solving problems by throwing money at them

There are many reasons why consumerism and capitalism have been negative and generally corrupting influences. One of the simplest examples of this is the way we judge the efficacy of public policy by how much money it costs.

It really does seem to be accepted by most people that if you increase spending on education by 25 percent then you automatically get 25 percent better education. If you double spending on health then you must get a health system that is twice as good. All social problems are solved by spending money. There is no need to give any actual thought to the nature of the problems being addressed or to various policy options. What matters is how much money gets spent.

This is accepted because we know that virtue is measured by money. The societies that spend the most on education, health, social welfare, etc, are the most virtuous societies. The politicians who support spending the most money on these problems are the most virtuous politicians.

The fact the spending more on education just means more money going into the pockets of assorted parasites like diversity counsellors or our already overpaid teaches doesn’t matter. The fact that increased health spending merely directs more money to administrators and other parasites doesn’t matter.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not attacking the welfare state. I like the welfare state. But it is smart to give some thought as to how money is going to get spent.

The argument applies to right-wing sacred cows just as much as to left-wing sacred cows. People fondly imagine that an increase in defence spending makes the nation more secure. In many cases it makes the nation less secure, either by provoking or alarming potential enemies, or by encouraging insanely aggressive foreign policies or ridiculous foreign policy entanglements. Look at Britain for example. If the British reduced their defence spending to sensible levels they’d be a lot safer. Sensible levels would be close to zero. Britain faces zero military threats. Anything more than a token defence force just encourages British fantasies of being a great power again. Britain’s security depends on accepting the reality that Britain’s days as a great power are over.

Spending money is the easy way to solve problems. It always sounds impressive. The people making the decisions have the luxury of spending other people’s money. And if the policies end in failure there’s a built-in excuse. We just didn’t spend enough money. If we spend more next time the problems will definitely be fixed.

democracy, consent and false consciousness

One of the arguments that supporters of democracy can always be relied upon to wheel out is that legitimate government requires the consent of the governed, and that only democracy can truly provide this.

To a certain extent it is true that government requires the consent of the governed, but actually this is the case even in undemocratic systems. Any regime, whether it be an absolutist monarchy or a military dictatorship or a liberal democracy, will find its survival threatened if it loses touch with the will of the majority, or even of a substantial proportion, of the people. That’s why kings sometimes lose their crowns, dictatorships sometimes get overthrown. A revolution can be seen as the withdrawal of the consent of the governed.

Do democracies reflect the will of the people more certainly than other regimes? Superficially the answer might appear to be yes. The problem is that the various systems  of representative or parliamentary democracy all have one thing in common – they are designed to prevent the will of the people from being expressed. They are designed to manipulate the popular will rather than to reflect it. Deception is their stock in trade. They are based on lies. They are corrupt and the corruption is inherent. While they may claim that their supposedly democratically elected governments serve the people in reality the government is the master of the people rather than the servant.

All political systems are in the final analysis based on force or the threat of force and in most cases this is quite open and honest. The characteristic feature of democratic systems is that by preference power is exerted by manipulation rather than overt force. The problem is the dishonesty and the hypocrisy and the fact that you end up with a system thoroughly permeated by dishonesty and hypocrisy. It’s actually less healthy than a system based on straightforward force. And in any case it’s an illusion – in a democracy the iron fist might be concealed by the velvet glove but the iron fist is always there.

This raises the question of false consciousness. At this point you’re going to start groaning and muttering that he’s resorting to tired old marxist slogans. Up until a few years ago I would have agreed with you. I would have said the whole idea was typical marxist nonsense. The last few years have changed my mind. It’s now obvious that public opinion is whatever opinion the public is told to hold. If the media and the teachers tell people that black is white and up is down most people will accept that. If they’re told that homosexual marriage is just like a real marriage they’ll accept it. If they’re told that they love diversity they’ll accept it. It all seems pretty much like false consciousness to me.

I’ve seen the results of our modern education system in action, in young people with whom I have a family connection. They’re zombies. They believe whatever their teachers tell them. They have no doubts. They question nothing. If the teacher says he’s holding up five fingers he must be holding up five fingers. Orwell was wrong. You don’t need violence or the threat of violence or even coercion to turn people into slaves. People will turn themselves into slaves because they’re terrified of not conforming.

Democracy is based on the concept of encouraging people to turn themselves into slaves. It’s based on teaching people to embrace lies. That’s just the way democracy is.

the surplus intellectuals menace

I was going to say this in the form of a reply to бармаглот’s earlier comment but my reply ended up being too long-winded so it’s become a new post.

бармаглот argued that it’s the content of higher education that is the problem, not the quantity. This is of course basically true but I don’t think it’s the whole story. In my view too much education would still be a problem even if you removed every trace of SJWism from the courses.

The problem is the production of people with useless qualifications who then expect to be given jobs commensurate with their inflated ideas of their own deserved status.

Even if the courses were quite innocuous in themselves, even if the degrees were vaguely useful, these people would still be a potentially disruptive potentially destabilising force in society.

As an example, there’s nothing wrong with producing people with degrees in musicology. But if at any one time your society only needs fifteen musicologists and you’re graduating a hundred new musicologists every year you’re going to have a lot of surplus musicologists. And they’re going to cause problems. You’re going to be menaced by roaming gangs of feral musicologists. Well OK, maybe not quite that, but they will cause problems. Having spent years (and possibly lots of money) getting their degrees they’re now going to find themselves waiting tables and driving cabs. They’re going to be discontented. They’re going to have a grudge against the unfair and uncaring society that has failed to recognise their importance. They’re going to be willing recruits for any revolutionary political group.

This is where SJWs came from in the first place. In the post-WW2 period universities in the West started churning out way more graduates than were needed, especially humanities graduates. These surplus intellectuals provided the foot soldiers for cultural marxism. In fact they made cultural marxism possible. They made the takeover of the Left by cultural marxism possible. And to a large extent this happened simply because there were suddenly too many graduates who discovered that society didn’t really need them or want them.

Surplus intellectuals are a plague on any society.

why too much education is a bad thing

In my previous post I argued that too much education is a bad thing. I probably should elaborate a little.

First off, if we’re talking about higher education we need to ask ourselves what exactly is the purpose of higher education. Is it to train the handful of specialised professionals that we need? People like engineers, doctors, etc. That would be to take a strictly utilitarian view of higher education. That’s the view I would take. We need to ask ourselves how many engineers and physicists and brain surgeons we actually need. We then need to make sure that we allocate sufficient university places to maintain the necessary supply.

This is exactly what we are not doing at the moment. We are churning out immense numbers of graduates but we still don’t have enough doctors. This is because most of the graduates we are churning out have entirely useless degrees.

Which brings is to the a question of arts degrees. How many arts graduates do we need? It’s possible that we don’t need any. There’s no question that we don’t need any graduates at all with qualifications in imaginary subjects like gender studies. It’s absolutely certain that overall we need very very few arts graduates in comparison to the numbers we are producing at the moment.

The alternative to the utilitarian view is the rights view. This is the view that education is a basic human right, so everyone who wants a Mickey Mouse arts degree has the right to get one and if they don’t get one then they’re being oppressed. This is the sentimental woolly-minded feelgood view.

It all comes down to the point I was making in my previous post. Are the rights of individuals more important than the needs of society, or do the needs of society trump individual rights?

If we come down on the side of sanity and accept the utilitarian view of education what would that mean in practice? My hope is that it would mean more people getting training in practical skills rather than esoteric intellectual waffling. More people being trained in trades for example. Or simply in skills that are generally useful.

It would also mean more emphasis in learning on the job. Today we believe that we should give jobs to people in their mid-20s who have just left university with a basket full of shiny degrees. That might be appropriate in some specialised fields but in most cases an employer is probably better off employing a keen 19-year-old who can be trained on the job. That way they don’t have to unlearn the nonsense they learnt at university.

Limiting higher education to to the very small numbers of people who actually require it would obviously be more efficient. I think it would also be more conducive to human happiness. Education is not a magic potion that makes people happier. In most cases it makes people less happy. It’s certainly a case where the law of diminishing returns applies. A moderate amount of education is compatible with being a happy and fulfilled human being. Education in excess makes happiness and fulfilment increasingly less likely.

All this applies to both men and women but it seems to apply with even more force to women. Education does not seem to make women happier.

Too much education, especially for women, results in catastrophically low birth rates and eventual demographic extinction. It also results in a great deal of unnecessary human misery, especially for women.

education and orthodoxy

There are many sad delusions that are held by conservatives. One of the saddest and most persistent is that education used to be about broadening the mind and encouraging independent and critical thinking, before the cultural marxists took over.

In fact the purpose of education as an organised activity, whether carried out by government or by churches, has always been to teach people what to think. It has never been the purpose of any educational institution to encourage independence of thought, except within very narrow limits. In fact the function of education is to teach children to remain within those limits.

Education has always been about propaganda. In the past it was mostly about propaganda serving the interests of the current political establishment. There was a period in the West when education was used by the Left to undermine the current political establishment. Now the Left as it was once understood no longer exists. We have a new political establishment, a globalist neoliberal establishment, and education is once again employed to impose limits on thinking.

Conservatives also cling to the touching belief that universities used to be about defending freedom of thought. Nothing could be further from the truth. Universities were established for the purpose of defining and enforcing religious orthodoxy. That is the purpose they still serve to this day. The nature of religious orthodoxy has changed, but the function of the university remains the same. Identifying and punishing heretics has always been the business of the university.

Defining orthodoxy and punishing deviations from that orthodoxy – this is what all education systems, from kindergarten to university, are all about. An education system exists in order to prevent freedom of thought. This is why churches, back in the days when they still believed in their own teachings, were so obsessed with founding schools and universities. This is why governments are so very interested in education.

As Stalin pointed out, “Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.”

There’s nothing very mysterious or even sinister in all this. Any society that wishes to survive will naturally try to avoid the dangers of social chaos by preventing the propagation of destructive ideas. The problem we have at the moment is that we have a political establishment that wants to encourage socially destructive ideas. And conservatives, as usual, have no idea what is happening. If conservatives had understood any of this they would fought to retain control of the schools. We are in a situation very much like the Chinese Cultural Revolution of the late 60s. The political establishment intends to retain control even if they have to destroy society in order to do so. They are determined to enforce orthodoxy even though the orthodoxy they are enforcing can only lead to social disintegration.

 It’s all about power, and power is another subject about which conservatives understand nothing.

popular culture and kids

I’ve just been reading a discussion thread at Steve Sailer’s iSteve blog on the latest Star Wars movie and I find myself filled with dismay. It’s not the fact that the movie itself is apparently virulent anti-white pro-liberal propaganda, That goes without saying. What I find dismaying is the number of commenters who tell us that they have just taken their children to see this movie and they were appalled by the propaganda and by the fact that the propaganda was just as bad as that in the previous Star Wars movie. They admit that they knew the movie would be politically correct propaganda and yet they took their kids to see it.

These are people who for the most part not only identify as conservatives, they identify as belonging to the dissident wing of conservatism. They have contempt for mainstream conservatives. And yet they are simply unable to comprehend the blindingly obvious fact that all movies today are social justice propaganda. Every single movie. They still think that if they keep going to the movies eventually they’ll come across a few good movies that aren’t social justice propaganda. Which is not going to happen. Movies that do not support the social justice narrative do not get made these days.

So if you know that this movie is going to be poisonous, why on Earth would you take your children to see it?

Now I do understand that it’s easy for me to say that I find no problem at all avoiding modern popular culture. I don’t have children. I do understand that for people with kids it’s a real problem. But we’re talking about movies that are genuinely evil, movies that preach out-and-out hate for white people and for all the traditions of western culture and for all the norms of civilised society. This is a Disney movie and Disney is a studio that pushes the homosexual agenda even more aggressively than the other studios.

Of course the problem is that your kids are not going to be very happy if all their facebook friends and all their friends at school have seen the new Star Wars movie but they’re not allowed to see it. On the other hand if you’re allowing your children to use social media like facebook it could be argued that you’re already failing in your duties as a parent. It could even be argued that if you’re sending your kids to school you’re already failing them.

The real challenge is to find alternatives, and find ways to persuade children to accept those alternatives. There are thousands of wonderful children’s books and “young adult” books that were published in the pre-PC days. There are hundreds of excellent movies for kids that were made in happier times. There are extremely good TV series from the past that were aimed at kids. All this stuff not only still exists, it’s remarkably easy to access. Getting kids to accept the older stuff will be very challenging but the alternative is exposing them to cultural poison.

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.

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.

making traditionalism fun

A major problem facing traditionalists today is that we naturally tend to regard the past fairly favourably, but liberals and the cultural left have had a century or more in which to paint the kind of  distorted picture of the past that suits their agenda. The Narrative applies as much to the past as it does to the present. And a negative view of the past has now been well and truly ingrained in the minds of most people.

That negative view has been propagated through schools and the news media and through books but most of all through movies and TV programs. It is important to remember that most people do not distinguish between fiction and non-fiction. If they watch a movie they might understand that the actual story itself is fiction but they assume that the background to the story is basically factual. If the movie is set in the 1930s then they assume that it’s giving them an accurate and faithful picture of life in that decade. Of course nothing could be further from the truth but the average person has a touching belief in the basic honesty of people who make movies and TV shows.

This makes it incredibly difficult to persuade people that perhaps the past wasn’t so bad, that perhaps the beliefs and values of the past were as valid as the beliefs and values of today, and most of all it makes it near-impossible to persuade people that life in the past may actually have been pretty good, and even fun.

If you suggest to anyone under the age of 40 that maybe life was a lot more pleasant in the 1950s they’ll look at you as if you’re mad. They know that in the 50s in the American South blacks were being lynched by the hundreds every year, they know that homosexuals were brutally persecuted, they know that women were not allowed to leave the kitchen, they know that liberals were thrown into prison just for being liberals, they know that teenagers were forbidden to have fun, they know that life was grim and miserable and oppressive. They know all these things because their teachers have told them that’s how it was and they’ve seen modern movies set in the 50s and those movies have confirmed everything their teachers tell them. The fact that none of these things are true makes no difference. The cultural left controls the megaphone and their view of the past prevails.

If you try to suggest that perhaps the Victorian age wasn’t so bad and that the Victorians weren’t all  vicious capitalist robber barons, that not all eight-year-olds were sent to work in coal mines  or that the Victorians were not hopelessly sexually repressed you just are not going to be listened to.

If you’re unwise enough to put forward the notion that the Middle Ages might not have been a constant nightmare of filth, squalor and violence then again you’re not going to be believed. People today know how brutal that era was, they’ve seen it in movies. They know for example all about the droit de seigneur, the right of the local lord to have sex with any young unmarried girl under his dominion. The fact that this right didn’t exist doesn’t matter – their teachers will have assured them that it was true.

If we are to have any success in promoting the idea that traditional values, traditional lifestyles, traditional sex roles, are worth emulating we have to be able to sell those ideas. We have to make such ideas sound not just reasonable but desirable and attractive. We have to convince people that traditionalism isn’t just good for society but that it promotes individual happiness. We need to sell the idea that traditionalists have more fun. That’s very difficult to do when the megaphone is in the hands of those who are determined to convince people that the past was a horrible nightmare and that today we live in the happiest most enlightened period in all of human history.

We also need to distinguish traditionalism from puritanism. Puritanism was a destructive religious heresy and, in a mutated secular form, it is very much with us today. It still exists to some extent as a religious heresy. Puritanism has always been unhealthy. The Cultural Left never misses an opportunity to paint traditionalists, and especially Christian traditionalists, as grim humourless puritans.

In fact puritanism has been a major strain in many destructive leftist ideologies, especially feminism. And the mindset of the modern SJW is to a large extent a puritan mindset, obsessed with sin.

Given that traditionalists are not likely to be granted any access to the megaphone I really don’t know how we’re going to promote the idea of traditionalism as the secret to happiness. But I do know that our biggest problem is that it has been so easy for our enemies to portray us as miserable oppressive killjoys.

in praise of patriarchy

A commenter at The Knight and Drummer recently accused me of wanting to restore patriarchy. I have to say that I plead guilty as charged. I do indeed want to restore patriarchy.

Until western society decided to commit suicide all human societies had been patriarchal. I know that feminist scholars (and I always chuckle at the concept of feminist scholarship) make claims for certain societies in the dim dark past having being matriarchies, and for a handful of remote tribes being matriarchal until modern times. In virtually every case this is nothing but wishful thinking on the part of woolly-minded academics. Successful societies have always been patriarchies.

I define a patriarchy as a society which accept two things – that men and women are profoundly different and have different social roles to play, and that final authority must rest with men. It’s important to remember that you can’t have one without the other. If men surrender their authority traditional sex roles will be overturned. If traditional sex roles are not respected men’s authority will vanish. If either of those things happen then that society is doomed.

Very few people today are prepared to nail their colours to the mast and embrace patriarchy. Most self-defined conservatives (including most so-called social conservatives and traditionalists) have surrendered completely to feminism. All mainstream conservative parties have made the same surrender, as have all mainstream Christian churches (with the possible exception of the Orthodox churches). Some of these “conservatives” will bleat about feminism having gone too far but in fact they are happy to accept 90% of the feminist agenda. If you’re a conservative and you believe in “equality” or “fairness” or “justice” then you’re a feminist and you’re part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

The fact is that we have all been so thoroughly indoctrinated by feminism that we think that admitting to being a supporter of patriarchy is a bit like admitting to being a member of the Ku Klux Klan. This is of course arrant nonsense. Patriarchy is not only the only workable way to run a society, it is also the only system that is capable of making both men and women happy.

But what exactly are the ramifications of accepting patriarchy?

Obviously we need to ask what place, if any, women should have in political life. Female leaders have always been disastrous. Of course we also need to reconsider the whole question of representative democracy, a system that guarantees corrupt, vicious and inefficient government. It’s not a question of whether women should be allowed to vote. It’s a question of whether voting is a good idea, for anyone. Every time the franchise has been extended the system has become more unworkable and more corrupt.

Secondly, women should accept the authority of their fathers, and after marriage they should accept the authority of their husbands. This is what women actually want. Women despise men who allow themselves to be dominated by women. The thought of having sex with such men nauseates them. Women have always sought men who can protect them and that implies authority. It’s a matter of biological reality. Fairness doesn’t come into it. Biological reality isn’t interested in fairness. Reality isn’t interested in fairness. Reality just is.

Thirdly, we need to carefully consider whether higher education for women is really a good idea. Of course we also need to think about higher education in general – we need to slash the number of university students overall by at least 80%. We need doctors and engineers. We don’t need gender studies majors or film studies majors or any similar nonsense. We also don’t need the absurd number of lawyers being churned out by our universities.

And unfortunately it’s the nonsensical courses to which women are attracted, and all these courses do is to make women angry and confused. If you have any doubts about this, try having a conversation with a female student doing one of these courses – they are incapable of doing anything other than getting angry and mouthing slogans that they don’t even understand. Their ignorance is exceeded only by their arrogance.

Of course by now all true conservatives are wringing their hands in horror that anyone would dare to express such wicked forbidden sentiments. But as I tried to point out to the commenter mentioned earlier, patriarchy is coming whether we like it or not. Within a few decades western Europe will be Islamic and it will be patriarchal. There aren’t going to be any gender studies courses taught. There isn’t going to be any feminism.

The irony of course is that women, and feminists in particular, have created the situation that is going to lead inevitably to the resurgence of patriarchy, of one form or another. Feminists have weakened our civilisation  to the point where invaders can simply walk in and take over. Which is exactly what they are going to do. Feminists can celebrate their triumph over Christian patriarchy but their celebrations are likely to be short-lived. Patriarchy will reassert itself one way or another because there is no viable alternative.