Sunday, June 19, 2016

the alt-right - the new cuckservatives?

This is in response to a couple of excellent recent posts at Bloody shovel and Vanishing American.

Both posts raise issues that have been giving me great concern recently. My greatest fear has always been that conservatives might be dumb enough to buy the ridiculous idea of allying with the cultural left against immigration. This would mean that conservatives would have to accept the complete progressivist cultural agenda. Conservatives would then find themselves fighting to defend homosexual marriage, feminism and all the other evils that have undermined the foundations of western society for the past half century or so.

It was always plausible that the mainstream conservatives, those whom the alt-right like to refer to contemptuously as the cuckservatives, would fall for this. Their one infallible instinct is to surrender on any matter of principle. It’s what they have always done. It has always ended in disaster and they keep on doing it.

Post-Orlando it’s profoundly depressing to see that many people on the alt-right seem to be determined to make exactly the same mistake. They are preparing to jettison their principles in exchange for what they think will be a political advantage.

This is really no different at all from the Republican establishment saying that the Republican Party should reach out to minorities because minorities are natural Republicans. Or the party should reach out to women because women are natural Republicans. Such tactics have failed every single time.

And now we have people on the alt-right telling us the alt-right should reach out to homosexuals because homosexuals apparently are natural alt-rightists. And they can't see the tragic irony of it all. These alt-rightists are copying the methods of the cuckservatives. 

It needs to be understood that there are certain enemies who can never ever under any circumstances be regarded as allies, not even as short-term allies. For those who care about western civilisation that means that homosexuals and feminists in particular can never under any circumstances whatsoever be allies. Homosexuals and feminists are absolutely determined to destroy our civilisation and they would be delighted to ship us off to the GULAGS. 

To pander to our most dangerous enemies is pathetic, cowardly and futile. It will backfire catastrophically. 

Saturday, June 18, 2016

down the slippery slope we go

I went to the website of one of my favourite book dealers the other day and what did I find? They were having a celebration of LGBT “young adult” books. Think about this for a moment. The Young Adult Library Services Association of the American Library Association defines a young adult as someone aged between 12 and 18. This is homosexual propaganda aimed directly at people who are, legally, children.

It seems that whenever social conservatives have invoked the “slippery slope” argument against social engineering it almost invariably turns out to be absolutely correct. And when children are being targeting for homosexual propaganda we are a long way down that particular slippery slope. The depressing thing is, we may end up sliding even further down that slope. Make no mistake - there are absolutely no limits to the demands of the LGBT lobby. 

This is very much about the sexualisation of children, an agenda that is driven almost entirely by the LGBT lobby. It is also part of the increasingly proselytising nature of that lobby - they are actively seeking out converts. And the best source of converts is children.

Gandhi was reportedly once asked, “What do you think of western civilisation?” To which he replied, “I think it would be a good idea.” I’m starting to think he may have had a point. 

If what we have now is western civilisation - is it even worth trying to defend it?

Friday, June 10, 2016

conservatism, individualism and collectivism

I recently read a claim by someone who claimed to be a conservative (Michael van der Galien) that conservatism is focused on individuals. It’s quite possible that that’s how many  people see it these days but I really don’t agree. 

Neoconservatives definitely would like us to believe that there is a spectrum and at one end of the spectrum you have individualism (which they equate to freedom) and at the other end you have collectivism or statism. 

Is this really true? It’s certainly true that individualism and collectivism are opposed but is it a simple spectrum? 

It seems to me that traditional society was focused on groups rather than individuals but that did not make such a society collectivist. There were some major differences. For one thing the groups that comprise traditional western European society (the family, neighbourhoods, the village, churches, etc) were to a large extent voluntary. You were not forced to marry. If you really disliked your village you could leave and move elsewhere. If you were tired of being a Methodist you could switch to the Anglican Church. For another, these groups were organic rather than artificial. They were not created and maintained by government edict. 

In this respect any kind of traditionalist conservatism is quite distinct from individualist ideologies but is just as opposed to statism.

There is in fact a name for a philosophy that focuses on individuals rather than groups. That philosophy is called liberalism. Anyone who espouses such an ideology is a liberal, not a conservative. Almost all of those within the Anglosphere today who claim the label conservative are in fact liberals. This is especially true in the United States where actual conservatism, as a political philosophy, scarcely exists (and never did exist to any significant degree).

It’s extremely amusing to see the attacks launched by self-described conservatives against Donald Trump. They claim he is not a true conservative. They are of course correct. He is a liberal. The amusing part though is that these self-described conservatives are, almost without exception, much more thoroughgoing liberals than Trump. Trump is a liberal with a few mild conservative leanings. They are liberals with no conservative leanings at all.

At least in Australia our Liberal Party is honest enough to label itself correctly. It is not by any stretch of the imagination a conservative party. 

So where does this leave people who actually do have conservative beliefs? If we call ourselves conservatives we will be misunderstood. We will be confused with the neoconservatives (who are in fact the extreme wing of liberalism). For some years now the word conservative has been becoming less and less useful. It is now not only not useful but dangerously misleading. 

Other potentially useful words, such as reactionary, have been claimed by small splinter groups (in this case the neo-reactionaries). This is annoying to me since reactionary is a much more accurate epithet in my case than conservative. I have no desire to conserve the status quo. I wish to restore a much earlier version of the status quo. Restorationist has been proposed but it suggests an exclusive focus on a desire to restore the powers of monarchy. Personally I would like to see a dramatic increase in the powers of the monarchy but only as part of a wider programme.

Perhaps I could call myself a paleo-reactionary!

Sunday, June 5, 2016

the lesser of two evils? I think not

We’re now about a month out from a federal election in Australia. And for the first time in my adult life I genuinely don’t care who wins.

Social conservatives like myself will once again  be expected to hold our noses and vote for the “conservative” Coalition on the grounds that it’s the lesser of two evils. I’m starting to think this is both futile and counter-productive. The Coalition has betrayed us so many times. Voting for them simply encourages them to do what they’ve done for the past few decades - serving the interest of the rich and big business whilst pretending to be marginally more social conservative than Labor. 

If we are ever to have a genuine conservative party in Australia then the Liberal-National Party Coalition must be destroyed. No true conservative party will be possible until that is achieved.

When a Coaltion government in Victoria funds (to the tune of nearly half a million dollars) a Trotskyite group spreading homosexual propaganda in primary schools you seriously have  to ask yourself - how can this be the lesser of two evils? 

The only thing I do take a mild interest in is the Senate. If we’re going to have bad government (and whoever wins we are certainly going to have bad government) then I’d prefer to have a weak bad government that has to deal with a hostile Senate. So I’ll be voting for a minor party candidate in the Senate. The fact is that the independent and minor party senators (I don’t count the Greens as a minor party since they’re part of the political establishment and they’re bankrolled by billionaires) might be slightly loopy but they’ve done far less harm to this country than successive governments of the major parties.

And it would amuse me to see Malcolm Turnbull humiliated.

Wednesday, May 25, 2016

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.

Thursday, May 19, 2016

fighting back in the culture wars

Is there anything we can do in the way of fighting back in the culture wars? There are times when it seems hopeless but there are a few things we can do as individuals and on a group basis. 

One thing we can do is learn to be better at watching each other’s backs. Conservatives have been operating as lone wolves while leftists always hunt in packs. We need to hunt in packs as well. That does not imply that we should copy the vicious tactics of leftists but we should make it clear that we’re not going to let individual conservatives get picked off one at a time. 

We need to network more. It’s true that we are divided. The paleo-conservatives and the traditionalist conservatives and the alt-right disagree strongly about many things. However we need to remember that the Left is even more divided. The Left today is composed of countless lobby groups with virtually no interests in common. And yet they will always close ranks against us. There seems to be no good reason why we can’t do the same.

We should follow the example of Ron Unz. At Unz Review he has collected together a formidable array of writers. They cover a very broad range of the political spectrum. What they have in common is that all are dissidents. All are outlaws as far as the mainstream media is concerned. These are voices that would otherwise be unheard. It doesn’t matter if you disagree with another dissident - any dissident is worth supporting. 

Taki’s Magazine is also worthwhile. We need to support such sites. Without them a lot more voices would be silenced.

We need to offer moral support to other conservatives, even if it’s nothing more than leaving an occasional brief comment just to let a conservative blogger know that his blog does get read. 

Networking outside the online world is more difficult but it’s not impossible. In Australia we have groups like the Melbourne Traditionalists. The Upon Hope and Oz Conservative blogs have more information about this group.

The best antidote to despair is the knowledge that you are not alone, that other people do share your beliefs and concerns.

Friday, May 13, 2016

paralysed by history

History matters. It matters a good deal. This is something that leftists have always understood, and it’s something that conservatives have consistently failed to understand. As Orwell pointed out in 1984 if you control the past you control the present. A sense of corporate identity, of national identity, is the product of history. If history can be manipulated then that sense of identity can be destroyed. More importantly perhaps, if our faith in out own history can be undermined then our sense of a shared positive identity evaporates.

This is what has happened to European history, and conservatives have allowed it to happen. Leftists have pushed the line, remorselessly, that the history of western civilisation is nothing more than a record of oppression, crime, victimisation, brutality, ignorance, superstition, cynicism and hypocrisy. Conservatives should have resisted this process and they have failed to do so. As a result the West is now paralysed, morally and spiritually, by its own history. 

The irony of course is that the Left has a whole lot more to be ashamed of in its history, but leftists never ever apologise for their history. Stalin’s regime murdered tens of millions of people. Mao’s regime killed tens of millions of people. Pol Pot’s regime slaughtered millions of people. You would expect that it would be leftists suffering from a crippling paralysis as a result of their murderous history. But they don’t. It’s conservatives who are ashamed of their history.

Mention colonialism to a conservative and he will immediately start apologising. Mention anything connected with race to a conservative and he will immediately start apologising. Mention women to a conservative and he will begin apologising for the oppression of women. Mention Christianity to a conservative and he will apologise for all the supposed crimes of Christianity. Mention the Industrial Revolution to a conservative and he will apologise for sending children down the coal mines. Mention the possibility that things might have been better in the past and conservatives are reduced to abject terror that somehow they will be tainted by accusations of fascism - and of course they immediately start to apologise. Mention any historical event and the apologies will inevitably begin.

This mania has apologising has one obvious and certain result - it will be interpreted as an admission of guilt, an admission that every accusation leftists throw at western civilisation must be true. If the accusations were not true why would conservatives be apologising? 

It is not necessary, and never was necessary, for conservatives to claim that western civilisation was perfect. Every human civilisation that has ever existed has had its faults and has done things that were less than admirable. That’s simply human nature. It is not necessary, and never was necessary, for conservatives to attempt to denigrate other civilisations. It is unnecessary and it is a huge tactical mistake - it comes across as both arrogant and defensive.

All conservatives ever needed to do was to counter the criticism levelled at the West by pointing out the West’s very considerable achievements. Europeans were the first people in history to outlaw slavery. Western society has, by comparison with every other civilisation in history, treated women remarkably well. Colonialism was in many ways an unfortunate and misguided experiment but on balance it did more good than harm. And almost everything that has made life relatively comfortable and pleasant has been invented by European men - without European men we would not have electricity, antibiotics, anaesthesia, sewerage, cars, trains, aircraft, recorded music, telephones and countless other things that no sane person would wish to live without. Without western civilisation the world have been denied Shakespeare, Bach, Mozart, the glories of Renaissance painting and countless other artistic treasures. 

Creating a civilisation is nothing to apologise for. Life before civilisation was not only remarkably unpleasant, it was remarkably violent. As Lawrence  H. Keeley points out in War Before Civilisation pre-civilised societies are infinitely more violent than modern western civilisation. Even the bloodbaths of the 20th century caused proportionately fewer deaths than occur in pre-civilised societies in the normal course of events. Which is of course another reason why it is mistaken to apologise for colonialism.

All conservatives have ever needed to do to win the history wars is to put the case for western civilisation. Instead of which they have chosen surrender and have given the victory to the Left by default.