Saturday, July 23, 2016

why doesn't cultural diversity matter?


We live in a world in which we’re constantly told that diversity is the most precious thing there is, and yet the people and institutions pushing this line are entirely unconcerned by the fact that actual diversity is rapidly disappearing.

The actual diversity that is vanishing is cultural diversity and this represents one of the great tragedies of human history. A hundred years ago there were countless cultures on this planet, all with their own unique features. These were not necessarily national cultures - often one nation would contain a number of distinctive cultures. Within living memory the Cornish still considered themselves to be culturally quite separate from the English. A Yorkshireman would have considered himself to be more than just a generic Englishman.

Even in countries with much shorter histories there was considerable cultural diversity. It’s reasonable to say that until a generation or so ago Texans thought of themselves as a distinct sub-culture within the large American culture. 

If present trends continue none of these cultural groups will survive. Within a couple of generations the whole western world will be a single monoculture. Everyone will listen to more or less the same music, watch the same movies, watch the same TV programs, use the same slang, eat the same foods, obey the same social rules. Parts of the non-western world may resist a little longer but eventually they too will be assimilated into the monoculture. The elites have already pretty much gone down that path.

It’s not just going to be a monoculture but if present indications are any guide it’s going to be both trashy and dreary, and of course entirely materialistic and consumerist.

Not long ago I read a science fiction book (I’m afraid I don’t remember the title offhand) about a future in which virtually instantaneous travel was possible to all, to any place in the world. But nobody ever made use of it because there was no point. Why bother going to another city since every city on the planet was identical - the same architecture, the same interior design, the same fashions, the same range of cuisines, the same popular culture, the same movies playing, the same TV programs, the same everything. You could travel from Tokyo to New York or to Paris or to Melbourne but once you got there it was exactly the same in every respect as New York.

It seems like that future is getting closer. To me it seems like a nightmare future but oddly enough most people seem unconcerned. 

This post was inspired by an excellent recent posting at Vanishing American II.

Wednesday, July 13, 2016

normal service to be resumed soon, with any luck

I've been offline for a few days while we're transitioning to the new National Broadband Network. The network nobody asked for but the government decided everyone was going to get whether they wanted it or not. At an astronomical cost to the Australia taxpayer.

I imagine there will be even more teething problems for the next few days but with any luck I'll be able to resume normal posting by next week.

Wednesday, July 6, 2016

the rise of the dissidents


The recent Australian election in which the anti-immigration One Nation Party has apparently gained at least one, and possibly as many as four, Senate seats will no doubt lead to more hand-wringing about the rise of the dreaded Far Right. 

In fact the result has little to do with the supposed Far Right or even the Right in general. What we are seeing here, as we saw in the Brexit vote, is the rise of political dissidence. The dissidents are not really left-wing or right-wing. They are merely dissidents. The various minor party candidates who have been elected in Australia, like those who voted for them, do not have any particular political program. They do not model themselves on the established political parties in which party discipline is rigidly enforced and power is that that matters. These minor parties in Australia are decentralised and appear to be chaotic. Some of them are splinter parties of other splinter parties. They are not a unified coherent political force. They are a constantly shifting kaleidoscope of short-term alliances.

And that is their strength. That is why their voters vote for them. The people who vote for them don’t want superbly organised, professionally run, highly efficient parties. That’s why they no longer vote for the major parties. They don’t trust professional politicians. They prefer to put their trust in amateurs like Derryn Hinch and outsiders like Pauline Hanson. 

Their supporters don’t care if the election of these outsiders leads to so-called political instability. We’ve had strong stable governments and those governments have betrayed us and buried us in a mountain of useless and unnecessary laws and regulations that we never asked for. People don’t care any longer if we have minority governments and if those governments are short-lived. What they do care about is somehow getting through to politicians that ordinary people are tired of politicians telling them what they must do. They want to tell the politicians what to do. They want politicians to sit down, shut up and do what the people tell them to do. You know, like it’s supposed to be in a democracy.

Saturday, June 25, 2016

Brexit - a Berlin Wall moment?


The Leave vote in the Brexit referendum is obviously very good news indeed. I just hope that Brexiteers realise that while this has been a glorious victory it’s just the opening battle in what will be a lengthy war. 

Britain cannot be a truly independent nation until the globalist  elites who created the mess are thoroughly eradicated. That means the existing Conservative and Labor parties must be destroyed. It can be done.

This victory was won by a temporary alliance that would have seemed unthinkable a decade ago - dissident Tories united with dissident Labour supporters. In fact it was an alliance of what could be called old school Tories (the ones who actually cared about their country) and the old school Left (leftists who actually care about working-class people). They were united for one magnificent moment by their detestation of the smug elites who currently run the Conservative and Labor parties. This was what Peter Hitchens has described as “an alliance between the social conservatives trapped and ignored in a liberal Tory Party and the social conservatives trapped in a liberal Labour Party.” 

Hitchens fears that the referendum may have brought this alliance about too soon and that it may not last. He may be right. It is very much in the interests of both groups to burn the existing political establishment to the ground, but the danger is that after the euphoria of the referendum victory has worn off it may be back to business as usual with voters continuing to vote for established political parties that despise them.

On the other hand it may be that now that ordinary people have discovered that they can actually change things, and all they have to do is motivate themselves enough to go to the polling station, they might start taking an interest in finishing the job. There is the chance that this may be a Berlin Wall coming down moment for the British political establishment.

The elites of course have been sneering about the fact that the referendum was won by old white people. So it was. And now those old white people have had a taste of power. They’ve ditched the EU and they’ve ended the dismal disastrous career of David Cameron. They’ve discovered they can outvote the moronic Millennials. They can, should they choose to do so, take back their country.

In some ways it’s to be hoped that the EU is as obstructive as possible about Brexit - it will serve to maintain the rage. Maybe the British people will eventually figure out that if they want real independence they need to eliminate the current self-serving self-appointed political class.

Of course it could be a Berlin Wall coming down moment for the EU as well. Now everyone in Europe who hates the EU knows that it is possible to leave. What seemed like an impossibility has been demonstrated to be a very real possibility. Anti-EU movements in other countries are going to be really energised now.

Just remember, the collapse of the Soviet Union was an impossibility until it happened. And when history happens it tends to happen surprisingly quickly.

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!