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.

no enemies to the right?

One of the key choices you have to make if you’re going to aim to achieve anything by political means is whether you’re going to be inclusive or tightly focused. Are you going to adopt a variation on the slogan No Enemies To The Right? In other words a Big Tent approach. Or are you going to aim for some sort of ideological purity? Although personally I’d prefer to think of it as ideological focus rather than ideological purity.
The Left has historically had an easier time adopting a strategy of no enemies to the left. All leftists after all hoped to achieve some form of socialism even if some wanted to push ahead much faster and much more aggressively. And there was pretty general agreement that in order to achieve socialism the existing economic and political structure would have to be overturned. It wasn’t terribly difficult for leftists to adopt a fairly united front.
This was a major strategic advantage for the Left. 
There are those who feel that the Right should adopt the same strategy. I can see the advantages in strictly political terms but I really don’t see it working. The issues that divide the Right are not divisions that can be easily papered over. They’re kind of fundamental.
First of all it’s not at all clear what it even means to be on the Right. It could be argued that Left and Right no longer even exist but as far as most people are concerned if you’re opposed to globalism and the Social Justice agenda then you’re on the Right so for the sake of convenience we might as well accept that label.
So what are these fundamental divisions? 
First of all there’s religion. There are rightists who believe that our culture can only be saved by Christianity, albeit a much more traditional kind of Christianity to that practised by  the mainstream churches of today. There are other rightists who are militant atheists and despise Christianity. And then there are the rightists who consider Christianity to be a non-European import and who want to revive European paganism. The problem is that all three of these groups tend to hold their respective positions very very strongly indeed. And they do not get along well, to say the least.
Then there’s democracy. There are rightists who have an almost religious reverence for democracy. And there are rightists who think that it was democracy that got us into the mess we’re in now and who think that in the long-term some kind of authoritarianism is going to be necessary. These two groups do not play well together either.
There’s also the questions of race and nationalism, with substantial differences of opinion between adherents of the white nationalist position and those who believe that culture and not race is what matters. Most sane rightists agree that mass Third World immigration is a dumb idea but most mainstream conservatives are true believers in the open borders cult.
There’s also the question of capitalism. Many rightists are very enthusiastic about capitalism and free markets but others are much more sceptical. You can be a rightist and dislike capitalism just as much as you dislike socialism.
Then there’s the social conservative problem. There are those on the right who think that nothing matters except the immigration issue and that therefore we should embrace abortion, drugs, sexual degeneracy and feminism in order to appeal to moderates.
Yet another complication is provided by libertarians. Some libertarians claim to be on the Right, but they tend to hold views that most people on the Right would find to be rather disturbing.
My problem is that most of these divisive issues are issues that really matter to me. I can’t go along with acceptance of abortion, drugs, sexual degeneracy and feminism for the sake of short-term political advantage. You can’t fight evil by embracing evil. I can’t really compromise on religion – I just don’t think atheism is compatible with civilisation. I’m also very reluctant to embrace the free market fetish. Maybe I’m just not the kind of person who is good at compromising. Whether being uncompromising is a viable political strategy or not is a question I can’t answer. But compromising just doesn’t appeal to me.

Syria – we’re back to Invade the World, Invite the World

I’m not going to rehash any of the voluminous arguments pro and con in the current Syrian cruise missile attack crisis. What I want to focus on here is the most predictable, and most worrying, feature of the crisis. That feature being the inescapable linkage between Invading the World and Inviting the World. 
We’re already seeing the mainstream media pushing the emotionally manipulative argument that saving Syrian babies by launching cruise missiles is all well and good but if Americans really cared about Syrian babies they’d be welcoming them as refugees. Bombing designated villains only earns you partial virtue points – to prove genuine virtue you have to embrace open borders. They’ve already trotted out Hillary Clinton to make this argument.
It is now clearer than ever (as Steve Sailer has been tirelessly arguing for so long) that Invade the World cannot be separated from Invite the World. The one implies the other. If you accept the idea that the West (led by the United States) has a duty to solve every real or imagined humanitarian crisis on the planet then logically the West must welcome an unlimited influx of refugees.
If the Third World’s problems are our responsibility then accepting unlimited numbers of refugees must logically be our problem as well.
And of course these same arguments will be relentlessly pushed by the media and by the elites throughout the West, not just in the United States. Our lamentable Australian prime minister Malcolm Turnbull has already expressed his support once again for the Invade the World part of the equation which means Australia will be under pressure, once again, to show the same eagerness in Inviting the World.
The Syrian crisis has been a heaven-sent opportunity for globalists to promote their agenda of demographic replacement in the West.