should we even bother to vote?

We’re having an election in Australia and I’m finding it pretty hard to care.

More and more it seems that voting is not merely futile but counter-productive. We all know that whichever way we vote it’s not going to make a difference. When we vote we’re like the gambler who knows the game is rigged but he plays anyway because it’s the only game in town. We know we can’t win but we can’t give up that illusion that maybe this time it will work. This time it will make a difference. This time we won’t get betrayed. But we get betrayed anyway.

The futility of voting is not the problem. We do lots of things that are futile. The problem with voting is that we’re not making a choice Party X and Party Y (which are both the same anyway). What we’re doing is casting a vote in favour of a corrupt system. What we’re doing is lending legitimacy to a system that has no actual legitimacy. It’s a system that was never intended to be anything other than an illusion, a way of making us think we had political power when in fact we don’t. When we vote we are in effect saying that we’re satisfied with the system. We’re happy to continue to live in a world of illusions.

We convince ourselves that by voting we can somehow change things for the better, even if only in an infinitesimally small way. But we are actually making things worse, no matter which way we vote.

Advertisements

patriotism and conflicting loyalties

These days words have a way of changing their meaning to suit the politics of the speaker. We need to know exactly what we mean by a particular word as used in a particular argument.

Nationalism and patriotism are words thrown about by liberals, by conservatives and by traditionalists. To liberals nationalism is just another generic insult – calling someone a nationalist is like calling him a fascist. Conservatives (who are merely right-leaning liberals) sometimes try to distinguish between nationalism (which is evil and basically nazi) and patriotism (which is good and honourable).

Nationalism gained a bad reputation because it was responsible for the horrors of the two world wars. Of course those wars actually had more to do with clashes between competing empires than nationalism but a scapegoat had to be found and once nationalism was cast in that rôle it was always going to be pretty much impossible to rehabilitate the concept.

The problem is that even if patriotism is possibly a good thing it’s not so easy to define. OK, it’s love of one’s country, but what does that mean? What does it mean if you live in an artificial country like Belgium, or Canada, or the United States? Or Australia? If you’re an Australian of entirely British stock should your patriotic feelings be directed towards Australia or Britain? And if you’re lucky enough to live in a nation of immigrants what exactly is the nature of any patriotic feelings those immigrants might feel?

Tony Abbott used to waffle on about Team Australia. Apparently to a modern conservative patriotism is a bit like choosing which football team you support.

Americans often go on about the proposition nation idea but the first problem with that is that the original proposition has now changed radically. If the proposition can keep changing then the nation has no actual existence, no actual identity. It’s just a temporary political allegiance. Politicians have also been known to resort to the shared values argument, the problem there being that there is no evidence that these shared values actually exist. The shared values are imaginary items manufactured by opinion polling.

There’s also the question of distinguishing between loyalty to the nation and loyalty to the regime (there used to be another option, loyalty to the monarch, but there are no monarchies any more). The French are rather big on the idea of loyalty to the ideals of Republicanism which it seems to me is putting loyalty to regime and to ideology before loyalty to the nation.

Even assuming that we should put loyalty to the nation before loyalty to regime or ideology  there is the question of whether an evil regime should cancel our loyalty to the nation. Were those Germans (clearly the majority) who remained loyal to Germany even under the Nazis right to do so? Can we justify treason to the nation because we don’t like the regime? Many traitors do in fact believe, quite sincerely, that loyalty to their principles overrides loyalty to their country. I think it’s probably fair to assume that Kim Philby believed he was doing the right and honourable thing by putting his loyalty to communism ahead of his loyalty to Britain. I am not certainly not suggesting that he was right, but I do think that he felt that he was right.

And given the fact that today in the West we live under a corrupt, degenerate hostile regime do our patriotic feelings towards our nations compel us to serve such an evil regime?

I’m not claiming that I have the answers to these questions. But the questions do worry me.

modern politics and the new class

Post-World War 2 politics seems bewildering. The old political divisions such as left and right don’t really seem to explain any of it satisfactorily. Perhaps the answer is that we need to think sociologically rather than politically.

Of course sociology is a dirty word to most self-styled conservatives but it can offer us some useful insights.

Post-WW2 politics is quite different from the politics of the preceding century. It’s just as class-based but what has changed is the nature of the classes. For Marxists there was the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Class membership was based on power and wealth and was strongly hereditary. Most people were born into their class and remained there.

A new class took power after the Second World War. They were the spiritual descendants of the intellectuals who who worked so hard to destroy civilisation in the 18th and 19th century but with some crucial differences – they were now much more numerous and they were no longer obscure professors, penniless students or failed writers. They had gained access to power. They were now senior bureaucrats, influential journalists, lawyers and career politicians. Some sociologists refer to them as the new managerial class. They saw society as something that needed management, and if necessary micro-management. And not just economic management, but social management.

They were not like the old bourgeoisie. They were not necessarily rich. They did not necessarily own factories.

Importantly, they were not born into this new class. Membership was gained  by going to the right universities and doing the right sorts of degrees and by subscribing to the right kind of thinking.

These are people who, whether they were born in a mansion or a hovel, now see themselves as belonging to a superior class. The class markers now are not wealth or birth but membership of a class that sees itself as an intellectual elite. They believe they are set apart from the masses by superior intelligence, education and virtue. In fact they see themselves as an Elect, predestined to rule.

What is important in political terms is that for the past half century or so virtually every politician regardless of supposed party allegiance has come from this new managerial/intellectual class. We no longer have different parties representing different class interests We now have different parties that all represent the same class interest. Which explains why the policies of the major parties are more or less interchangeable. It explains why there is no discernible difference between Tony Blair and Theresa May, or between Bill Shorten and Scott Morrison. It explains why Americans keep electing different presidents but end up getting the same misgovernment.

The nature of this managerial/intellectual class has other consequences. These are people who believe they have a duty to manage other people’s lives. They also believe they have a duty to police public opinion. They are the superior people and they know what’s best for the rest of us. If we don’t agree then we must be made to agree. It’s for our own good.

nations in decline

There’s an interesting debate at A Political Refugee From the Global Village on the subject of Britain’s decline.

Decline is a tricky concept. A nation can be declining absolutely or relatively. The Austro-Hungarian Empire was extremely healthy in 1914 but it was perhaps declining relative to the other great powers.

Nations can be declining in certain areas and booming in other areas.

Australia today is unquestionably in material terms a lot more prosperous than it was when I was growing up. Just as unquestionably it is now a much less pleasant country in which to live. The cities are much more crowded and they are dirtier. There’s a subtle atmosphere of suspicion and hostility that wasn’t there in the past.

People are much less relaxed. People feel less secure.

Half a century ago we had little in the way of an actual Australian culture. Today we have even less. Culturally we are entirely an American colony. We even celebrate Halloween, a purely American festival that was unknown in Australia even a couple of decades ago. We copy every aspect of American pop culture. We have become a much more crass much more trashy society.

This is all subjective, but it’s the subjective things that matter to people.

Australia’s position in the world has not really changed. Half a century ago we were a U.S. vassal state. Militarily and politically that hasn’t changed. Psychologically that hasn’t changed. We think of ourselves as having no right to an independent foreign policy.

We might be doing well economically but psychologically and spiritually we’re in deep trouble. We’re not happy but we can’t figure out that we’re not happy because material wealth does not bring happiness.

why we need more instability

We are used to the idea of political stability being a good thing, but perhaps there are times when it is highly undesirable.

At this point in time the globalist-liberals have society moving in the direction that suits them. All they need to do is to keep the momentum going and in fact to a large extent they don’t even need to do that. Their agenda will keep rolling steadily forward under its own momentum.

So naturally what the globalist-liberals want is political stability. They do not want anything that will threaten the stability of the current situation since the current situation suits them perfectly.

What this means is that if you are an opponent of the current regime then logically what you want is political instability. You want to undermine the foundations of the present regime, just as every revolutionary movement has sought to do. The objective has to be not a change of government but regime change. The overthrowing of the existing political settlement.

In the past revolutionary movements sometimes aimed at regime change by force. For various reasons this is not an option for western dissidents today, and for various reasons it would be very undesirable even if it were possible. But revolutionaries can be perfectly bloodless. The social revolution of the 60s and 70s was non-violent but it succeeded in overthrowing every accepted social value.

We need our own social revolution. And to get it we will need to destabilise things.

Which means that when we vote we need to keep this in mind. There’s no point in voting for the person you think will make the best prime minister or the best president. Democratic and parliamentary systems are designed to ensure that there is no possibility of someone reaching the top who actually has the ability to be a good and effective leader.

So whichever way you vote you’re going to be get a lousy prime minister. My feeling is that therefore it is best to vote for the candidate or party most likely to create instability in the system. In Britain today that probably means Jeremy Corbyn. He might well be a terrible prime minister, but he might help to create the kind of political chaos that is needed to bring down a rotten system. In fact one could argue that Theresa May is doing a terrific job right now in laying the foundations for anarchy in the U.K. – with any luck she might deal the system a fatal blow.

I’m adopting here the view attributed (probably wrongly) to Lenin, the famous “the worse, the better” argument that holds that the worse things get the better from the point of view of bringing down the system.

In Australia the best hope of destabilisation is certainly Pauline Hanson. Her recent attempt to get the Senate to pass a motion saying that it’s OK to be white was the kind of masterstroke that is needed. He not only knew the motion would fail, she was counting on it. By voting down the motion the Senate has made it clear to ordinary Australians that as far as the system is concerned they are the enemy. It was a brilliant way of undermining public faith in the political system.

When there’s no realistic hope of reforming the system all you can do is to try to weaken it as much as you can. In such a situation the most attractive candidates to vote for are the most massively incompetent ones (like Corbyn) or the ones who know they are outsiders and are prepared to act accordingly (like Hanson).

gender quotas and the disaster that is feminism

There are many reasons why the Australian Liberal Party has to die but now there’s yet another reason. They are seriously considering introducing gender quotas to increase female representation in Parliament.

In a way it’s quite amusing. Gender quotas are in fact an admission that women are simply not good enough to make it without special assistance. On a level playing field they just can’t compete. It’s a great example of the utter failure of feminism.

Amusing perhaps, but it’s also a sign of the total surrender of the Liberal Party to political correctness. It’s another example of right-wing liberals being even worse than left-wing liberals.

how the culture war could have been won

You can divide people into two categories, the civilisation-preservers and the civilisation-wreckers. The civilisation-wreckers have taken various forms but the most dangerous of all are the Social Justice Warriors with which we are too familiar today. The real question is – why have the civilisation-wreckers been so much more successful than the civilisation-preservers?

A major reason is that the civilisation-preservers are generally speaking fairly ordinary people. They have jobs. They’re married. They’re raising kids. They have only a limited amount of time to devote to politics.

The civilisation-wreckers on the other hand are usually unemployed. Or they work in academia, which is the same thing really (at least in most of the humanities departments). Even if they’re married they usually have one or even more commonly no kids. They have lots and lots of leisure time to devote to political activism. In practice ten civilisation-wreckers can achieve more than a hundred civilisation-preservers simply because they can devote their whole lives to the task.

The sad thing is that this situation, this massive over-supply of activists with time on their hands, is not natural. It has been manufactured. And it could have been stopped.

Anyone who has had to deal with an infestation of household pests such as ants knows that the only way to eradicate the problem is to find the nests. It’s the same with SJWs. Fortunately in the case of SJWs we know where the nests are. They’re in academia mostly, in the bureaucracy and in NGOs and the media (especially the government-owned media like the BBC and the ABC). And they’ve been breeding there for decades.

Over the past decades supposedly conservative governments in Britain, Australia and the U.S. have had ample opportunities to solve this problem. All they had to do was to cut off the supply of oxygen, in other words cut off the funding. Would-be SJWS would them have been forced to find real jobs in the real world. They would then not have had all that leisure time for political activism (some of them might even have abandoned their SJW beliefs after encountering the real world).

This would not have been a complete solution of course. Some of the nests in the media would certainly have survived and some of the useless university departments handing out Mickey Mouse degrees would have found alternative sources of funding. But it would still have achieved quite a lot. The supply of SJWs funded by the taxpayer with unlimited amounts of free time could have been reduced radically. The SJW menace might have been contained.

And those supposedly conservative governments in Britain, Australia and the U.S. have done nothing. They have allowed SJWs to continue to proliferate. The worthless NGOs still thrive, the Women’s Studies and Gender Studies and sociology departments continue to get funded to churn out unemployable misfits intent on destroying our society, the bureaucracy has not been reined in and the BBC and ABC still spend billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money on civilisation-wrecking.

There is an obvious conclusion to be drawn from this. Those so-called conservative governments never did intend to win the culture war. They never even intended to fight it. Worse than that, they have been not merely passive spectators but in many cases have worked actively for the forces of darkness. Those conservative political parties need to die.