.

The problem, when you’re faced with a civilisation like ours that is bent on self-destruction, is deciding exactly which past we should be looking to. Some pasts may be useful to us in trying to rebuild civilisation whilst other pasts are not so useful. We need to regard the past with a critical eye.

Take nationalism for example. Since the great evil of our age is globalism it’s tempting to think that the antidote must be nationalism. Nationalism in fact is not all that traditionalist. It’s a fairly modern concept. It did not exist before the early modern period. The Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 was an important step in the recognition of the modern nation state as the basis for European civilisation.

If you’re a traditionalist it is worth noting that the modern nation state is entirely secular and can only be secular and is fundamentally hostile to Christianity, and to religion in general. The nation becomes a replacement for God.

The modern nation state is not particularly favourable for any traditional institutions. It tends to be hostile towards regional identities and it’s not exactly wildly pro-family.

Perhaps we need to look back, not to the great age of nation states, but to the great age of other political structures. For example, the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Or even the Ottoman Empire.

These were in fact remarkably successful entities. The empire of the Habsburgs lasted for for four hundred years. The Ottoman Empire lasted for about six centuries. They were reasonably stable. They did not fail. They were deliberately destroyed in 1918. In both cases the destruction of the empire led to chaos and a hundred years later we are still dealing with much of this chaos.

As a recent post at A Political Refugee From the Global Village points out, the fall of the Ottoman Empire explains most of our current ills.

religion, sex and craziness

Audacious Epigone has an interesting graph on religious affiliation, sex and mental health. What makes it interesting is that there really aren’t any surprises there at all. Women are crazier than men, Christians are slightly less crazy than atheists, Jews are crazier than Christians. Muslims are the least likely to have mental health problems, which makes sense since their religion isn’t a dead religion.

And the craziest group of all? Jewish women. Which pretty much explains the entire history of the feminist movement.

It’s not very often that one has the pleasure to see a graph that confirms all of one’s cherished stereotypes!

the future of religion, part 2 – Islamised Europe or a European Islam

On the subject of the future of religion another post at A Political Refugee From the Global Village asks Will the future see an Islamised Europe or a European Islam?

Personally I’m not convinced that either is inevitable because I’m not convinced that even Islam can stop the steamroller progress of the death cult of secular liberalism.

I also fear that a European Islam might be a bit like modern Christianity – in other words basically secular liberalism with a few quasi-religious trappings. Of course Islam does lack some of Christianity’s worst weaknesses, such as the masochistic turn the other cheek stuff and the cult of hugs and feelings. Islam might be better able to resist the feminising tendencies.

What it comes down to is a religion’s ability to fight off the poison of feminism, and it’s an insidious and deadly poison indeed.

A European Islam, or even an Islamised Europe, would certainly be preferable to the sewer that liberalism has in store for us.

I should make the point (and this applies to my previous post as well) that these speculations about the religious future of society do not represent the future I would like to see. The future I would like to see is a return to something very like the pre-Reformation unity of Christendom, and something very like pre-Reformation Christianity. Unfortunately I don’t think that’s going to happen.

Of the futures that are actually likely to happen, or are at least possible, most are rather unpalatable. The religious fascism I speculated about in my previous post and a Europeanised Islam are not the futures one would have hoped for. It’s a matter of choosing the least worst option. Secular liberalism offers a never-ending descent into degeneracy and decadence and despair. Any alternative would be better than that.