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.

Advertisements

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?

marriage Romanian style

A Political Refugee From the Global Village has some interesting news from Romania. A referendum was held to change the constitution to define marriage as being specifically between a man and a woman. The referendum failed because only 20% of the electorate voted.

This is an example of something that has been concerning me greatly in the past couple of years, and it should concern anyone who believes that nationalism and social conservatism are essential for the survival of civilisation. The unpalatable fact is that the vast majority of people are either actively hostile to nationalism and social conservatism or they’re completely indifferent.

What is really worrying is that it is clear that this applies to eastern Europe as well. A lot of us have been consoling ourselves with the thought that even if western Europe and North America continue to slide inexorably towards social collapse and chaos at least civilisation will survive in eastern Europe. The fantasy that the eastern Europeans will hold the line against Third World immigration and western degeneracy really is just that – a fantasy.

Any society that allows poisonous ideologies like feminism, secularism, liberalism, democracy and consumerism to gain even a small foothold is doomed. And those ideologies already have a very strong foothold in eastern Europe. The most dangerous poisons of all, the worship of modernism and American trash culture, are already firmly established among the young and among urban populations. That’s exactly how the process of destroying the West began. Eastern Europe cannot be saved unless those nations recognise the dangers posed by the twin evil empires – the E.U. and the United States.

Of course the very idea of holding a referendum to define marriage is part of the problem. It means accepting the core of the liberal agenda. It means accepting the principle that questions of morality, or even questions of reality, should be decided by a popular vote.

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.

prelude to war

In an interesting discussion on Anatoly Karlin’s blog at unz.com this comment was made in relation to the latest American sanctions against Russia:

“These demands on Russia are about as sincere and plausible as the ultimata given to Serbia after Sarajevo. They are not credible but meant only as a prelude to war.”

Unfortunately I think that’s an accurate assessment. The situation is also very similar to the   policy followed by Franklin Roosevelt in doing everything possibly to provoke war wth Japan.

The current American demands are such that no sovereign nation ever would or ever could accept them. The intention is clearly to provoke war or to create a situation in which the U.S. can initiate war.

It’s worth keeping in mind that “sanctions” are a concept with no actual existence. Economic sanctions are an act of war. The U.S. is already at war with Russia, a war in which the U.S. is clearly the aggressor. It’s not yet a shooting war. But obviously the Americans are moving in that direction. The Americans do not want Russia to back down. They hope that the Russians will refuse to do so, so that the U.S. will have an excuse for war. If the Russians do back down the Americans will simply increase their demands until they get what they want, which is war.

The problem is that U.S. foreign policy is in the hands of people who truly believe that the U.S. could win against Russia with minimal casualties. They truly believe it would be pretty much like America’s wars against Third World nations, little more than a triumphal progress. It would of course be a nuclear war war but they believe that would be no problem. And even if it doesn’t turn out to be quite so easy, even if it ends up costing tens of millions of lives, these clowns really don’t care. They see it as a small price to pay to establish America’s hegemony as permanent and absolute.

It’s highly likely that American public opinion will go along with this suicidal course. It will be relatively easy to paint this war as the final war between good and evil, the war that finally eliminates evilness from the world. The war that destroys America’s enemies for good. American’s enemies are of course anybody who questions American power but the American public laps up that sort of thing.

And surely it’s worth a few tens of millions of dead in order to make the homosexual lobby happy, and to make sure that all Russians have the right to use whichever bathroom they choose and whichever pronouns they choose, just like they do in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.

western civilisation’s auto self destruct mechanism

I happened to catch a couple of minutes of a discussion on one of those right-wing news shows on Sky News last night. The subject was the Australian National University’s decision to ban a course on western civilisation. The fact that Australian universities are opposed to western civilisation is of course no surprise.

What caught my attention on this segment was the supposedly conservative female journalist’s passionate defence of western civilisation. Apparently western civilisation is awesome because it gave us feminism and LGBT rights.

The really depressing thing is that when you think about it she’s right. That’s pretty much what western civilisation has amounted to. The last three or four hundred years of western civilisation has been the story of the rise and triumph of liberalism. So what is destroying the West is in fact western civilisation.

We probably need to think a bit here about what we mean by western civilisation. In common usage it’s often assumed that it begins with classical Greece and encompasses European civilisation for roughly the past two-and-a-half thousand years.

I don’t think that’s a workable model. The classical Graeco-Roman civilisation, mediaeval European civilisation and the modern West seem to me to be so different as to constitute three separate civilisations. While the Renaissance is usually seen as the watershed between the mediaeval and modern worlds I think the key event was the Reformation. The Reformation shattered Christendom, not just as a reality but even as an ideal. It made the eventual triumph of secularism inevitable. The Reformation did not transform the mediaeval world – it destroyed it utterly.

The problem is that while the new civilisation that took the place of mediaeval society was bright and shiny and exciting there was a fatal flaw in the new operating system. It came with its own built-in auto self-destruct mechanism and no-one has ever been able to find a way to switch it off. It’s a dynamic civilisation but it’s doomed. It will fly high for quite a while and then suddenly explode in mid-air. That mid-air explosion is what we’ve been witnessing over the past few decades. Unfortunately it’s not the result of sabotage by nefarious external forces. It’s just inherent in the design that sooner or later it explodes.