Saturday, October 21, 2017

liberalism is colonialism

An amusing detail in a recent post at Nourishing Obscurity caught my eye. At a conference an anti-free speech protestor shouted, “liberalism is white supremacy.”

What’s really amusing about this is that it’s true. Liberalism is the ultimate white people ideology. Non-white people aren’t into liberalism at all. They may make tactical political alliances with liberals but non-white people do not have any real belief in liberalism.

And liberalism is not only a white person’s ideology, it is being forced on everybody on the planet. This is an example of extraordinary arrogance and insensitivity and it truly can be described as ideological white supremacism.

Worse even than that, liberalism is the new colonialism. Remember when people of the left used to tell us how evil colonialism was, how it was paternalistic and degrading and it destroyed other cultures. Well folks that’s exactly what liberalism is doing right now.

For all the talk of diversity it is quit obvious that the final objective of the liberal globalist establishment is to destroy every culture but one. No diversity will be permitted in the liberal globalist Brave New World. Everyone will be the same shade of brown. Everyone will speak the same language - English, with an American accent. Everyone will share the same culture. And that culture will be American culture.

Even the European colonial powers in the bad old days showed more respect for other cultures. Liberalism is the most intolerant ideology that human beings have so far managed to devise. The idea of respecting other cultures does not even occur to modern liberals. These fanatically politically correct liberals are engaging in the greatest cultural genocide of all time.

And who are these fanatical liberals? For the most part they are white and middle-class. The liberal true believers are almost entirely white and middle-class.

Liberalism really is white supremacist, and neo-colonialist, and racist. Life is full of little ironies isn’t it?

Thursday, October 19, 2017

the mangina plague

One of the most distressing, and disgusting, features of modern life is the male feminist. The level of self-loathing necessary to be a male feminist seems only to be found among white European men.

The big question is, what do these loathsome half-men get out of the deal? Do they really imagine that their pathetic grovelling is going to persuade a feminist harpy to give them regular sex? Perhaps they just enjoy being humiliated. Perhaps there really has been a precipitous decline in testosterone levels in the West.

Male feminists seem to be worryingly common among Christians. Although this is probably not surprising, given that Christianity’s surrender to feminism has been total. Christian manginas probably aren’t too concerned that their ritual self-abasement is unlikely to get them sex since they probably don’t think they’re worthy of sex anyway. Christians today seem more intent on worshipping women than God.

Superficially it’s easier to understand why women are happy with the situation. A mangina can be relied upon to pay the bills and be obedient and docile and he doesn’t even need to be rewarded. Just an occasional pat on the head is enough. Male feminists are like dogs but they’re better because dogs don’t support you financially.

But it doesn’t really work for women because the truth is that women are revolted by the idea of having sex with manginas. Feminism has succeeded in emasculating men but emasculated men don’t turn women on.

The mangina plague is bad enough but the sad truth is that there’s a little bit of mangina in all western men these days. Even men who think they’ve been red-pilled have often internalised an enormous amount of feminist propaganda. The worst thing is that men aren’t even conscious of this. We’ve been so successfully brainwashed that we don’t know we’ve been brainwashed.

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

the culture war as class war

I speak in my previous post about the rise of the intellectuals as a self-conscious class. This has had serious consequences as far as the culture war is concerned. To a considerable extent the culture war has been a class war. It’s been rather different however from the kind of class war Marx envisioned. This has been a class war launched by the ruling class against the lower classes who were already disenfranchised and powerless.

The motivation is partly class interest. It’s in the interests of the ruling class to keep the masses docile and demoralised. But it’s more than that. A good deal of the motivation seems to be pure hatred. This is particularly true of the intellectual sub-class of the ruling class. They have a visceral loathing for working-class people.

A large part of the culture war has been an attack on the values of working-class people. And on the symbols that are important to working-class people. Even just the ordinary day-to-day habits of working-class people are enough to enrage intellectuals.

This is not just a class war for dominance. It appears to be a kind of war of annihilation, with the objective being to destroy the working class utterly.

It’s important to understand that this is not a rational response on the part of intellectuals. It’s pure emotion.

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that intellectuals live in a fantasy la-la land of theory and working-class people tend to regard the theories of intellectuals with scepticism. Some ideas are so crazy and so obviously wrong that only people with a university education can convince themselves to believe in them. The main purpose of a university education is to deaden the mind in order to allow people to believe in things that are clearly false. Working-class people, lacking the advantages of university educations, tend to rely on common sense. And nothing makes intellectuals more angry than common sense.

Intellectuals get very upset if anyone disagrees with their oh-so-clever theories. One of the driving forces of the culture war is to create an environment in which such disagreement will no longer be permitted. The very existence of people who disagree with them triggers intellectuals. Since working-class people tend to disagree with intellectuals on most subjects then obviously the working class must be eliminated.

Sunday, October 15, 2017

intellectuals and the other class struggle

When we hear the term class struggle we think of the rich vs the poor, capitalists vs workers and so forth. Discussions of this topic often involve the concept of the ruling class. In fact class struggles are often much more complex and much more interesting. The really bitter struggles often take place within classes.

The idea of a monolithic ruling class that has always exercised power is clearly nonsense. Ruling classes evolve. And evolution can be a brutal process. The survival of the fittest and all that.

In the Middle Ages power was based on the possession of land. This was the age of the aristocracy of land. Even that is an over-simplification since there were often bitter struggles between large land owners and smaller ones and there was very often conflict between the crown and the large land owners so it wasn’t really a monolithic ruling class. Nonetheless it was a ruling class and it was based on land.

The Industrial Revolution changed all that. It created a new aristocracy, the aristocracy of money. Naturally this set off a bitter conflict within the ruling class and of course the aristocracy of money won.

In the 18th century another new aristocracy was emerging. This was the aristocracy of ideas. The intellectual class. Intellectuals in the modern sense hardly existed prior to that time. In the 18th century they emerged and grew and prospered. You could find them in the universities, attending elegant soirées, in coffee houses, anywhere that was safely sheltered from the real world. Intellectuals like theories and the annoying thing about the real world is that it rarely conforms to the theories of intellectuals. As a result intellectuals shun the real world.

There was one thing that really frustrated these intellectuals is that they had no real power. They wanted to run things. They wanted to run everything, including the government.

The intellectuals were part of the ruling class in the broad sense but they also had their own distinct class identity. Their primary loyalty was to their own intellectual class.

This meant that the old aristocracies, of land and of money, were an obstacle. This partly explains the enthusiasm of intellectuals for left-wing political ideas (an enthusiasm that was already becoming evident even before the rise of classical marxism). The intellectuals didn’t care about the working class but they did have an interest in overthrowing the existing order, or at least destabilising it in order to take power themselves.

Intellectuals were also somewhat internationalist in outlook right from the start. They tended to be  rootless cosmopolitans. Not all of them. In the 19th century some were attracted to nationalism. By the mid-20th century however virtually all had adopted some form of internationalism.

Of course the big problem was that intellectuals loved theory and despised reality. There has never been a class with such a lust for political power combined with such a total incapacity for exercising it sensibly. No-one should ever take intellectuals seriously. Unfortunately we have taken them seriously, with catastrophic consequences.

Wednesday, October 11, 2017

why our women have gone feral, part 2

As I hinted in my previous post on this topic western women have gone feral because they refuse to accept reality. They not only refuse to accept reality, they get angry when they encounter it. In that post I concentrated on the reasons young women turn feral. This time I’m looking at a couple of the reasons thirty-something and forty-something women go feral.

This also applies, bizarrely, to biological reality. The one great biological fact about women that cannot be evaded is the biological clock. Women have a very limited timeframe in which to have children. After 30 their chances of conceiving and carrying a child to term start to decline. After 35 those chances drop at a terrifying rate. By 40 the odds are not very favourable at all. Women do manage to have children in their mid-40s, and feminists and the media always like to point to such cases, but what they overlook is that those women were lucky. And they probably could afford some very expensive medical intervention as well. The brutal fact remains that after 40 the odds are stacked against the women wanting children.

Of course women have always accepted this biological fact. If they wanted to have children they understood that it was a very wise idea to aim to have the first child by the age of maybe 27 or 28, at the latest. Which meant that they needed to find a husband by around the age of 25 or so. Women have always accepted this biological fact, until feminism came along and assured them that they didn’t need to worry about facts any more. Facts were unfair and misogynistic. If reality was unpleasant then feminism would change reality!

As a result we now have large numbers of women who believe they can devote themselves to careers and sex until they’re 35 or so and then they can still have kids.

There’s another uncomfortable biological fact that women used to accept, even if they didn’t like it. Women reach their peak of attractiveness in their late teens and early 20s. After 30 their beauty starts to fade. A woman of 35 may still be beautiful, but she won’t be as beautiful as she was at 25. And a woman of 45 might still be quite attractive but she isn’t going to be anywhere near as pretty as she was at 25. Logically if a woman wants to maximise her chances of finding a good husband she should be on the lookout for one in her early 20s and should be aiming to have landed one by her mid-20s. Beauty isn’t everything and you don’t have to look like a supermodel to get a good husband but the reality is that if you’re a woman then beauty is a factor in attracting a mate and it’s sensible to use that asset while it’s still there.

This is another facet of reality that women don’t want to accept any more. They want to believe they can wait until they’re in their mid-30s (or even older) and for some reason they will have terrific high-status men queueing up to marry them.

This is the Sex and the City syndrome. Women think they can devote all their energies to a career, shopping and promiscuous sex and then in their late 30s a wonderful rich good-looking man will come along and beg them to marry him. It happened for Carrie Bradshaw so it can happen for any woman! The only trouble is, Sex and the City was pure fantasy. In reality why on earth would a  rich attractive man like Mr Big want to marry Carrie Bradshaw? He’s not exactly the sort of guy who’d be likely to be in the market for a used car but if he was he’d be looking for a late model low-mileage car with one careful previous owner. He wouldn’t be looking for a broken-down and rather battered-looking old clunker liker Carrie that had been driven by half the men in Manhattan. He would also not be interested in a woman who was clearly at an age when the chances of having even one child would be very slim. As for sex, Carrie will open her legs for him any time he asks anyway so why marry her in order to get access to something she’s giving away for free? In the real world Carrie would be resigning herself to an empty lonely purposeless life and would be thinking about buying a cat.

It’s probably no coincidence that Sex and the City was a fantasy foisted on women by homosexual men. The extent to which the modern worship of the homosexual male lifestyle has been indirectly responsible for making women crazy has never been properly explored. It’s a destructive lifestyle for men. For women it’s completely disastrous.

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

censorship, popular culture and pornography

In the past fifty years we have been the victims of many ill-advised social experiments. One such experiment was the relaxation of censorship.

It began in a major way in the early 60s and at first it didn’t seem like it was going to be a major problem. But of course it didn’t stop with just a relaxation of censorship. The relaxation continued until it reached the point where censorship became almost non-existent. There are many on the right who consider this experiment have been a disastrous failure. On the whole I agree with them although my views on the subject are a bit more complicated and I have no doubt that many in the social conservative and traditionalist camps are not going to approve of some of those views.

I should probably make the point here that I’m speaking of censorship in a broad sense. In the days of the Production Code Hollywood movies weren’t subject to government censorship. The censorship was done by the industry itself. The end result is however the same. It is important to emphasise that whether censorship is imposed by government or by corporations it is still censorship.

In my view there are two separate issues at stake when it comes to sexual material and censorship. There is sexual material that is imbedded in popular culture (and these days it is very deeply and thoroughly embedded) and then there is actual pornography. To my way of thinking it’s the sexual material that so thoroughly permeates our popular culture that is the biggest problem.

The reason I see this as the main problem is that sexual material in popular culture is inescapable, it is all-pervasive, it often takes the form of outright propaganda and it is extremely difficult to protect children from it.

It’s worth mentioning as an aside here that the Hollywood Production Code was introduced as the result of pressure by groups like the Legion of Decency and their main concern was not so much the explicit content (which was pretty tame even in the pre-code era) as the attitudes towards sex that were being encouraged. There was some nudity in pre-code Hollywood movies (such as the notorious scene of Jane skinny-dipping in Tarzan and His Mate) but the bigger concern was the number of movies that not only dealt with subjects like adultery sympathetically, they glamourised and celebrated that kind of immorality. Such attitudes were seen, quite correctly, as being extremely dangerous. Even more dangerous in that the immorality was sometimes presented in a less obvious way. Hollywood was always good at propaganda and while the propaganda was sometimes blatant it was often done in a more subtle and more pernicious way. The Production Code laid down very strict guidelines governing not just overt sexual content but also the messages that films were delivering.

And that’s the problem today with popular culture. It’s not just that there’s a good deal of inappropriate overt content. There’s also a relentless message encouraging and celebrating sexual depravity. The overt content is often graphic enough to be a huge problem in itself but the insidious messages are worse. A pop song glorifying anal sex probably does more harm than a fairly graphic sex scene in a movie. No matter how hard you try it’s just about impossible not to encounter such material and there really is no way you’re going to prevent children from being exposed to it.

Pornography is a different matter. My views on this subject might not be popular but to me it’s a matter of context. If you’re watching music videos or you’re watching a TV drama series or a thriller and suddenly you’re presented with graphic sexual content or messages then to me that’s a case a wildly inappropriate context for such material. You’re not prepared for it and you’re being exposed to it even if you don’t wish to be. And your kids are being exposed to it.

On the other hand if you buy a girlie magazine or visit a website that specialises in pictures of nude women then you’re expecting pictures of nude women. If you watch a porn movie you’re expecting to see people having sex and it’s hardly going to come as a shock. It’s an appropriate context. If you don’t wish to see pictures of naked women then you don’t have to visit that website or buy that magazine. If you don’t wish to see people having sex don’t watch a porn movie. It’s avoidable. It’s compartmentalised. You have to seek it out and it’s your choice. It’s not suddenly thrown at you when actually you’re expecting to see a straightforward thriller.

As long as you have to make a conscious decision to view the material it doesn’t worry me all that much. Of course there should be limits and restrictions and depending on the graphicness of the material there should be some hoops to jump through before you can access it, in order to make sure that people don’t stumble upon it by accident and to ensure that minors can’t access it. I do realise that these restrictions don’t work as well as they should in the internet age but to me that’s a technical problem rather than a moral problem.

My attitude towards this subject also varies depending on the exact nature of the material. There’s an extremely wide range of pornography, but broadly speaking to my mind you’re dealing with three categories. There’s softcore, which is basically naked women and simulated sex scenes. There’s hardcore, basically explicit images of real sex. And there’s the extreme end which covers some very disturbing and frankly disgusting stuff. The extreme stuff worries me and I’d be happier if people didn’t want such material and it is possible to make a fairly sound argument for banning a good deal of it outright.

Hardcore material worries me a good deal less as long as it is confined to the depiction of normal heterosexual activities (and perhaps I should mention in passing that I most certainly do not consider sodomy to be a normal heterosexual sexual act). If it stays within such limits I don’t think it’s a huge problem although of course it should be made impossible (or as near to impossible as can be managed) for minors to access it.

As for softcore porn, I have to be honest and say I don’t really have any problems with it at all. I can’t really imagine anyone being psychologically scarred by seeing pictures of naked women.

My principal concern is that pornography should be kept separate from mainstream popular culture, and that pornographic material should not be permitted to be infiltrated into mainstream popular culture. In my view this is where the real harm has been done. Sex is part of life but when popular culture becomes pornographic it encourages the idea that sex is all that matters in life.

Saturday, October 7, 2017

why have women gone feral?
 part 1

Why have western women gone feral? Why do they deface their own bodies with tattoos? Why do so many embrace sluttiness as an exciting lifestyle choice?  Why do they buy into gender identity nonsense, given that the whole gender identity/transexual thing is profoundly misogynistic? Why do teenage girls want to mutilate their own bodies?

Why don’t women, especially young women, just enjoy being women?

The answer seems to be that they are driven by anger and bitterness, but why? Partly of course it’s because the schools and the media actively teach them to be angry and bitter. I think there’s a bit more to it than that though.

Immense social changes have taken place in the past fifty years or so (in reality the social changes were already starting to get underway as early as the 1920s). Women were told that they would benefit enormously from these social changes. In practice women are much worse off today than they were half a century ago. They were promised lives of excitement, fulfilment, adventure and endless sexual pleasure. It all went wrong. Women are however reluctant to admit this. It would mean admitting that feminism was wrong from the start. Even women who claim to be sceptical of feminism, or even openly hostile to it, accept most of the feminist agenda.

Women think that being a slut is the path to happiness but of course they want to be treated like Disney princesses as well. Then they discover that if they behave like sluts the desirable men, the high-status males, won’t treat them like Disney princesses. Why bother treating a girl like a princess if she’s going to open her legs for you anyway? Princess treatment is reserved for the girls with high Sexual Market Value. The girls that high-status males might actually consider marrying.

For women at the top of the heap it doesn’t matter. Women with beauty and money will still get those high-status men. For the majority of women it’s a disaster. Not only do they still lose in the competition for the most desirable males, they even have problems snaring the ordinary average men who would probably have made great husbands (possibly better husbands than the alpha males). Traditionally the way to get those decent ordinary men was to use sex as a bargaining counter. If you want to have sex with me that’s fine, but you’ll have to put a ring on my finger first. That strategy worked fine for perfectly ordinary women, women who had average looks but reasonably pleasant personalities. Ordinary men were happy to marry them. Most men have never expected to marry supermodels (or Disney princesses). They’re happy to marry a woman who is reasonably attractive and pleasant to be with.

Now that most women have been persuaded that being sexually liberated means jumping into bed with every man they encounter that strategy no longer works. Why marry a woman in order to sleep with her if there are plenty of other women giving it away for free? That bargaining counter is no longer worth anything. High-status men don’t need to commit to a relationship to get sex. An added complication is that marriage has been made into a very unattractive proposition for men. Women who aren’t lucky enough to be stunningly beautiful (or who don’t have other compensating advantages like wealth and family connections) find that the men who are likely to marry them, or even date them, are not going to be the men of their dreams. And in any case those dreams have become increasingly unrealistic. A princess gets to marry Prince Charming. Non-princesses need to set their sights a bit lower. These days they may need to set their sights a lot lower.

Women respond by being angry and resentful. Many girls choose the option of deliberately making themselves look ugly. They get piercings and tattoos, they get fat, they turn themselves into blue-haired harridans or sexually ambiguous freaks. Then they no longer have to feel bad because men aren’t interested in them. They can claim that men won’t look at them because men are unreasonable enough to have a prejudice against women who make themselves look ugly. But it doesn’t work. These young women are now even less likely to attract male attention. Of course you could argue that their best option would be to try to make themselves more attractive by paying some attention to the way they dress, their makeup, etc. Maybe even try to behave more pleasantly. But feminism tells girls that nothing is their fault and nothing is their responsibility and if they’re unhappy then men must be to blame.

Hence we get feral women.

Part two of this post can be found here.