the alt-right and the politics of humour

Humour can be a very effective political weapon. It is by its nature a weapon that is more useful to dissidents than to those who defend the status quo. For this reason political humour has for most of modern history been most effectively wielded by the Left.
Humour was used to devastating effect by the New Left in the 1960s and 1970s. They were able to use it to promote the idea of themselves as funny, clever, irreverent and cool and even more importantly to portray their enemies as humourless, stuffy and terminally uncool.
Humour may not have won the culture war for the cultural left but it did play its part.
Today the political landscape is very different. The Left is in complete control of the culture (although in fact leftists are merely useful idiots for the globalist capitalists and bureaucratic managerial types who really run things).
Those who were the glamorous rebels in the 60s and 70s are now the establishment. And being the establishment has crippled leftist humour. Just try sitting through ”progressive” comedy. It’s an ordeal. Being terrified of offending dozens of protected victim groups leaves no real scope for being funny.
In today’s world humour has become a weapon that can be most easily and most effectively wielded by the dissidents of the right. The alt-right in particular has discovered just how potent a weapon humour can be. Their humour might be vulgar and cruel and irreverent but those are exactly the qualities that made the leftist humour of half a century ago so devastating. 
The alt-right obsession with Pepe the Frog and similar memes might be somewhat childish  but the constant trolling of liberals (especially the undeniably amusing efforts of /pol/ to troll liberals with fake white supremacist memes) is having the effect of making liberal ideologist seem ridiculous. And one should never underestimate the potency of ridicule. The alt-right’s use of humour does seem to be having some effect in making liberalism seem ugly, oppressive and unattractive. It has to some extent wrong-footed the liberal establishment and that’s a positive thing.

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.

quotes for the day, March 27 2017

“Atheism in legislation, indifference in matters of religion, and the pernicious maxims which go under the name of Liberal Catholicism are the true causes of the destruction of states; they have been the ruin of France. Believe me, the evil I denounce is more terrible than the Revolution, more terrible even than The Commune. I have always condemned Liberal Catholicism, and I will condemn it again forty times over if it be necessary.” – Pope Pius IX

“The civil liberty of every mode of worship, and full power given to all of openly and publicly manifesting their opinions and their ideas conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people… The Roman Pontiff cannot and ought not to reconcile himself or agree with, progress, liberalism and modern civilization.” – Pope Pius IX
“If a future Pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him.” – Pope Pius IX

the Geert Wilders disaster

I confess to having mixed feelings about the Dutch election result. It was obviously a disaster for Geert Wilders. How should a conservative traditionalist feel about this?
Let’s be quite honest. Geert Wilders is no friend to western civilisation. He is anti-immigration and that’s great. Unfortunately on other issues he’s a liberal. And not just a liberal, but a fairly extreme liberal. He is perfectly comfortable with the depravity and decadence of modern Europe. Nothing matters more to Geert Wilders than homosexual marriage.
The problem with people like Wilders is that they are not presenting a genuine alternative. They do not have a vision of a better society. And if western civilisation is to be saved we need genuine alternative visions. 
Single-issue parties like Wilders’ offer a deceptively simple solution. Stop immigration and everything will be fine. Stopping immigration is a good idea but it’s not going to make everything fine. To solve the real problems liberalism must be rooted out entirely. Society needs to be reconstructed. 
Unless this is done there is no point in worrying about immigration, because as long as liberalism remains our official ideology any victory on immigration will be temporary at best. Eventually liberals will open the flood-gates again. The only way to stop mass immigration permanently is to reject liberalism utterly. As long as liberals remain in power they will continue to work towards the destruction of our civilisation. Liberals like Geert Wilders are not the answer.

the future of Europe: liberal or Islamic?

Assuming that Muslims go on increasing as a proportion of the population in western Europe it’s obvious that eventually there will have to be a showdown. Islam and liberalism are mutually incompatible belief systems. The question is, which system will win?
The European elites are sure that liberalism will win out, and that within a generation or two Muslims will become atheist liberals. The elites are composed of people who simply cannot comprehend religious belief. It is inconceivable to them that anyone, faced with the choice between actual religion and the prevailing secular religion of hedonism and consumerism, could possibly choose religion. The elites are sure that Islam will gradually fade away the way Christianity did. If the elites are wrong about this they are in big big trouble.
The other possibility is that Islam triumphs. In a recent comment at Oz Conservative Mark suggested that if Islam wins elite women will convert to Islam because they have zero commitment to Christianity. That is certainly possible. I can imagine quite a few liberals, especially the ones who dominate the media, bureaucracy and academia, converting because basically they’re people who are willing to adopt any set of beliefs that will help their careers and allow them to curry favour with the people who really run things. Because liberals in the media, bureaucracy and academia might think of themselves as being members of the elite they aren’t really – they’re just members of the Outer Party. And the Inner Party members are not going to give up their devotion to their chosen religion – the pursuit of power and money.
The problem with this scenario is that it’s not going to be very attractive to the Inner Party. The super-rich globalists of the Inner Party want a population that is docile and easily controlled and that will fulfill its allotted functions – which means a population dedicated to hedonism and consumerism. An Islamic population is unlikely to be docile and easily controlled and is unlikely to dedicate itself to hedonism and consumerism. And that would be a threat to the profits and to the power of the global capitalists. That would mean that the elites would have to take active steps to undermine and ultimately to destroy Islam. They would use the same methods that were so successful in destroying Christianity.
Liberalism is essential to global capitalism because it is the one belief system perfectly suited to producing a population of compliant mindless consumers.
Islam is not likely to submit as meekly as Christianity did. The stage would be set for another culture war but this time it’s not going to be a cold war – it’s going to be a very hot war.
Islam and liberalism cannot co-exist in the long term. One must destroy the other. I don’t believe that Islam and capitalism (at least capitalism of the sort that currently dominates the planet) are compatible either.
Christians and social conservatives will therefore face a choice. We can watch from the sidelines, or we can enlist as allies on one side or the other. We’re in the same situation that small nations are in when Great Powers start assembling alliances in preparation for war, having to choose which alliance to join and desperately hoping to choose the winning side. Islam and liberalism are the ideological superpowers. We’re one of the minor powers but our very survival depends on making the right choice. If we stay on the sidelines we’re not going to be very popular with either side.
My own view is that liberalism is by nature totalitarian. Liberals will not stop until every Christian and every social conservative has been hunted down and sent to a re-education camp (and a re-education camp is the best we can hope for). In the long term liberalism intends to stamp out every single ember of dissent. Under triumphal liberalism we have no future at all.
As for Islam, it’s a crap shoot. We might get lucky and find ourselves living under a reasonably tolerant Islamic regime. Or we might get something like Saudi Arabia.
Sometimes in life you have a number of choices but the trouble is they’re all bad.

when did we take our fatal wrong turning?

The latest post at Upon Hope is an interesting defence of the Middle Ages. I have considerable sympathy for the view that the medieval period was not an era of ignorance and backwardness. 
This raises the question – at what point did western civilisation make its fatal wrong turning?
Mark suggests that it was the Enlightenment. I think there’s no question that the Enlightenment had a baleful influence on our civilisation. But why was the Enlightenment so successful in undermining traditional values and more particularly in undermining Christianity? Could it be that Christianity had already been fatally weakened by the Reformation? The Reformation destroyed the concept of Christendom. It destroyed the idea of a universal church. Henceforth there would be dozens of Christian sects. Surely all these competing sects can’t all be right? And once you accept the idea that they can’t all be right it’s only a small step to accepting the idea that maybe all of them are wrong. The Reformation made the growth of scepticism inevitable and scepticism slowly but surely ate away at the foundations of Christian belief.
Once you are prepared to accept that everyone has the right to follow their own conscience when it comes to choosing a church then logically you must accept that they also have the right to choose no church, in other words to choose atheism.
Without a concept of Christendom and without a universal church western civilisation was poorly placed to fight off the challenge of the Enlightenment.
Once Christianity was dealt its fatal blow (and I believe Christianity was already doomed by the early 19th century) then all the other pillars of traditional society that Mark mentions in his post – hierarchy, monarchy, a sense of permanence – were similarly doomed. The Enlightenment prepared the way for democracy and socialism.
Was there any way western civilisation could have saved itself? By the 19th century the forces that would ultimately destroy us were already well established – capitalism, democracy, mass media and government involvement in education. These forces would in turn produce the most malevolent civilisational disease of all – liberalism.
Unfortunately while the 20th century would see liberalism seriously challenged it would also see liberalism’s challengers totally discredited. Liberalism not only emerged triumphant but with a halo of entirely undeserved sanctity. 
Is there any way we can rebuild the traditional values that we have lost? To do so we would have to reject the false god of liberalism. It is possible that this might happen, but unfortunately it’s not likely unless things start to get very bad indeed. Of course it’s entirely possible that things will get very bad indeed.

backlashes don’t organise themselves

If you spend any time at all on any right-wing online sites you will have seen countless comments assuring us that a backlash against the follies of liberalism is inevitable, and expressing amazement that it hasn’t happened yet.
In fact it’s not the slightest bit surprising that there has been no backlash.
First of all we need to be clear what we’re talking about. If the backlash amounts to a few spontaneous individual acts of defiance then we’re talking about something so futile that we might as well not waste our breath.
What we have seen over the past half century or so has been nothing less than a revolution. A revolution pursued by patient gradualist means but a revolution as momentous as any in history. Most of those on the right think that this revolution has been a left-wing revolution but this is a fundamental misunderstanding. It has been more of an aristocratic revolution, with the new aristocracy being the class of globalist elites who dominate big business, banking, government and the media. These new aristocrats wrap themselves in the banner of Social Justice but in reality what these self-proclaimed Social Justice Warriors (SJWs) care about is their own wealth and power.
To defeat a revolution requires a counter-revolution. The trouble is that counter-revolutions, like revolutions, do not arise spontaneously. Never in history has there been a  spontaneous revolution or counter-revolution. To achieve a counter-revolution will require organisation, or the support of existing organised groups. There’s no question that there’s already enough anger and disgust to fuel such a counter-revolution but without leadership and organisation it will never happen.
Where is this organisation going to come from? The military is solidly behind the globalist/SJW agenda. The Christian Churches are almost entirely SJW. The media is controlled by globalist SJWs. The schools are controlled by SJWs. The universities are controlled by SJWs. The police are controlled by SJWs.
There are only two ways a successful counter-revolution can occur. The first is through the creation of large-scale highly disciplined alternative anti-SJW organisations. That’s going to require a great deal of hard work, patience and money. 
The second way would be to find an already existing organised grouping that shares our hostility to liberalism and modernism.
There is no third way.