identity and subcultures


On various right-leaning forums people are always expressing their bewilderment that whites today don’t have a sense of white identity, or a sense of national identity. People seem to be especially surprised that white elites lack such a sense of identity. How can anyone not have an identity?

In fact white elites and aspiring elites (or wannabe elites) do have a sense of identity but it’s not based on ethnicity, race or tradition. Elites and wannabe elites identify as being members of the elite. They may also identify as members of the gay community or the arts community or the activist community. They may identify as antifa, or as Democrats or Labour supporters. They may even identify as belonging to the vegan community.The only ethnic identity recognised among the elites is Jewish identity but even that is not as strong as some on the alt-right suppose it to be.

What stands out about these identities is that they are mostly strongly class-based and they are artificial. They are not based on a shared history or culture. They are not even based on a clear-cut ideology. You will find a few who will tell you that they are marxists but you’ll soon discover that they know nothing but Marxism. They’ll you they believe in social justice but you’ll find that this is mostly status and/or virtue signalling. They will have great difficulty explaining exactly how social justice is going to work – social justice just means blaming white people and/or heterosexuals for every problem.

These are identities based on feelings. They allow people a sense of belonging but the main attraction is that they offer a feeling of moral and intellectual superiority and self-righteousness. They offer a warm inner glow.

It’s tempting to blame relentless propaganda in schools and the media. This is of course a major cause but this is not the only factor and the roots go back quite a long way. As far back as the 1950s we saw the beginnings of youth subcultures. There were the Teds or Teddy Boys in England, and later the Mods and the Rockers and later still the Skinheads. In Australia there were the Sharpies. And of course there the Hippies, followed by the Punks and the Goths. These were all attempts to create synthetic communities and they were an obvious sign that traditional communities were breaking down.

Interestingly enough the early youth subcultures were heavily working class, which may be an indication that working class communities were the first to begin to disintegrate. Teds and Mods were very much working class. This started to change at the end of the 60s. The Hippies were much more likely to be middle class. The Punks, despite their image, were often drawn from the middle class art school set. Goths seemed to have been predominantly middle class.

The two world wars obvious played a part in dissolving traditional communities but it may be that government policies in the post-war period also contributed. in Britain longstanding communities were broken up and the people relocated into new housing estates which soon became high-rise slums. Employment patterns were changing also with people more inclined to move to seek better jobs. Women were now a substantial part of the workforce with catastrophic results for the family. The nuclear family reigned supreme with extended families seen as old-fashioned and oppressive and boring.

There was of course a huge emphasis on consumerism while religion continued to decline.

People lost the connection to the places in which they were born and raised, and they lost the sense of wide-ranging family ties.

If traditional family and community ties start to decay it’s hardly surprising that people will also find it more difficult to feel a sense of regional identity, ethnic identity and national identity. People become alienated and without religion they become isolated individuals. It’s hardly surprising that they then try to construct artificial identities.

Advertisements

Illinois officially embraces Satanism

There are those who think that western society is in deep trouble so it’s reassuring to hear some positive news. In the Illinois Statehouse there’s a display this holiday season where various religious traditions are being celebrated. Including Satanism. Because we have to be inclusive!

Here’s the inspiring story.

So if you’re looking for somewhere to take the kids at Christmas why not take them to see Satan instead of Santa? In Illinois you can do just that.

Remind me again why we should be trying to save western society.

paganism and morality

I’ve talked before about the importance of religion to a successful society and to speculation as to whether Christianity should be abandoned as a lost cause and some kind of alternative sought. I’ve also talked about the extreme difficulties such an option would face and the dubious chances of success.

There are those on the dissident right who see a revival of paganism as a viable alternative. For a whole series of reasons I think the idea is a complete non-starter. The one thing in its favour is that paganism lacks the universalism of Christianity. That universalism was at one time an asset but it’s now a serious weakness. Paganism is parochial rather than universalistic so it’s certainly has some appeal to those who want to promote nationalism.

To me it seems that the big problem with paganism is morality. Paganism is essentially ritual-based religion. What matters is that the rituals should be performed correctly. Whether an individual is virtuous or not, whether a society is virtuous is not, is pretty much unimportant. If the rituals are carried out in the correct manner then one’s obligation to the gods has been fulfilled.

That’s not to say that the pagans of the ancient world were oblivious to the importance of morality, but morality was more of a social obligation than a religious obligation. In that sense the pagan approach was very similar to our modern approach and to the modern secular religion of liberalism.

That’s a less than ideal basis for morality. There’s a definite danger that moral behaviour  will end up being whatever you manage to convince yourself it is or even worse, whatever you think you can get away with.

In pagan religions even the gods seem to approach the matter in this manner.

Paganism probably worked quite well for societies at a low level of civilisational advancement in which most people lived in small close-knit communities and social pressures were strong enough to maintain the social order. Once pagan societies started to reach a high civilisational level decadence seemed to set in disturbingly quickly and disturbingly completely. The Romans achieved levels of decadence that even we were unable to aspire to until the 20th century.

Which raises an interesting question. Is full-blown decadence something to which only pagan or completely secular societies are prone to? And it raises a related question – is decadence inevitable in a pagan or completely secular society?

culture war, to the death

It’s now obvious that the objective of the globalist/liberal/SJW elites is not to achieve complete political dominance. Their objectives go way beyond that. They are aiming at nothing less than the total destruction of all opposition. They are aiming at zero tolerance for dissent.

We can forget the idea of live and let live. We can forget the idea that once we have been stripped of every vestige of power and influence and completely humiliated and subjugated that we might at least be allowed to live our lives in peace in our own way. That is not going to happen. If you dissent in any way from the new orthodoxy, if you are a social conservative or a Christian or even an old-fashioned leftist who is critical of capitalism, if you a liberal who thinks things have gotten out of hand, if you question orthodoxy in any way you are marked for destruction. For our new masters it is not enough to defeat their political and ideological enemies. Those enemies must be entirely eliminated.

If you have some fantasy that as long as you keep your head down you will be able to live your life your own way or raise your children in your own way think again. It is not just open dissent that is forbidden. It is forbidden to have doubts. It is forbidden to have any reservations about political orthodoxy.

The culture war was lost because most people on the Right didn’t think it was worth fighting because they didn’t think it really mattered. They failed to recognise that as far as the globalist/liberal/SJWs were concerned the culture war was going to be a fight to the death.

It is simply not possible for Christians or for social conservatives to share a society with liberals. Maybe there was a time when some kind of compromise might have been possible. Personally I doubt it, but I admit the possibility. In any case there is no question that at this point in time there can be no compromise, no peace. Either we destroy them or they destroy us.

prosperity and decadence

It’s generally taken for granted that economic prosperity is a good thing. Like most things that are taken for granted it’s something that seems much more dubious when you actually think about it.

A certain degree of prosperity is certainly desirable. That does not mean that ever-increasing prosperity is a good thing. Too much of anything can be dangerous, and that includes material prosperity.

Prosperity seems to lead to decadence. Maybe this is not inevitable but it’s difficult to think of a prosperous society that has not to some extent been afflicted by decadence. Once prosperity increases beyond a certain point what you have is excess prosperity. Excess prosperity leads to status-signalling and status-signalling in material terms seems to lead to ideological status-signalling.

Too much prosperity gives people the opportunity to indulge in unwise and unhealthy behaviours. A struggle for existence on the other hand doesn’t offer such opportunities. Being forced to focus on survival has the advantage of keeping us out of trouble.

Excessive material prosperity also undermines religion.

Too much prosperity seems to be a problem for both individuals and societies. The idea that wealth leads inevitably to happiness is central to both liberalism and capitalism but it is at best an unproven assumption.

What does seem certain is that consumerism leads inexorably to decadence. Consumerism is the ultimate drug. As long as people still have the mot precious human right of all, the right to shop, they will accept anything. Nothing else matters.

believing in inherently incompatible concepts

We live in an irrational age. We live in an age in which people seem to have surprisingly little difficulty believing in concepts that are inherently incompatible. People manage to do this by deluding themselves. They refuse to see the obvious incompatibilities.

There are for example people who consider themselves to be socialists and yet they believe in open borders. This is sheer nonsense. Open borders is death to socialism. Socialism works as a closed system with a homogeneous population. That’s the only way it can work.

There are also people who think you can have closed borders and capitalism. They’re wrong.

Maybe you can have closed borders and a system that incorporates a degree of capitalism but it can only hope to survive in the long term if capitalism is under very very tight government control (something like the present Chinese system). But you certainly cannot have free markets and controlled borders. If you want free markets you’re going to get open borders. There is simply no way to restrain the greed of capitalists for cheap labour and ever-growing markets. If you claim to believe in free markets and immigration restriction then you’re either lying or you’re severely deluded.

This of course does not mean that if you want to avoid the catastrophe of open borders you have to become a socialist. It does mean that you have to abandon free market capitalism and global capitalism. There are other alternatives. The idea that there is a continuum from communism to free market capitalism and that you have to place yourself (and your nation) somewhere on that continuum is total nonsense.

There are also people who think you can have capitalism and religion. In the long run it just doesn’t work. Capitalism will always end up destroying religion. The logic of capitalism is that money is all that matters. Anything that interferes with that must be crushed. Socialism and religion have been very uneasy bedfellows but there is no inherent conflict between the two. Certainly there is no inherent conflict between socialism and Christianity.

We live not merely in an irrational age but in an age in which people seem to genuinely think that if you just believe hard enough then the impossible will become possible. Sadly the world doesn’t work that way.

religion and politics don’t need to make sense

In my previous post I made the point that conservatives see politics as something that is open to debate while liberals see their own political beliefs as religious dogma that is not subject to debate. This is of course hardly original or startling although there are still conservatives who have failed to notice such an obvious fact.

There is something much more interesting that follows from this. Religion does not need to make sense. It is a matter of faith. You do not enter into debate on the subject. Rational argument is irrelevant to religious belief. It naturally follows that the same rule applies to any political ideology that functions as a substitute religion. Debate cannot be permitted.

What must be understood is that it’s not that liberals are unwilling to enter into political debate. They cannot do so. To do so would be to admit that their faith is subject to doubt. It would mean admitting that heretics might be right and the orthodox might be wrong.

The history of the decline of Christianity in the West provides compelling evidence that liberals are, from their point of view, quite correct in rejecting the possibility of discussion. They have a faith and they are satisfied with it. It gives them a reason to live, it gives them a feeling of moral superiority and it gives them a warm fuzzy emotional buzz. From their point of view their political religion works perfectly. The fact that it might make no sense at all and that it might all collapse like a house of cards if subjected to rational argument does not matter because they have no intention of allowing that to happen.

Conservatives just don’t get this. They still insist on assuming that politics is something that can be discussed and debated rationally. They still insist on thinking that political ideologies have to be logical and have to make sense.

This is why conservatism has failed. They can come up with impressive rational arguments in favour of their own economic and social policies but people don’t respond to rational arguments. People don’t decide how to vote based on rational arguments. They make such decisions based on emotions. If voting for a particular party makes them feel morally superior they will do so. If voting for a particular party gives them an emotional rush they will do so.

People do not vote based on a rational assessment of their own interests. There is nothing remotely rational about voting behaviour.

People do not choose their political beliefs by weighing up evidence. They choose the political beliefs that will make them feel good.

People need to feel that their lives have meaning. Choosing a political belief that is emotionally satisfying and that feels morally right helps to give a person the feeling that their life does have meaning and purpose.

Liberalism can only de fought and defeated by an opposing ideology that works the same way – an ideology that appeals to the emotions, that makes a person feel that they are fighting for something good and worthwhile, that feels morally right and that gives meaning to the life of those who believe in it.