conservatives and Christians defending liberal ideals

A major obstacle confronting anyone trying to promote social conservative or traditional values, or Christian values, is the extraordinary extent to which liberal values permeate our society. These liberal ideals are so all-pervasive that we often do not even recognise them as being fundamentally liberal.

It is common to encounter people who describe themselves as conservative who really do seem to believe that concepts like freedom of speech and freedom of religion are core conservative values. I have even come across Christians who think that freedom of speech and freedom of religion are the foundations of white Christian society. They also tend to be people who think that openness and tolerance are compatible with social conservatism. And it goes without saying that these “conservatives” take the same view of democracy.

In fact of course these are all core liberal values.

They date back to the Enlightenment, the most disastrous episode in the history of the West. Liberalism is the political child of the Enlightenment.

These concepts were all devised by white European liberals (or proto-liberals) who had one thing in common – they despised and detested European Christian society. They wanted to destroy European Christian society. They then intended to build Utopia on the ruins. They were especially hostile to Christianity.

As Mark at Oz Conservative is constantly pointing out (quite correctly) modern mainstream conservatives are actually liberals. They are right-liberals, the most dangerous kind of liberals.

The greatest danger currently facing the West is (as Mark has also pointed out) that the dissident right is going to be hijacked by right-liberals.

There is at the moment a great deal of disenchantment in the West with the existing political order. There is also a great deal of anxiety about population replacement, this being quite clearly the objective of the globalist class. My great fear is that naïve well-meaning people with genuine concerns about immigration are going to be persuaded to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with liberals in defence of liberal values. These liberal values (the ones enumerated above) will be sold to us as being the essential foundations of western civilisation. And a great many people are going to fall for this con.

And it is a con. These liberal ideals are the very things that have brought our civilisation to the brink of disaster. They are the very things that have weakened our society to the point where invaders no longer have to invade, they can just walk in and take over.

Any realistic hope of saving the West depends upon a categorical rejection of these pernicious liberal ideals. We must recognise these ideals for what they are – mechanisms for undermining social stability and for destroying Christianity.

Don’t be foolish enough to be persuaded that your bitterest enemies, liberals, can ever be allies. Liberals are the enemy, and right-liberals are the most dangerous enemy of all.

Advertisements

virtue signalling or status signalling?

A comment on a recent post at Vox Popoli caught my eye. It suggested that a great deal of SJW virtue signalling is actually status signalling. It’s actually a way to demonstrate that the person in question belongs to a high enough social class to be immune from the consequences of the social justice agenda.

This seems very plausible to me. I have never bought the idea that SJWs are self-hating. Maybe some of the sad male SJWs are actually self-hating but I don’t believe for one moment that female SJWs hate themselves. If they’re white they may claim to hate white people but you can be sure they don’t include themselves in the category of white people it is acceptable to hate. They hate working class and lower middle class white people certainly but they don’t hate upper-class whites (and let’s face it the true believer SJWs are overwhelmingly upper-class).

Subscribing to certain dogmas, such as man-made global warming, welcoming refugees, affirmative action, Black Lives Matter, etc, is a good way to signal your membership of the ruling class. The secret to this is that if you’re wealthy and high-status you’ll never have to suffer the consequences of your ludicrous beliefs. Ever-increasing electricity prices as a result of the global warming scam don’t affect rich people. Rich people don’t have to live in diverse neighbourhoods (and they never do). Rich people are pretty much unaffected by the social decay caused by feminism and homosexual activism.

This is something that is particularly attractive to women. Status signalling is immensely important to women. And never underestimate the enthusiasm women have for humiliating their social inferiors.

If you’re white then subscribing to unworkable SJW fantasy ideas is a powerful way to signal that you’re not one of those awful working class or lower middle class white people (and of course those white people are completely evil). SJW ideas are a kind of luxury good. Believing in them is a form of conspicuous consumption, a way of making one’s elite status clear and a wonderful way to express contempt for the lower orders.

The great thing is that it’s a socially acceptable way of saying that you’re rich and you hate poor people.

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.

towards a racial politics?

Race is very much in the news these days and on the right one of the burning issues is whether some form of white nationalism is possible. There are those on the right who believe that politics is going to become purely race-based and that whites will have to accept and embrace this.

I remain very sceptical, for several reasons.

First off, politics is about differing views on the kind of society in which we want to live. Democracy has certainly become a sham (or perhaps more of a sham) and party politics has become largely irrelevant. On the other hand there are still absolutely fundamental differences among ordinary people on the issue of the kind of society at which we should be aiming.

There is no common ground between traditionalist Catholics and Kumbaya Christians. Militant atheists are barely willing to acknowledge the right of Christians to exist. The libertarian is not going to learn to lie down with the big government progressive. Feminism is absolutely incompatible with a belief in family life. The views of LGBT activists cannot be reconciled with the views of those who believe in marriage and the family. Greenies are hate-driven fanatics who cannot even be reasoned with by normal people. These are all massive differences between the beliefs of white people. White people are not going to put aside these disagreements for the sake of race. It just isn’t a workable proposition.

The chances of forging a viable alliance of white people based solely on race or ethnicity are zero. Even forging an alliance based on a common culture would be formidably difficult. White people do not have a common culture. Maybe they did once but they don’t now. Not only is there is no white common culture, there is not even a common culture between whites of the same ethnicity. Rural Australians might belong to the same ethnicity as sandal-wearing tofu-munching environmentally conscious inner city lesbian feminist lecturers in women’s studies but the two groups have zero in common.

There is also the question of class interests. Anyone who thinks class interests don’t matter any more hasn’t been paying attention. Class hatred is more virulent today than at any time in history. White elites would be totally delighted if every working-class white person just died. The average working-class white person would be equally delighted to hang members of the white elite from the nearest lamp post.

It’s also vital to remember that immigration has no downside whatever for upper middle class and upper class whites. Such people will always be able to live in comfortable safe overwhelmingly white neighbourhoods. Money insulates people completely from the dire effects of diversity. Wealthy white people like diversity because it doesn’t affect them.

The irony is that because ideological differences are irreconcilable the best way to forge effective political alliances among white people is by avoiding ideology and focusing on bread-and-butter issues. So the best likely way to build a groundswell of opinion against immigration is by not fighting it as a race or ideological issue. Fight it as a bread-and-butter issue.

Inner city lesbian feminists and wheat farmers might not agree on much but they might agree that affordable health care is a good thing. A stock broker with multiple mistresses and a strongly family-printed professional fisherman might disagree on most things but they’re likely to agree that aged care is important. Both are going to grow old one day. A Christian truck driver and an atheist interior decorator might have little in common but neither wants to live in an overcrowded city. Immigration means affordable health care goes out the window. Immigration means not enough money to provide aged care. Immigration means cities become overcrowded. Too many people means society starts to collapse.

If you fight immigration as a bread-and-butter issue you not only have a chance of gaining wide support, you also make it more difficult for the open borders crowd to do what they want to do, which is to make it all about race and ideology.

what are European nationalists actually fighting for?

We need to be honest and clear-headed when examining the rise of the nationalist so-called far right parties in Europe. It would be pleasant to imagine that these parties are fighting to defend western civilisation but is that really the case? It seems to me that what they’re fighting for is a vision of western civilisation that is starkly at odds with the beliefs of traditionalists and social conservatives.
These parties, including the FN in France and Geert Wilders’ party in the Netherlands, have shown an alarming willingness to compromise on moral issues. In fact they’re prepared to make almost unlimited compromises on moral issues. The problem with this is that you can’t defend civilisation by abandoning everything that makes civilisation civilised.
In practice these nationalist parties are fighting for rainbow flags and Gay Pride marches. They’re fighting to defend the right of women to murder their unborn babies. They’re fighting for the right of feminists to go on destryong the foundations of society. They’re fighting for the rights of homosexuals to prey on our children. They’re fighting for the rights of liberals to brainwash our kids. 
They’re not defending civilisation. They’re defending liberalism.
It’s not the slight left-wing leanings of these parties that should worry us. It’s the fact that they are demonstrating very little willingness to oppose the moral degeneracy which is overwhelming the West.
There’s also very little sign that these parties have any vision of a Christian Europe. 
I’d like to see European civilisation saved, but only if there’s a European civilisation that is actually worth saving.

open borders and the servant problem

When immigration is discussed there’s an important point that is often overlooked. That point is the servant problem.
Wealthy middle-class people need servants. In fact it’s not so much a need as a basic human right. Without servants you’d have female corporate lawyers having to raise their own children. You’d have merchant bankers having to mow their own lawns. The suffering would be unthinkable.
It’s OK for the very rich. They can always get servants. But what about the moderately rich? What about people whose net wealth mighty only be ten or twenty million. Don’t they have the right to have servants too?
It’s no good saying that they could employ white people. That won’t work. White people expect to be paid a living wage. Brown people will work for a pittance and they’re so pathetically grateful to be allowed to do so. And employing white people as servants is awkward. One is never sure how to behave around them. Especially if one’s liberal friends are around. At least with brown servants you don’t have that uncomfortable feeling. You might think your Mexican maid Consuela is an absolute treasure but you’d never make the social faux pas of thinking of her as an equal. Brown people were born to be servants weren’t they? They’re sort of like pets. And the children love them.
There’s absolutely no point in being rich if you can’t have servants. Without open borders wealthy people could face a very real and very serious servant shortage. Surely it’s obvious that having open borders is the only answer?

nations and shared values and why it won’t work

There’s been some excitement over moves by Australia’s Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, to tighten up on the rules for granting Australian citizenship. Apparently prospective citizens will have to prove that they share Australia’s values.
This is quite interesting. I had no idea that Australia had any shared values. I’m quite sure I don’t share any values with Malcolm Turnbull. 
Is it even possible to base a nation on shared values? How many nations have been based on shared values? Nazi Germany perhaps. The old Soviet Union. In today’s world North Korea is probably the only real example. When we say that a nation is based on shared values what we’re saying is that it’s a successful totalitarianism. Everyone believes the same thing. If they don’t they get sent to a re-education camp until they do.
Liberals and progressives love the idea of nations based on values, because they assume that they’ll get to choose the values and they’ll get to enforce conformity. And there’s nothing they enjoy more than enforcing conformity.
Of course at this point someone will object and say that the United States has been a marvelous example of the success of a proposition nation, and that a proposition nation is essentially one that is based on shared values.
Indeed. A great success. But hold on a moment, wasn’t the Civil War fairly damning evidence that Americans did not share values after all? And that shared values were in fact imposed by force on the conquered South?
And today progressives, the ones who love that shared values stuff, refuse to accept the legitimacy of the current President. And the reason? Because he doesn’t share their values!
Experience tends to show that nations based on a shared history and a shared culture are more successful than nations based on shared values. That’s why Japan is a nice place to live and North Korea isn’t.
Tightening up the rules for citizenship is a great idea (although halting immigration altogether would be an even better idea) but basing the mechanisms on meaningless twaddle like values is never going to work, and for me the concept of shared values always carries with it the faint whiff of latent totalitarianism.
Sorry Malcolm, but I don’t buy it.