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.

Advertisements

cultural marxism as anti-marxism

A perennial problem among dissidents today is terminology. Nobody agrees on terminology. Everybody has their own idea of what certain terms mean and as a result there are endless misunderstandings. Two terms that cause immense confusion are marxism and cultural marxism.

People who see themselves as conservatives often use the term marxism to describe any ideological position that they particularly dislike. It’s very similar to the way SJWs and liberals use the term fascist. In both cases a word with a specific meaning has become detached from that meaning and the word has become merely an all-purpose term of abuse.

To me marxism is an economic theory and an economic ideology. To me you’re not a marxist unless you’re intending to nationalise the banks, socialise the means of production, usher in the dictatorship of the proletariat, that sort of thing. Classical marxism.

Classical marxism is stone dead. It has been for decades.

When dissident rightists talk about marxism they’re often talking about cultural marxism. Now cultural marxism is a real phenomenon and it truly is evil but where we differ is that I consider that cultural marxism has nothing whatever to do with classical marxism. Cultural marxism is the negation of marxism. Cultural marxism is anti-marxist.

Cultural marxism is in fact a right-wing ideology. This is obvious if you look carefully. Consider open borders. Who benefits from open borders? Mega-corporations that want cheap labour. Who benefits from the destruction of the family? The same mega-corporations which want us reduced to mere economic units. Who benefits from the homosexual agenda? The same mega-corporations – they love homosexuals because homosexuals do nothing but consume. Who benefits from feminism? The same mega-corporations. They get cheaper and more docile labour. Who benefits from environmental hysteria? The same mega-corporations who use that hysteria to siphon taxpayers’ money into their own pockets through green subsidies. Cultural marxism is capitalist. It is supported and promoted by capitalists.

This is a major problem because the lack of terminological precision is very much in the interests of those who currently run our world. They want us to think that they are leftists when in fact they are nothing of the kind. They want us to think that they care about the disadvantaged and the oppressed when in fact they care only about bankers and billionaires.

I don’t deny that the phenomenon that gets labelled as cultural marxism exists. I don’t deny that it is pure evil. These people exist and they intend to destroy everything that makes civilised life possible. But these people are not marxists.

This isn’t intended as a defence of marxism. Marxism is dead. And even when it was still a living ideology it had its problems, to say the least. Marxism was never a very attractive alternative. But then capitalism is if anything even less attractive, and even more destructive. We need an alternative to both marxism and capitalism. An alternative that might perhaps draw on elements of both, or it might not. An alternative that will probably draw on elements of traditional societies that both marxism and capitalism have rejected.

Either way there’s no way we are going to get an alternative until we understand that cultural marxism is merely a stalking horse for the worst kind of civilisationally destructive capitalism. We need a new name for cultural marxism. Perhaps the most accurate name would be cultural capitalism!

victim hierarchies, orthodoxy and group-think

Dissidents often observe, with a mixture of horror and amusement, the ever-changing victim hierarchies of the cultural left. It used to be fairly simple when the number of victim groups was small. Blacks were pretty much at the top. Feminists and homosexuals disputed the number two spot.

Now there are countless victim groups, and even sub-groups. There are for example several warring factions within feminism and they hate each like poison.

But what’s really odd is that it is no longer possible to determine a person’s status as far as  the cultural left is concerned merely by adding up how many victim points they are entitled to. You can be a homosexual and still be Literally Hitler. Ask Milo Yiannopoulos. You can even be black and be Literally Hitler.

This should not be possible because the cultural left subscribes to identity politics as a matter of religious faith and therefore your identity should automatically determine your victimisation level and therefore your status (since it’s also a matter of faith that victimness is next to godliness).

While the modern cultural left seems on the surface to be pretty much the same as the cultural left that emerged during the 1970s there are actually some very major differences. They still whine about the same issues (racism, sexism, colonialism, homophobia, blah blah blah). But now they have real power. And that changes everything.

What determines your status in the modern cultural left is orthodoxy. That’s all that really matters. You can have a stack of victim points a mile high and it won’t do you any good if you’re suspected of heresy.

And, interestingly, orthodoxy is not really determined by ideological purity. In fact the cultural left has no coherent ideology. Orthodoxy is determined by conformity. To put it more brutally, orthodoxy is determined by obedience. It is not necessary to understand. It is only necessary to obey.

It’s pretty much like the Borg. What matters is the extent to which you have fully assimilated to the Borg. It’s also similar to the Borg in that it’s a kind of decentralised apparatus of repression. There’s a kind of constantly changing consensus on orthodoxy. There’s no Social Justice Pope whose authority is final and there’s no one Scriptural authority to which you can refer. Which makes for a particularly nasty but particularly effective form of repression. It’s not group-think imposed by higher authority as in Orwell’s 1984. It’s group-think that arises organically out of the very nature of the Borg.

sheltered from the real world

I’ve come to the conclusion that there are two types of people in society, those who live in the real world and those who live entirely sheltered from the real world. The big divide is not between liberals and conservatives or between Christians and atheists. The big divide is in people’s experience of the real world.

Living in the real world generally means having a real job. A job in which you actually do something useful and productive. That immediately excludes everyone in politics and the bureaucracy, and everyone in the media and academia.

The real jobs category also excludes most female jobs which are generally hobby jobs rather than actual jobs. It does not exclude motherhood. Motherhood is most definitely a real job.

Those who have to confront the real world on a regular basis tend to view life very differently from those who are sheltered from reality. Their opinions on social issues are usually very different. Most of the beliefs that we think of as coming under the umbrella of cultural marxism, social justice or social liberalism cannot survive contact with the real world.

Those who live sheltered from the real world live are usually financially privileged. They don’t see the problems with things like immigration because they don’t have to face those problems. They almost certainly live in nice safe comfortable overwhelmingly white neighbourhoods where they are not directly affected. Money is a formidable cushion against unpleasant realities.

If you have first-hand contact with reality you know that immigration is a bad thing. You’ve seen the social devastation it causes and you’ve seen what overcrowding and the overloading of infrastructure does. Anyone who has had any contact with reality knows that feminism does not work and never can work.

The real world/sheltered world divide explains why so many people believe so many crazy things. It explains why women in particular believe crazy things. Most women these days are to some extent sheltered from unpleasant unrealities. If they engage in sexual promiscuity society will rescue them (which means ultimately that men will pay the bills for them). If they engage in foolish risk-taking activities society will rescue them (in other words men will rescue them).

The real world/sheltered world divide also explains that otherwise inexplicable phenomenon, the male feminist (that most contemptible of all human creatures). If you meet a male feminist you can be pretty much guaranteed he won’t be a truck driver or a farmer or an engineer or a plumber. He’ll inhabit one of those sheltered privileged little enclaves in which reality never intrudes. He’ll “work” for the government or he’ll be a lecturer in media studies or something equally useless.

The best antidote to crazy social beliefs is a good dose of reality but we live in a society in which a large proportion of the population will never have the slightest contact with the real world.

the culture war accelerates

Those of us who deplore the social decay of the West have for many decades now become accustomed to the basic strategy of the Cultural Left. It’s been a strategy of gradualism. Push for radical social change but do it slowly enough that nobody really notices what’s happening, and ordinary people don’t get scared enough to resist. The boil the frog slowly approach.

All that has changed in the past few years. We’re now seeing a whole new strategy. It’s a strategy of pushing radical social change as far and as fast as possible. The Cultural Left no longer cares if the frog notices how hot the water is getting. It’s a strategy of relentless all-out attack on every front.

This change really became obvious when, with the homosexual marriage issue still not quite decided in their favour they were prepared to launch an all-out offensive on the trans front. The usual expectation would have been that they would wait and consolidate their victory in World War G for a few years before launching World War T.

Partly this is because the Cultural Left believes (correctly) that they are very close to final victory in the culture wars. There is no longer any need for caution. Now is the time to press home their advantage. Now is the time to crush the last few isolated pockets of resistance.

Of course another reason is that Brexit, the jump in support for the Front National in France and the Trump election win revealed the existence of pockets of resistance that were slightly larger than the Cultural Left/globalists had suspected. Their obvious intention now is to crush this resistance mercilessly, to ensure that such annoyances as Brexit and Trump can never happen again.

While the culture war accelerates we’re also seeing an extraordinary quickening in the pace at which western “democracies” are embracing totalitarianism. The major political parties (all of them) no longer even pretend to believe in actual democracy or any semblance of freedom of thought. In alliance with Big Business they are moving with terrifying speed to destroy any hint of opposition to the globalist/SJW agenda.

Time would seem to be running out rather quickly for the West.

to control society first control the culture

A commenter at Oz Conservative recently stated, “Liberals can only mount their progressive tyranny on non-liberals through the power of the state.” I’m not sure I agree with this, not completely anyway.
The current dominant ideology, a combination of globalism and liberalism, has gained its ascendancy mostly through gaining control of the culture. This process began early in the 20th century. By the 1960s liberal leftists were firmly in control of the worlds of art and literature. They controlled Hollywood, and most of the world of entertainment. They controlled most of the news media. They controlled the universities. They had thoroughly infiltrated most of the churches. They were well on the way to controlling the culture. Their cultural control is now total.
In most cases they did not advance their agenda through direct political means. They did not control the power of the state. They have certainly been able to force the state to enforce their agenda but this has been a fairly recent thing. In every case the coercive power of the state has only been used to compel obedience to cultural changes that have already taken place.
Homosexuality had already been culturally normalised before legislation was passed to make homosexual acts legal. Marriage had already been undermined before divorce laws were relaxed to the point of making marriage nothing more than a temporary sexual arrangement. Feminists had already gained acceptance of most of their program before feminism started to be legally enforced by the state.
The use of the judiciary to accelerate the rate of social change is a recent phenomenon and it has only been made possible by liberal domination of the culture (both high culture and popular culture). 
Liberals haven’t actually needed the power of the state to push their agenda. Nor have they needed to win election victories. As long as their control of the culture remains total they can rest assured that the power of the state can and will be used to reinforce their victories. Those victories are however always won by cultural battles, not political battles. Politics is downstream of culture.
It logically follows that liberalism cannot be defeated by conventional political means. Liberalism can only be defeated by wresting control of the culture away from them. That can only be achieved by a more powerful, more attractive, more dynamic, cultural force. At this point in time such a cultural force does not exist. Until it does liberalism will remain in the driver’s seat.

Ways of Seeing, wrongly

John Berger

Art critic John Berger is dead, at the age of 90. When I was a young leftist Berger was one of my heroes. Looking back now I can see that Berger was not only wrong about everything, he was dangerously wrong. Unfortunately Berger was immensely influential and his books are still used as university textbooks.

Berger was best-known for his 1972 BBC TV series (and its accompanying book) Ways of Seeing. A few years earlier Lord Kenneth Clark had presented a magisterial overview of western culture from the 12th century to the modern age in his muh-lauded Civilisation TV series. Ways of Seeing was intended as a counter to Clark’s program, undermining Clark’s  positive view of our culture. Where Clark celebrated western culture Berger was determined to deconstruct and destroy that same culture.
Modernist art is of course nothing more than a sustained attack on western civilisation. The problem for modernists is that anyone who isn’t blind or stupid (or sufficiently indoctrinated) can see that modernist art, when compared to the great works of the western tradition, is infantile rubbish. The only way to get modernist art accepted was to discredit the western artistic tradition. This was Berger’s project.
Berger was a marxist and his approach to art was marxist. Of course trying to apply marxist class analysis to the study of anything pre-19th century is futile. Classes, as understood in marxism, simply did not exist in a pre-industrial world. Berger wasn’t going to let that stop him.

It wasn’t enough to make people dislike the great works of western art. They had to be taught to see them as evil and patriarchal and oppressive. Berger saw all art as expressing a political ideology, because that was the only way he could understand art. Needless to say the western artistic tradition turns out to have been evil capitalist propaganda. Berger was also influenced by feminism so of course the great works of western art turned out to have been evil patriarchal propaganda. Berger had a considerable influence on feminist art criticism, one of the great blights of the modern age.

As is the case with so many art critics in the modern world I never got any sense that Berger actually liked art. He liked politics and he liked political art but he liked political art because it was political, not because it was art. Art as such was irrelevant. It was the political message that mattered.
Berger’s knowledge of art history was unimpressive but he knew how to cherry-pick works of art that he could use to advance his misguided theories.
The trouble is that we can’t just dismiss Berger as a wrong-headed misguided leftist loon (although that’s an accurate description of him) – Berger is solidly in the mainstream of modern art criticism. Our universities and art schools are infested with such people. The work of destruction, to which Berger was an enthusiastic contributor, goes on.