the TERF wars continue

The war between the trans mob and the TERFs (trans-exclusionary radical feminists) continues to provide amusement. Martina Navratilova, having been savaged already by a Twitter SJW mob for daring to suggest that women’s sports should be for, you know, actual women, has decided to double down. She has now suggested that having “women” who were born male competing in women’s sports is cheating.

It’s actually very amusing to see Navratilova, who has been for years an ardent SJW and a zealous persecutor of those like former tennis star Margaret Court who have refused to bend the knee to SJWs, suddenly realising that the latest manifestation of the LGBT agenda is going to destroy women’s sports such as tennis. This means that lesbians will suffer!

Personally I’m looking forward to seeing women’s professional sports destroyed. Women have enthusiastically supported the LGBT agenda. It would be very useful if they were brought face to face with the reality of the hostility of the trans crowd to actual women.

I can’t wait for the day when every single major women’s tennis tournament is won by men masquerading as women. I can’t wait to see every single major women’s golf tournament won by blokes in dresses. Best of all will be seeing every single Olympic gold medal for women’s events won by men in skirts. I have no doubt that all these things will come to pass within a decade at the most.

Feminists have been overjoyed by the prospect of infiltrating and destroying male leisure activities. Now they’re going to get a taste of the same medicine. Perhaps women will start to realise that feminism and LGBT activism are anti-women.

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.

conservatives and history

It is a curious fact that conservatives (I mean mainstream political conservatives rather than social conservatives) have never conserved anything and have never seriously tried to do so. The explanation is of course that mainstream conservatives are in fact liberals. Their entire worldview is liberal to the core. But how is it that these conservatives have never been troubled by the contradictions inherent in being liberals who call themselves conservatives?

Perhaps part of the explanation is the Whig view of history which has reigned unchallenged (particularly in the Anglosphere) for centuries. The Whig view of history is that the whole of history is an inevitable progression towards the Promised Land in which society will be organised entirely upon pure liberal lines. Its only challenger has been Marxist history but the Marxist approach to history is merely a variation on the Whig approach. To Marxist historians the endpoint of history is a society organised upon pure Marxist lines but the process is identical. History is inevitable, history is progressive, the trend is always towards a better and more virtuous world, change is good because change is always for the better (because old things and old ways are always bad), the good guys (the liberals) always triumph in the end.

In other times and places quite different views of history have prevailed. Cyclical views of history seemed to have predominated in the ancient world and in the East. The Christian view of history, that it is the unfolding of God’s plan, was at one time immensely influential. For the past couple of hundred years cyclical views of history have been very much on the fringe whilst the Christian view of history is now held only by extremist Christian heretics such as dispensationalists. Mainstream Christians accept the fundamentally anti-Christian Whig view of history.

It’s inherent in the Whig view that everything that happens in history will always turn out in the long run to be liberal and progressive and good and in accordance with Whig principles, because it’s in the very nature of history that liberalism must be the winning side. Liberalism is on the right side of history.

So naturally the outcome of historical conflicts, whether military or political, must tend to contribute to the defeat of those on the Wrong Side Of History. This means that the winners of any military or political conflict must be the good guys. Conservatives tend to believe this, and in fact most of us believe it because for several centuries we have been thoroughly indoctrinated in the Whig approach to history. It’s interesting that this even applies to obviously disastrous wars like the First World War. No matter how appalled we may be by that exercise in butchery most of us still feel that somehow the Germans must have been the bad guys, simply because they lost.  The fact that they lost is enough to prove that they were in the wrong.

This is an attitude that is unconsciously adhered to by most people in the Anglosphere. Victory in war is proof that one is on the Right Side of History. Mainstream conservatives do not question this because to do so would be to question the rightness and the inevitable triumph of liberalism.

This also applies to victory in political struggles. While it may seem obvious that the Sexual Revolution that began in the 60s was a catastrophe in every way and is something that needs to be undone if society is to survive very very few mainstream conservatives would dare to think such a thing, much less say it. It’s the same with the triumphs of feminism and the homosexual lobby. Mainstream conservatives are unwilling to adopt a radically critical stance towards such matters because the very fact that those who pushed the Sexual Revolution and feminism and the homosexual agenda succeeded proves that they were on the Right Side of History. Clearly those cataclysmic social changes were Meant To Be.

The irony is that conservatives end up being totally opposed to the idea of conserving anything because the only way to be on the Right Side of History is to be favour of constant change.

making life gay for everybody

One of the most unfortunate effects of our society’s obsession with the awesomeness of homosexuality is that heterosexuals have adopted many of the worst features of the male homosexual lifestyle.

The hookup culture is a fairly obvious manifestation of this trend. The more general emphasis on sex as an end in itself, of sex as a purely recreational activity, is something that feminists welcomed back in the 70s. Women have been paying for that folly ever since.

One of the early signs of the degree to which this was happening was Sex and the City, a TV show about male homosexuals created by a male homosexual. The evil twist was that the three central characters were women, but women living a male homosexual lifestyle. This seems to be what more and more women are doing.

Of course since this trend started women have become crazier and more miserable and now spend most of their time complaining that they can’t form lasting relationships with men.

Who would have imagined that encouraging women to live the male homosexual lifestyle would turn out to be a disaster?

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?

oppression as a basic human right

One of the amusing things about the absurd times in which we live is that we’re suffering from a severe shortage of oppression.

Oppression is extremely important to privileged groups because oppression is the magical shortcut to privilege. Oppression offers not just privilege and status but as certificate of virtue. Anyone who is oppressed is automatically virtuous.

The most privileged groups in society today are white college-educated women, homosexuals (and other members of the LGBTwhatever lobby) and Jews. These groups enjoy power, prestige and influence beyond anything that could ever be dreamt of. Their power and influence stems largely from their successful efforts to portray themselves as hideously and horrifically oppressed. The problem for them is that they are the least oppressed people in history.

That’s why they’re so angry! They have a precious inalienable right to be oppressed but nobody wants to oppress them. They haven’t been even mildly oppressed for half a century (and even more than half a century ago the claims of women and homosexuals to have been oppressed are dubious and exaggerated). But the problem now is that they’re not even the tiniest bit oppressed.

The problem is spreading to other groups. In the anglophone countries for decades now blacks have been the beneficiaries of positive discrimination far more often than the victims of negative discrimination.

In fact the terrifying truth is that there really isn’t much oppression around these days. What’s even more disturbing is that the only people who really are being actively oppressed (albeit in a fairly mild way at this stage) are unpopular groups like Christians. These are groups who do not deserve to receive the benefits of being oppressed.

It has to be said that liberals are not taking any of this lying down. They are taking active steps to remedy the situation. If oppression doesn’t exist it can always be manufactured. And liberals are setting about manufacturing oppression with enthusiasm. All the real nazis are long since dead but all you need to do is to paint a few stastikas on walls and you’ll have people believing that it’s 1933 all over again and Hitler has been restored to life and is about to take up the reins of power. Manufacturing hate hoaxes is absurdly simple, and given the politicised nature of our police and our courts it’s just about a risk-free activity. Sexism and homophobia are even easier to fabricate. All you need to do is to make the accusation and no matter how ridiculous it might be the media will run with it.

The logic of late liberalism is that oppression is a basic need. Without oppression there can be no virtue. It is the duty of every good liberal to ensure that the supply of oppression never runs out.

gender quotas and the disaster that is feminism

There are many reasons why the Australian Liberal Party has to die but now there’s yet another reason. They are seriously considering introducing gender quotas to increase female representation in Parliament.

In a way it’s quite amusing. Gender quotas are in fact an admission that women are simply not good enough to make it without special assistance. On a level playing field they just can’t compete. It’s a great example of the utter failure of feminism.

Amusing perhaps, but it’s also a sign of the total surrender of the Liberal Party to political correctness. It’s another example of right-wing liberals being even worse than left-wing liberals.

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.

socially conservative arguments shock conservatives

One thing I’ve been noticing lately is that if you make a genuine socially conservative argument then most self-identified conservatives will be shocked and upset. Our society has gone so far down the liberal rabbit-hole that most conservatives have long since abandoned actual conservatism and adopted liberalism.

As an example, try making a socially conservative argument on the subject of parental authority. My view is that young people are inherently foolish, impulsive and irresponsible. They’re supposed to be. That’s what young people do. That’s why, in a sane society, parents have a high degree of authority over their children. And when I say children I mean anyone under the age of 21. The idea that an 18-year-old is a mature adult capable of taking responsibility is pure fantasy.

And it is ludicrous to think that a young person is capable of making a responsible decision on the subject of marriage. They will choose a prospective spouse on the basis of lust or, even worse, emotion. Which is why I argued recently (in another place) for arranged marriages. I’m not talking about forced marriages. I’m talking about a return to practices that were quite common in the West in the past (certainly in mediaeval times but to a certain extent such practices survived until recent times). Young people would be encouraged to marry someone chosen by their parents as a suitable partner. They were not compelled to marry the person. If they chose not to their parents could always look for another suitable candidate.

At the very least it was still assumed until quite recently that parents should have the right to veto an obviously unsuitable match.

It’s basically common sense. Marriage is a serious business and choosing a husband or wife requires calm judgment. Young people are very poor at calm judgment. Parents can be assumed to have better judgment based on greater experience of life so if they are involved in such decisions the decisions are less likely to turn out disastrously.

Common sense perhaps, but make that argument and so-called conservatives will start getting very nervous.

the burqa ban – a victory or a defeat?

The Netherlands has banned the wearing of the burqa in some public spaces and many on the right are applauding this as a great victory. But is it really?

Think about it. Is it really a terrific idea to give the government the power to arrest people for expressing their religious faith publicly? Do we really believe that such a power will never be turned against other religions? Such as, for example, Christianity. Because let’s be quite clear – if it’s OK for the government to arrest a woman for wearing a burqa then it must also be OK for the government to arrest someone for wearing a crucifix. And if you don’t think this power will ever be used against Christians then you must have been asleep for the last fifty years.

The burqa ban is in fact a great victory for the forces of secularism. The aim of the secularists has been to marginalise religion, to make religion something that can only be practised furtively and in private. They have been waging war on religion and the burqa ban is a significant win for them. They have established that nobody has the right to profess their religious faith in public. They have established that religion is something that should be subject to government control and regulation.

My feeling is that many on the right are so blinded by their hatred of Islam that they are not seeing the real picture. Religion is under attack by the forces of secular liberalism. All religions are under attack. This is a war to the death. The secular liberals intend to create a world in which religion will be banned.

The Dutch Interior Minister Kajsa Ollongren claims that the ban does not violate fundamental rights, because it will enable Muslim women “to have access to a wider social life” because if they do not cover the face “they will have more possibilities for contact, communication and opportunities to enter the job market.”

This is quite sinister if you think about it. In fact it’s extremely sinister. What she’s saying in effect is that Muslim women should not be allowed to live their lives according to their religion. Instead they are to be pushed into adopting secular western lifestyles. Because naturally the government has the right to tell people how to live their lives, even to the extent of telling us that religion will no longer be a permitted part of our lives. Some of these Muslim women are evidently putting their families first instead of concentrating on their careers. But don’t worry, the government will not allow that to continue.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with immigration. You can be vehemently and passionately anti-immigration (as I am) and still think that the burqa ban is a very very bad idea. It’s another step on the road to feminist totalitarianism.