SJWs and globalists – who actually pulls the strings?

The culture war is a war that was launched by powerful vested interests but they are not the ones who actually fought the war. The bankers and billionaires and senior deep state functionaries (the globalists who could be described as the Inner Party) left the conduct of the war largely to journalists, academics, politicians and so-called activists. These were the Social Justice foot soldiers. They could be described as the Outer Party.

It was an arrangement that worked very well. The globalists wanted to ensure that populations were demoralised and easily controlled, with no loyalties and no stable beliefs. They wanted willing consumers, and compliant cheap labour. They therefore wanted traditional institutions such as the family and the churches destroyed. Their SJW foot soldiers were eager to oblige.

So far so good. The one minor problem is the quality of the human material from which the SJW foot soldiers are drawn. Feminists, homosexuals, transgenders, environmentalists – these people are fundamentally unstable. Many are in fact mentally ill. This phenomenon is one that Spandrell has addressed in his recent extremely stimulating posts on bio-leninism here and here and here.

The mental instability of these people makes them useful in many ways since it predisposes them towards fanaticism but it also makes them difficult to control. When you’re using feminists as a weapon for example then you have to be aware that you’re dealing with an unguided missile. The globalists are happy to use feminists to attack Christians and white men (preferably working-class white men) but the recent #metoo fiascos where feminists have targeted black men and even elite Jews are a good illustration of the dangers. In fact the dangers in this case are even greater since you’re not just dealing with feminists but also with actresses who are even more unstable and narcissistic than everyday feminists. Your chances of trying to reason with Hollywood feminists are very very poor. These Hollywood feminists can smell blood in the water and they are in no mood to pick and choose their victims carefully.

This is likely to be more and more of a problem. The globalists have given seriously crazy people a great deal of power to destroy and they’re hoping they can direct that destruction against their enemies, but those crazy people get crazier as they get more power and as they get the taste for blood. They’re likely to be increasingly difficult to control. The results will be interesting to watch.

Advertisements

the coming demographic collapse

Civilisations have died before and in many cases these deaths could be described as being at least in part suicides but what we’re seeing today is something much more frightening – our species is committing suicide. We are simply no longer reproducing. There’s a name for species that stop reproducing – we call them extinct species.

The catastrophic falls in birth rates in the West are certainly old news. Fertility in the West has been slowly declining for well over a century. But it’s not just the West now. Some of the lowest fertility rates on the planet are found in highly developed east Asian societies. South Korea and Taiwan are almost certainly past the point of no return.

Fertility rates have plummeted everywhere, except sub-Saharan Africa. Europe, Latin America, east Asia, the Indian subcontinent, the Islamic world, North America – wherever you look it’s the same story. There are fewer and fewer babies.

No-one can be entirely certain why this has happened. It is possible that physiological factors may be involved, with unhealthy hormone balances being one suspect. It does seem more likely though that the disaster is mostly cultural in nature.

Undoubtedly urbanisation has played a part. The demoralising effects of capitalism and consumerism. The collapse of organised religion. Feminism, the glorification of homosexuality, the trans nonsense, the ubiquity of pornography – these are certainly factors. It has to be said that as American culture has been spread more and more aggressively across the planet it has been followed by the social hollowing-out that leads to further declines in fertility. 

Foolish western governments have allowed themselves to be persuaded that the economic consequences of population collapse can be avoided by mass immigration. That’s not going to work for various reasons, but in the long term the main reason it isn’t going to work is that all human populations are collapsing, and they’re collapsing fastest in the more “advanced” countries. The immigrants are also going to stop reproducing.

Of course it can be argued that declining populations are not necessarily a bad thing. The trouble is that we are not dealing with a slow decline in healthy populations. We’re dealing with populations that are failing to reproduce because society is diseased. We don’t know if such declines can ever be reversed. It might well be that once a certain point is reached an equilibrium will start to establish itself, or alternatively it might be that the collapse will begin to accelerate until self-extinction is achieved.

In any case while the economic problems of declining populations might be solvable we certainly are not close to finding such a solution.

And then of course there’s the added difficulty that the one place that population collapse is not happening is sub-Saharan Africa. If our leaders our determined to arrest declining population by bringing in immigrants then sub-Saharan Africa is going to be the only long-term source of unlimited numbers of immigrants. Does anyone seriously think that’s going to end well?

We also need to ask ourselves if we really want to live in a society in which people are too selfish and too stuck in permanent adolescence to want to raise families. It’s not likely to turn out to be a very healthy society.

what the world needs is less love and understanding

It’s becoming increasingly obvious that what the world needs is a whole lot less love and understanding.

We’ve tried the love and understanding and compassion thing. We have compassion oozing out of every pore. We’ve tried treating criminals with compassion. It doesn’t work. Putting people in prison stops them from committing crimes. Compassion doesn’t.

We’ve tried treating sexual deviants with love and understanding. They respond not just by preying on our children, but by demanding that we should celebrated their predations.

We’ve tried compassion as a basis for foreign policy. We’ve had humanitarian interventions, which usually leave behind chaos and misery. The West has given away billions in foreign aid. On balance it’s made things worse.

Love and understanding is what you get when a society becomes hopelessly feminised. Women believe that problems can be fixed by love and understanding. That’s why rational societies don’t let women run things. They confine women to the domestic sphere, where love and understanding actually works.

What we actually need is a much greater sense of duty, and responsibility, and an acceptance of the necessity for moral rules. We need a willingness to punish wrong-doing. We need to accept that bad behaviour (including sexual misconduct) should have unpleasant consequences. Bad behaviour should not be rewarded with hugs.

Tolerance is another word for not caring. A tolerant society is a society that just doesn’t care.

Whenever you see love and understanding starting to blossom, step on them.

the future of religion, part 2 – Islamised Europe or a European Islam

On the subject of the future of religion another post at A Political Refugee From the Global Village asks Will the future see an Islamised Europe or a European Islam?

Personally I’m not convinced that either is inevitable because I’m not convinced that even Islam can stop the steamroller progress of the death cult of secular liberalism.

I also fear that a European Islam might be a bit like modern Christianity – in other words basically secular liberalism with a few quasi-religious trappings. Of course Islam does lack some of Christianity’s worst weaknesses, such as the masochistic turn the other cheek stuff and the cult of hugs and feelings. Islam might be better able to resist the feminising tendencies.

What it comes down to is a religion’s ability to fight off the poison of feminism, and it’s an insidious and deadly poison indeed.

A European Islam, or even an Islamised Europe, would certainly be preferable to the sewer that liberalism has in store for us.

I should make the point (and this applies to my previous post as well) that these speculations about the religious future of society do not represent the future I would like to see. The future I would like to see is a return to something very like the pre-Reformation unity of Christendom, and something very like pre-Reformation Christianity. Unfortunately I don’t think that’s going to happen.

Of the futures that are actually likely to happen, or are at least possible, most are rather unpalatable. The religious fascism I speculated about in my previous post and a Europeanised Islam are not the futures one would have hoped for. It’s a matter of choosing the least worst option. Secular liberalism offers a never-ending descent into degeneracy and decadence and despair. Any alternative would be better than that.

the future of religion

A recent post at A Political Refugee From the Global Village tackles the question of finding a substitute for belief in God. This is a question that people like Jordan Peterson seem to be grappling with, although in Peterson’s case without any success.

The first question to ask is whether any society has managed to survive without religion. The answer is, it depends on what you mean by religion. Did the classical Greeks and Romans actually believe in their gods? Or in any god at all? They seemed to be pretty sceptical but the fragmentary nature of the sources makes it difficult to know just how much the average person in the classical world believed in religion.

One of the strongest arguments in favour of religion is that it provides the only viable foundation for morality. I think it should be noted that if the classical world was characterised by scepticism it was also characterised by depressingly low levels of morality.

What about Asian civilisations such as Imperial China? Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism and Shintoism don’t seem to be religions in quite the same way that Christianity or Islam are religions. Nonetheless they seem to have worked fairly well as the basis for building civilisations and they seem to have done rather better on the morality front than the Greeks and Romans.

It might therefore be possible to base a genuine civilisation on a religion that is more like a civic or communal faith than the relationship with a personal God that is the way most of us think about Christianity. It has to be stressed however that the great danger is that such a religion will be wishy-washy and vague and woolly-minded and hopelessly feminised, just like modern Christianity. That just isn’t going to work. What is needed is a civic religion that is strong and virile and hard-headed.

There has to be a focus of devotion and if it’s not a personal God then there seem to be only two alternatives – the focus has to be worship of the state or worship of a king. Kings are hopelessly out of fashion and the ridiculous and pathetic constitutional monarchies of Europe have discredited the idea of monarchy altogether. The focus of devotion is therefore going to be the state.

That sounds like plain old totalitarianism but it isn’t, or at least not necessarily. The totalitarian societies have that so far come into being have been little more than slave states, with ordinary people being nothing more than anonymous cogs in a machine. A state religion could, perhaps, offer a great deal more. It could offer a genuine sense of purpose with the people being part of the state rather than servants of the state. It would be a very difficult trick to pull off but it might be possible.

Such a system could be described as a kind of religious fascism. It could incorporate some elements of Christianity and of paganism.

The question is, is there a viable alternative? Liberals like Jordan Peterson would like to think we could have a kind of touchy-feely secular religiosity that is compatible with liberal democracy. This is mere delusion. Liberal democracy is a dead end. It offers nothing but futility, emptiness and death. It is a death cult. What is needed is something that would allow us to sweep liberal democracy into the dustbin of history. Whatever the future turns out to be like Jordan Peterson is not going to like it. He’s going to be doing a lot of crying.

British nationalism and Israel

While it’s nice to see expressions of nationalism among the Europeans and even the Britons there’s one thing that worries me a little. That’s the possibility that European nationalism is being manipulated by the Israel lobby for its own purposes.

This seems to be a particular problem in Britain where British nationalists appear to be disturbingly pro-Israel.

This is disturbing for several reasons. Firstly, Israel’s interests are most certainly not the same as Britain’s interests. In fact in many ways Israel’s interests are totally incompatible with the interests of European peoples. A very large part of the immigration problem facing Europe today is a direct result of Israel’s pursuit of its foreign policy objectives of destabilising any Middle East regime of which it disapproves. We need to remember that nationalism has a different meaning for Israel. For Israel nationalism means keeping Muslims and Christians out of Israel. The fate of Europe is a matter of complete indifference.

It’s also disturbing because it raises the question of money. Is Israel actually financing some British nationalists?

It’s also disturbing that some British free speech advocates seem to be quite OK with the suppression of any speech that is even mildly critical of Israel. The rabidly pro-Israel Katie Hopkins comes to mind.

The idea of so-called British nationalists who put Israel’s interests ahead of Britain’s is rather worrying.

Hilaire Belloc on Oliver Cromwell

Hilaire Belloc’s brief biography of Oliver Cromwell appeared in 1927. It would be more accurate to describe his Oliver Cromwell as a biographical sketch, or a biographical impression.

Belloc stresses Cromwell’s position as a member of the wealthy classes who had enriched themselves at the expense of the Church in the wake of the Reformation. That class certainly had a very powerful reason for fearing a restoration of Catholicism – they wished to hold on to their ill-gotten gains. Which may be a partial explanation for Cromwell’s fanatical and rabid hatred for Catholicism. Belloc makes the important point that a Catholic restoration was by no means an impossibility in mid-17th century England so the anti-Catholic paranoia of men like Cromwell was not entirely ridiculous.

The Cromwell that emerges in Belloc’s sketch was a man who stumbled into absolute power and proved to be entirely unfitted for it, having no coherent plan or vision. He gradually accumulated power and his own interests and his own survival meant that he could never relinquish such power. He was a kind of prisoner of his own success in the art of political intrigue.

Belloc notes that Cromwell had been regarded as a great villain for many years after the Civil War and in the 19th century was seen as a great hero but in reality he was neither, lacking the stature to be either a true villain or a true hero. He was on the whole a mediocrity who happened to be an outstanding cavalry commander and to be a remarkably adept intriguer and manipulator. His narrowness was the crucial factor. He may have been the greatest cavalry commander of all time but in the military sphere that’s all he was – he was too limited to be a genuinely great general. As a politician he was cunning and extraordinarily skilful but he was no more than an opportunist. His political career was ultimately an exercise in futility.

Cromwell was a disaster but you don’t need to be actively evil to be a political disaster, and Belloc does not see Cromwell as evil.

The book is what you expect from Belloc – eccentric, opinionated, provocative and fascinating.