there’s no such thing as society – right-liberalism in action

In 1987 Margaret Thatcher made the notorious statement that, “There is no such thing as society.” That statement seems to sum up the right-wing liberal position rather nicely (and let’s be quite clear that Thatcher was no conservative).

The most amazing thing about this position, to me at least, is that anyone would want to adopt such a worldview. A world entirely composed of atomised individuals motivated purely by selfishness and the blind pursuit of crude pleasure does not sound very enticing to me but right-liberals seem to love the idea.

Of course Mrs Thatcher went on to say, “…who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families…” Today, to an increasing extent, we don’t even have families.And right-liberals like Mrs Thatcher did little or nothing to defend the traditional family.

Without society and without families people are condemned to lives of emptiness, futility and loneliness. All they can do is turn to the government. Which, ironically, is exactly what Thatcher didn’t want people to do. It’s a nice little illustration of the inherently nonsensical nature of right-liberal dogma. Destroy society and destroy the family and you’re going to get the kind of intrusive bureaucratic statism that right-liberals claim to despise.

One consequence of the abolition of society is the elimination of shame. You will inevitably have no sense of shame if you don’t consider that there’s such a thing as society. When you look at our contemporary leaders that lack of a sense of shame becomes very obvious.

Even classical Marxism (as distinct from cultural marxism) is more appealing than right-liberalism. Classical Marxists were trying to create Utopia. They had a vision of a better world. It might have been an unworkable vision but at least it was a vision and it was considerably more attractive than the nihilism and despair to which right-liberalism inevitably leads. Classical Marxists thought they were building Heaven right here on Earthy. Right-liberals are building Hell right here on Earth.


extended families and fertility

A commenter elsewhere suggested that once the extended family disappeared fertility was doomed. The idea being that the costs of motherhood are so high that women will not accept those costs for more than one or at the most two children unless they have a strong support network.

This does sound like a plausible argument.

Perhaps humans have to have extended families in order to breed. Perhaps the nuclear family is a toxic idea.

If you want extended families there are several other things you need. Obviously you need stay-at-home mothers. You need stable decently paid employment for men, stable being the more important factor by far. And you need social stability. You need tight-knit organic communities of people who know and trust each other and those communities need to remain intact. Social mobility was one of the major factors that destroyed the extended family. People need to be able to find jobs in their own communities.

The Industrial Revolution undoubtedly played a rôle in disrupting established communities but the urban working classes managed to create new communities that were actually quite healthy. Those communities thrived until our leaders (encouraged by the corporate sector) decided to declare war on the working class.

Conservatives like to blame the welfare state for most social ills. In fact the wholesale destruction of manufacturing industry and the destruction of rural communities have been far more disastrous.

Of course the decline of religion and the growth of feminism have contributed to the demise of the extended family but the big factor is the breaking up of communities when children move to other cities to pursue their careers, or when family members are forced to leave established communities because they cannot find work.

The corporate sector loves the idea of a “flexible” workforce. In practice that means a demoralised workforce and a loss of community. These are both bonuses as far as the corporate sector is concerned. The corporate sector does not like extended families – people might start to think there was more to life than being a docile worker and a compliant consumer.

In fact if we are ever to rebuild real communities we need to realise that there really is more to life than working and consuming.

Real communities and extended families have other benefits aside from increased fertility. They provide an alternative to hedonism and degeneracy and they also provide some protection from evils such as feminism.

Of course it’s understandable that our politicians didn’t think of any of this. Who would ever have imagined that tight-knit communities might turn out to be essential for a healthy society?

demographic collapse and economic incentives

That the West is heading for demographic collapse is pretty much an established fact. Sub-replacement fertility is now the norm. In countries like Germany the fertility rate is disastrously low. In eastern Europe the situation is even worse, with countries like Lithuania well on the way to national extinction. And in east Asia it’s worse still. Taiwan is almost certainly beyond saving.

It’s long been accepted that economic development and prosperity almost inevitably leads to a plummeting birth rate, but while you might expect that fertility rates would eventually stabilise at a much lower level that isn’t happening. They just keep declining.

And of course we’re then told that we must accept mass immigration from the Third World or we’re economically doomed. Whether that’s really true or not can perhaps be debated, it  is possible that lower populations might be advantageous in some ways, but nonetheless it’s an argument that immigration restrictionists must find a counter for.

So can anything be done to halt the decline of fertility rates? Obviously the answer is yes but most of the solutions are at this point in time politically out of the question. It’s not very likely that any western government is going to outlaw feminism or abolish quick and easy divorce, no matter how desirable such actions might be.

Among the few politically feasible measures are economic incentives. To the extent that they’ve been tried they haven’t been notably successful but that may be because they’ve been poorly thought out. The idea that putting more money in people’s pockets will make them more willing to have children is simplistic and naïve. If people are contemplating starting a family they do not want short-term handouts. What they want is long-term security, and affordable housing.

Long-term security means job security. Job security is something we used to have in the bad old days. Of course in the bad old days we also had successful marriages and happy family life.

When it comes to having families what matters is not how much money people have, but the extent to which they can rely on having an adequate income for long enough to raise children and then be able to look forward to not living in destitution when they get old.

Equally important is affordable decent housing. That means not just a reasonably comfortable home, but a home that is not so far out in the suburbs that it requires a two-hour commute to get to work and a two-hour commute to get home again.

I’m not suggesting that job security and affordable housing would magically solve our demographic problems, but there’s little doubt that it would at least help a little. And as an added side benefit it would allow people to live lives that are somewhat more satisfying than the pursuit of mindless pleasures and an endless supply of consumer goods.

Of course I’m just day-dreaming. Can you really imagine a government wanting to put the interests of families ahead of the interests of globalists and social justice warriors, or seeing family life as more important than GDP growth?

am I a conservative? part two

In my previous post I talked about some of my issues with mainstream conservatism. Now I’m going to address my biggest concern of all – the issue of social conservatism.

I do very much consider myself to be a social conservative. And this is where I really come to a parting of the ways with mainstream conservatism as it exists today. Not only have mainstream conservatives surrendered on every single issue that concerns social conservatives – they actually seem to regard actual social conservatives with a mixture of embarrassment and contempt. While mainstream conservatives are prepared to go to the barricades over the issues that matter to them – tax cuts for the rich, free trade and open borders – it is obvious that they would prefer to avoid taking a stand on every single issue that matters to social conservatives.
For me social issues trump economic issues. Economic prosperity is a fine thing but if society collapses into despair, nihilism and chaos it’s not much consolation to be told that at least we have economic growth.
And our society is collapsing into despair, nihilism and chaos. 
We have reached the stage where the most precious of freedom of all is, apparently, the freedom to slaughter our unborn children. We are slaughtering them by the millions. Quite apart from the obvious moral dimension there is a social cost to this as well. To believe it’s OK to kill an unborn baby because that child might be a nuisance to its parents’ busy social life or might disrupt a woman’s career has terrifying implications that should surely be obvious to all. But mainstream conservatives have no intention of making any kind of stand on this issue.
Mainstream conservatives not only do not want to contest the issue of homosexual marriage – more often than not they actively support it. This issue has nothing to do with tolerance. Homosexuals achieved that decades ago. They don’t want their tragically unhealthy lifestyle to be tolerated – they want it to be celebrated and embraced. They want to be free to promote that lifestyle to children. Homosexual marriage is part of that agenda. But mainstream conservatives have no problem with it.
Feminism has been not only the most pernicious and dangerously deluded ideology ever dreamt up, it has also been a spectacular failure. Women have never been more unhappy, lonely and embittered than they are today. But try to find one mainstream conservative who will point out the folly and evil of feminism.
Pornography has been flooding our society for decades now. Try to find one mainstream conservative who will confront that issue.
Promiscuity is now considered to be the new normal. Long experience has demonstrated the corrosive effects of promiscuity on both the individual and society. But no mainstream conservative wants to be accused of slut-shaming. So that issue gets ignored as well.
So cowardly and treacherous are mainstream conservatives on social issues that even though I am most definitely a social conservative the very word conservative has become so devalued in my eyes that I’d prefer to be called something else. I’d rather call myself a social reactionary.

the problem with social experiments

The problem with social experiments is that they can’t be performed in a laboratory, and they can’t easily be reversed. Many of the social experiments that have had such catastrophic consequences seemed like a good idea at the time.

Removing the stigma on illegitimacy is a classic example. At the time it certainly seemed like a humane idea. No-one really foresaw that it would contribute to the destruction of family life.

Even the liberalisation of divorce laws seemed relatively innocuous to most people. Divorce is always traumatic and it was easy to convince oneself that making divorce less of an ordeal would simply make life easy for a relatively small number of people. Very few people foresaw that it would fatally weaken the institution of marriage.

The introduction of welfare payments for single mothers is less easy to defend, but it was done at a time when it was easy to believe that only a relatively small number of people would be affected.

Childcare was another fatal step, and that’s one bad decision for which no excuses can be offered. The idea of shifting the responsibility for child-rearing away from the family to the state was always a disastrously bad idea.

The legalisation of homosexual activities has widely believed to be a positive step, and again the dangerous consequences were not recognised at the time.

Unfortunately all these things, when combined with the contraceptive pill and the rise of feminism, have utterly destroyed the traditional family.

Of course there have been other forces at work, undermining our society. The cult of personal pleasure and the elevation of sexuality to a central place in society, to the point where sexual identity and sexuality is seen as the be-all and end-all of what makes us individuals, have been equally damaging.

It’s true that there was always a small minority actively seeking to destroy the family as an important step towards their dream of a socialist utopia but none of these social experiments could have occurred had not a significant proportion of the populace allowed themselves to be persuaded that these measures were basically harmless. That’s how societies destroy themselves – it’s a kind of accidental suicide.

That’s really the main reason for opposing homosexual marriage. Every such social experiment attempted thus far has weakened the family and weakened society. Can we afford yet another experiment the results of which cannot be predicted?

What is inexcusable is that once it became obvious that these failed social experiments were destroying our society so-called conservative political leaders did nothing to undo the damage. Mainstream conservative political leaders have displayed shameful cowardice on social issues. This is even more disgraceful given that the majority of voters (and I am convinced of this) would have supported them had they taken action.

I still believe that most conservatives, as distinct from party leaderships, would back actions to take back our society from the hardline leftists and feminists.