the addiction myth

One of the more all-pervasive myths of modern society is addiction. You can not only get addicted to cigarettes, booze and drugs but also to gambling, sex and the internet. 
The only problem with all this is that there’s no such thing as addiction. We’re not dealing with addictions, we’re dealing with moral choices. We live in a world in which the idea of moral choices is not very popular. Not only is it not PC, it also makes life seem like hard work. If bad things happen to us not because we’re addicted but because we make poor choices then that means we have to take responsibility for our own lives. It’s so much easier to  believe that addiction is a disease, or that some people are born with addictive personalities. 
If we’re sick or we were just born that way then it’s up to the government to do something about it. It’s a problem that requires funding. It requires an army of doctors and nurses and counsellors and social workers.
The truth is that an alcoholic is someone who chooses to drink more than he should. A problem gambler is someone who refuses to face up to reality and to adult responsibilities. A heroin addict is someone who chooses to use heroin. A sexual pervert is someone who chooses to indulge in perverted sex. These are all moral choices. 
Of course the society in which a person lives can make things easier or more difficult by either encouraging good moral choices or bad moral choices. When Christianity was still a force in the western world it encouraged good moral choices. When parents still knew how to raise kids properly they taught kids that moral choices were part and parcel of life.
If we have much bigger problems today with drugs, alcoholism, homosexuality and other self-destructive (and socially destructive) behaviours that’s a reflection of the decline of our society but moral choices still come down to individual choices. You can choose not to drink or take drugs or indulge in homosexual behaviour. To pretend that these things are illnesses or that some people are “born that way” is to delude ourselves. It also encourages foolish people to continue destroying themselves.
For a thorough demolition of the heroin addiction myth see Theodore Dalrymple’s Junk Medicine which I reviewed here quite a while back.

the ruling class in Sweden, and in the US, plus crazy scientists

Firstly, a superb interview with Dr Tino Sanandaji, an economics researcher at the Stockholm School of Economics, Sweden. He blows the lid on Sweden’s insane immigration policies and their fatal consequences. Dr Sanandaji can get away with saying things no ethnic Sweden would dare to say. He puts the blame squarely on the shoulders of Sweden’s elites, and also points out that there has always been a majority of Swedes totally opposed to mass immigration but the elites have simply ignored them.
There’s also a good (and rather long) article by Angelo M. Codevilla at The American Spectator on America’s ruling class.
Of course there are people even dumber than our elites, like the team of scientists who want to spend half a trillion dollars adding ice to the Arctic. That’s actually just the start – what they’re really hoping to do is to spend five trillion dollars adding ice to the whole Arctic.
And in Britain apparently it’s OK to beat up six women, as long as you’re a lesbian. Lesbian violence, and especially lesbian domestic violence, is one of those dirty little secrets that we’re not supposed to know about.

The decadent West – is it in terminal decline?

A Political Refugee From the Global Village quotes an article from the state-controlled Chinese news agency Xinhua claiming that the decadent West is in terminal decline. One of the commenters asked why things like out-of-wedlock births and homosexual marriage should be considered to be evidence of decadence. I’ve thought about it and I’ve come up with answer.
Homosexual marriage is sterile. Sterility is a hallmark of decadence. Recognising homosexual marriage means recognising a marriage that cannot produce children. It means voting No to the future. It is a vote for death. Cultural death, national death, even spiritual death. A society that embraces its own death is most assuredly decadent.
As for out-of-wedlock births, if a couple takes on the responsibility of having a child, the biggest responsibility there is, and they can’t even be bothered to make enough of a commitment to each other to get married, they are also voting No to the future. It is an indication of a lack of belief in the future. They are not creating a real family, merely a collection of individuals in a temporary association, an association that can be terminated at any time on the grounds of boredom or inconvenience or mere whim. This is the endgame of liberalism – a vote for cultural death.
The argument can be applied to just about every feature of our modern society. Stupefying oneself with drugs is saying No to the future. 
Our frighteningly low birth rates are an obvious sign of our culture’s embrace of a death cult.
Feminism, an ideology of women who hate themselves for being female and an ideology that seeks to encourage men to hate themselves for being men, is ultimately sterile, negative, self-pitying and self-destructive. Decadent.
The idea of men who think they’re women and women who think they’re men inevitably leads to further sterility. There people are not going to vote for the future by having children. Decadent.
I remember many years ago watching Kenneth Clark’s television series Civilisation. Lord Clark made the point that the transition from barbarism to civilisation could be traced in the buildings they produced. The European Dark Ages produced virtually no buildings that have survived because a society that has no belief in its future produces buildings of a purely temporary nature. There was a huge change around about the twelfth century. Suddenly Europeans were creating buildings, the medieval cathedrals, that are still standing today. They are still standing today because they were built to last. They were built by a society that had confidence that it had a future. In other words, a civilisation. Even more significantly, these cathedrals could take a century or more to be completed. The men who began their construction would never live to see them completed but they built them anyway because they had absolute confidence that the cathedrals would be finished by the following generations. This shows an extraordinary level of faith in the future.
A society that has not developed sufficiently to have confidence in its future is in a state of barbarism. A civilisation that has lost its belief in the future and has embraced its own death is in a state of decadence.
Families are like cathedrals. They require faith in the future. If you have that confidence you will want a real family built on the foundation of marriage. You are building something for future generations.
Feminism, homosexual marriage, out-of-wedlock births, pornography (the ultimate in sterility), the drug culture, celebrity worship, disastrously low birth rates, the voluntary submission to population replacement through immigration – this is serious death cult stuff. These are unmistakeable signs of a decadent society, if not in its terminal stages then certainly in serious danger of entering the terminal stages.

homosexuality is a learned behaviour

Another story the mainstream media will do its best to ignore – an interesting scientific study by Lawrence Mayer and Paul McHugh on sexuality and identity. 
Here are the key quotes. 

“The understanding of sexual orientation as an innate, biologically fixed property of human beings — the idea that people are ‘born that way’ — is not supported by scientific evidence.”

and

“The hypothesis that gender identity is an innate, fixed property of human beings that is independent of biological sex — that a person might be ‘a man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’ — is not supported by scientific evidence.”

Which is pretty much what I’ve always suspected. Homosexuality is a learned behaviour. Transgenderism is unscientific nonsense.
This is of course why the LGBT lobby is so anxious to spread its propaganda far and wide – they know that if homosexuality can be learned then it can be taught. And they would very much like to teach it to our children.

the war on masculinity

The Social Justice war on masculinity continues unabated. Jim Goad has a good article on this subject at Taki’s Magazine, Reclaiming Toxic Masculinity. I liked his point that we hear so much in the media about “toxic masculinity” but we never hear about toxic homosexuality” or “toxic bitchiness.”
The war on masculinity doesn’t just destroy families and ruin the lives of both men and women. It destroys other things. One of the things that it has utterly destroyed is Christianity. No religion can survive once it has been entirely feminised. Not only are men driven away from the faith – without men (actual masculine men rather than emasculated girly-men) the women become increasingly prone to wallowing in emotion, and increasingly totalitarian. It’s an often overlooked point that totalitarianism is often driven by emotion rather than reason.
Politics becomes entirely driven by feelings. We have, unfortunately, already reached the point at which politics is nothing but feelings.
And just when you think our civilisation can’t sink any lower, two New York lesbians are outraged that a magazine aimed at toddlers doesn’t have enough pro-homosexual propaganda – Nothing is sacred. nothing is safe
This is why homosexuals should never be allowed to adopt children or to act as parents. They only care for their kids insofar as they can use them to advance their political agenda.
Also worth reading is the latest post at Upon Hope about the many and various ways in which liberals engage in direct and indirect child abuse.

am I a conservative? part two

In my previous post I talked about some of my issues with mainstream conservatism. Now I’m going to address my biggest concern of all – the issue of social conservatism.

I do very much consider myself to be a social conservative. And this is where I really come to a parting of the ways with mainstream conservatism as it exists today. Not only have mainstream conservatives surrendered on every single issue that concerns social conservatives – they actually seem to regard actual social conservatives with a mixture of embarrassment and contempt. While mainstream conservatives are prepared to go to the barricades over the issues that matter to them – tax cuts for the rich, free trade and open borders – it is obvious that they would prefer to avoid taking a stand on every single issue that matters to social conservatives.
For me social issues trump economic issues. Economic prosperity is a fine thing but if society collapses into despair, nihilism and chaos it’s not much consolation to be told that at least we have economic growth.
And our society is collapsing into despair, nihilism and chaos. 
We have reached the stage where the most precious of freedom of all is, apparently, the freedom to slaughter our unborn children. We are slaughtering them by the millions. Quite apart from the obvious moral dimension there is a social cost to this as well. To believe it’s OK to kill an unborn baby because that child might be a nuisance to its parents’ busy social life or might disrupt a woman’s career has terrifying implications that should surely be obvious to all. But mainstream conservatives have no intention of making any kind of stand on this issue.
Mainstream conservatives not only do not want to contest the issue of homosexual marriage – more often than not they actively support it. This issue has nothing to do with tolerance. Homosexuals achieved that decades ago. They don’t want their tragically unhealthy lifestyle to be tolerated – they want it to be celebrated and embraced. They want to be free to promote that lifestyle to children. Homosexual marriage is part of that agenda. But mainstream conservatives have no problem with it.
Feminism has been not only the most pernicious and dangerously deluded ideology ever dreamt up, it has also been a spectacular failure. Women have never been more unhappy, lonely and embittered than they are today. But try to find one mainstream conservative who will point out the folly and evil of feminism.
Pornography has been flooding our society for decades now. Try to find one mainstream conservative who will confront that issue.
Promiscuity is now considered to be the new normal. Long experience has demonstrated the corrosive effects of promiscuity on both the individual and society. But no mainstream conservative wants to be accused of slut-shaming. So that issue gets ignored as well.
So cowardly and treacherous are mainstream conservatives on social issues that even though I am most definitely a social conservative the very word conservative has become so devalued in my eyes that I’d prefer to be called something else. I’d rather call myself a social reactionary.

the alt-right – the new cuckservatives?

This is in response to a couple of excellent recent posts at Bloody shovel and Vanishing American.
Both posts raise issues that have been giving me great concern recently. My greatest fear has always been that conservatives might be dumb enough to buy the ridiculous idea of allying with the cultural left against immigration. This would mean that conservatives would have to accept the complete progressivist cultural agenda. Conservatives would then find themselves fighting to defend homosexual marriage, feminism and all the other evils that have undermined the foundations of western society for the past half century or so.
It was always plausible that the mainstream conservatives, those whom the alt-right like to refer to contemptuously as the cuckservatives, would fall for this. Their one infallible instinct is to surrender on any matter of principle. It’s what they have always done. It has always ended in disaster and they keep on doing it.
Post-Orlando it’s profoundly depressing to see that many people on the alt-right seem to be determined to make exactly the same mistake. They are preparing to jettison their principles in exchange for what they think will be a political advantage.
This is really no different at all from the Republican establishment saying that the Republican Party should reach out to minorities because minorities are natural Republicans. Or the party should reach out to women because women are natural Republicans. Such tactics have failed every single time.
And now we have people on the alt-right telling us the alt-right should reach out to homosexuals because homosexuals apparently are natural alt-rightists. And they can’t see the tragic irony of it all. These alt-rightists are copying the methods of the cuckservatives. 
It needs to be understood that there are certain enemies who can never ever under any circumstances be regarded as allies, not even as short-term allies. For those who care about western civilisation that means that homosexuals and feminists in particular can never under any circumstances whatsoever be allies. Homosexuals and feminists are absolutely determined to destroy our civilisation and they would be delighted to ship us off to the GULAGS. 
To pander to our most dangerous enemies is pathetic, cowardly and futile. It will backfire catastrophically.