Monday, January 30, 2017

the legal immigration con

While it’s pleasing that immigration is finally on the political agenda there is a worrying aspect to this - people have become so focused on illegal immigration that they’ve convinced themselves that legal immigration is no problem at all. Nothing could be further from the truth. Legal immigration is a much greater threat to western civilisation.

Will illegals there’s always the option (assuming the political will exists) for deportation. It is possible (again if the political will exists) to prevent illegals from bleeding the country dry with welfare payments. It is even possible to prevent illegals from voting, on the perfectly sound grounds that they have absolutely no right to vote in someone else’s country. With legal immigrants none of these options exist. Legal immigrants can steal all the best jobs. They can help themselves to welfare. They can commit crimes and it’s extremely difficult to then deport them (if they have citizenship it’s just about impossible ever to get rid of them no matter how criminally inclined they are).

Once again we’re being conned by the elites and by our politicians. They want us to focus on illegal immigration because they don’t want us to notice that we’re being invaded by legal immigrants. We’re being conned and, sadly, most of us are falling for it.

All immigration, legal or illegal, is a problem. This is why you have to be very cautious about trusting someone like Donald Trump. He's essentially pro-immigration. Very pro-immigration. He just wants to give it the fig-leaf of legality. His much-vaunted wall will be useless if it includes a door which is going to be left permanently open for legal immigration. And that's exactly Trump's intention. Be careful of that "big beautiful door" he's promising. It's a door that will allow population replacement to proceed as planned. 

Sunday, January 22, 2017

how to win and how to lose


Why is it that the globalists and SJWs always seem to win while those who oppose them almost invariably lose? It seems like a mystery since we know from the Brexit vote and the Trump election win that the opponents of globalism are by no means insignificant in numbers.

The answer is extremely simple. The Left has always been well organised, and they have always been passionate and committed. Conservatives have been hopelessly disorganised and they have just not had the same level of commitment. And commitment is what it’s all about. Fanatics make formidable foes. Well-organised fanatics are just about unbeatable. Numbers don’t really matter. A hundred organised political zealots are worth ten thousand lukewarm supporters.

The Left as such has now effectively ceased to exist but the globalist/SJWs who have taken over the movement have retained the old Left’s faith in organisation, passion and commitment. 

They also do not know the meaning of defeat. Take the Brexit vote - the Remain supporters never had the slightest intention of accepting the vote if it went against them. Or take the US election - it never even crossed the minds of Clinton supporters to accept the result if it didn’t go their way.

For conservatives losing has always been an opportunity to display their ability to be gracious in defeat. For the Left losing was always regarded as merely a temporary setback  - a defeat was not the end of the struggle but only the beginning. It is the same with the globalist/SJWs of today.

It may be partly a matter of psychology. Those who wish to preserve traditional ways are characterised more by common sense and good judgment than by zealotry. Those who wish to destroy the traditional order are those who are driven by enthusiasm, hatred, obsessiveness and hysteria - all of which contribute to making them effective political foot soldiers.

There are few examples of traditionalists who have shown the level of commitment and organisation that their enemies take for granted. The few who have demonstrated those qualities have mostly been motivated by religion. In the post-Christian West there seems little chance of religion becoming once again the necessary motivating force.

So what can be done? I don’t claim to have the answers but at the very least, as a first step, we have to understand why we have usually lost. 

nationalism - blood and soil

The most effective form of nationalism is that based on ethnicity and attachment to the land - blood and soil. That raises a difficult problem for countries such as Australia, the United States and Canada. For the US the difficulties are insuperable - there never was much chance of blood and soil nationalism there.

For Australia though there was a real chance of such a thing. Up until the 1940s Australia was remarkably homogeneous both ethnically and culturally. We were genuinely an outpost of British civilisation. Culturally we were British, but with a few variations as a result of our geography and our history. We were, slowly, developing a sense of ourselves as a people. We were proud of being British, but also proud of being Australian. We had a real chance of forging a coherent national identity. The blood part of the equation could not be expected to be as strong as you’d find among people who had lived on the same land for centuries but it was still there.

The soil part of the equation was a possibility as well. Compared to Britain Australia was a harsh unfriendly and even ugly landscape. Even the well-watered coastal fringes lack the charm and the prettiness of the English countryside. Despite this Australians had created a perverse fondness for the Australian landscape. In fact we possibly loved the land even more because it was superficially ugly and uninviting - it was a land you could only love if you got to know it. If outsiders couldn’t appreciate it that was their problem.

We developed a mythology based on the landscape. From an early stage Australia was highly urbanised but even Australians who lived their whole lives in cities were familiar with the mythology of the Bush, of cattle stations and drovers and bushrangers.

Australia in the late 1940s should have been well placed to develop, eventually, a strong sense of Australian-ness based on ethnic unity and a strong attachment to the land. Then our government, in its infinite wisdom, decided we needed mass migration. As so often it was a policy imposed upon the people. Since both major parties enthusiastically supported  mass migration there was no need to ask the Australian people how they felt about the matter. There was certainly no need to hold a referendum even though this was a policy that would radically change our society.

Up until the 1970s it was not a fatal problem. Most non-British immigrants were from Italy or Greece, with smaller numbers from eastern Europe and various Balkan nations. They assimilated fairly well. Our national identity was weakened but not quite destroyed. Then began the influx of Third World immigrants. 

It’s perhaps not quite too late for Australia now but time is definitely running out. The only hope is that people realise that the mainstream political parties - all of them - have betrayed them and intend to go on betraying them. Socially conservative and traditionalist Australians who imagine they are doing the right thing by voting for the LNP coalition are deluding themselves. They are voting for the destruction of Australia.

Nothing can be achieved until voters are prepared to reject both the mainstream parties.

Thursday, January 19, 2017

what if the elites don’t actually have a plan?

What a really smart super-villain looks like
A horrible thought occurred to me today. What if the elites don’t actually have a plan? What if they’re not evil geniuses after all?

When I say they don’t have a plan I mean a coherent long-term plan. They certainly have short-term plans - dismantle nation states, create a single global market, keep the population divided by means of identity politics, keep the population docile with sex, drugs and mindless entertainment. 

But what is the ultimate purpose? Is there a long-term vision of the future behind all this? Obviously the elites are motivated by the desire for money and power (especially power) but do they have a reason for seeking so much power, is there something they wish to achieve? Are they aiming for the same goal the Old Left was aiming for, the creation of Utopia? Or is just power for its own sake? 

Of course this is not a new idea. In Orwell’s 1984 the Inner Party had no plans other than to maintain itself in power. Orwell understood the concept of an elite focused purely on power, but most of us find that difficult to cope with. We assume there must be a master plan, even if it’s an evil master plan. The diabolical criminals of fiction like Dr Fu Manchu or Bond villains like Ernst Stavro Blofeld usually had some reason for desiring absolute power and those of us who oppose the globalist project tend to assume (even if we do so unconsciously) that we’re dealing with evil geniuses who have everything all worked out. It’s a disturbing thought that the globalist elites may not be evil geniuses - they may be simply evil. Even worse, they may be evil buffoons. 

I started thinking long these lines during a discussion at Oz Conservative on the Islamification of the West. One commenter argued that the elites actually desire to create a global Islamic society, that their ultimate aim is the triumph of Islam. I have never believed this. My view is that the elites aim for a global atheist society on the grounds that such a society would be the easiest to control. Any religion is a threat to the globalists - it offers an alternative view of society and the religious hierarchy offers an alternative source of authority. These are things the globalist elites will never tolerate. My theory is that the elites see Islam as a very potent short-term weapon but that they believe that within a couple of generations the Islamic immigrants will be just as secularised as the host nations. In the long term the elites believe that Muslim immigrants will become good atheists. Destroying Christianity turned out to so easy that they naturally assume that they can destroy Islam when it is no longer useful to them. This may be a deluded belief on their part but I am unable to see any other explanation that fits the known facts.

A diabolical criminal mastermind who did think things through
So it’s possible that the Islamification of the West is an idea that hasn’t been thought through at all. It’s a short-term strategy and the long-term consequences have simply been ignored. 

It’s also possible that all of the elite strategy is defined by short-term thinking. Identity politics, feminism, LGBT extremism, the destruction of the family, the stoking of facial hatreds - perhaps all these things are also ideas that seemed useful as short-term expedients but again the long-term consequences were never considered.

Even the core objectives of globalism - the single global market and open borders - may fall into the same category. They may not be such wonderful ideas, even for the elites. If the elites lose control of one nation state they can always find others to loot. If they lose control of a global super-state they lose everything.

The elites have so far succeeded spectacularly in all their endeavours so it’s not surprising that they should become wildly over-confident. The ancients called it hubris. They also believed that hubris always leads to nemesis. If the elites really are stupid rather than evil geniuses then nemesis may indeed be a real possibility.

Monday, January 16, 2017

the real traditional family

A commenter at Oz Conservative makes some important points about marriage. What we think of as the traditional family, a husband and a wife and a couple of kids, was essentially a postwar invention. As this commenter points out 

“the definition of marriage changed in the Anglosaxon world under the influence of atheisim and liberalism from one of an intergenerational social institution to a personal relationship. It is this transformation and reduction of the primary social institution of society to a mere personal relationship which is the greatest causative factor in the collapse of Western civilisation.”

He goes on to add

“The former institutional framework was devoted to the preservation of culture, values, tradition, religion and wealth and the transmission of these to the next generation.”

I think this is quite important. The nuclear family is an aberration, and a dangerous one. The nuclear family of the 1950s was certainly better than the morass of immorality, lust and selfishness into which we have now sunk but it was fundamentally flawed. It was a device for enhancing consumption. It created more household units, and each of these household units required a house, a car, a refrigerator, a dishwasher and a host of other consumer goods. 

It was good for the economy and bad for civilisation. It reduced marriage to a formalised version of shacking up together. Marriage was no longer about duty, or responsibility, or maintaining tradition, or ensuring the future. Marriage was now a vehicle for sexual gratification and romantic Hollywood-fueled fantasies. When combined with increasingly easy access to divorce the results were catastrophic. Now you could not only have sexual gratification and romantic fantasies, you could have an endless cycle of instant sexual gratification and starry-eyed but doomed fantasies.

The reality is that neither sex nor romance can form a firm foundation on which to construct an actual family. And a family is not a transient arrangement between two autonomous individuals. It is an ongoing institution. Your family existed before you were married and it will continue to exist after you are dead. Marriage is not a pairing of two atomised individuals pursuing short-term pleasure. Happiness is, or should be, something much deeper - the sense of a life well-lived, of contributing towards something that will live on after one’s death.

And (as this commenter points out) once you accept marriage as a mere sexual arrangement then you have no basis on which to oppose homosexual marriage, polygamy, or any depraved arrangement that the mind can conjure up. On the other hand if you adhere to the idea of marriage as being part of a larger institution of family life then it immediately becomes obvious that two homosexuals living together do not in any way, shape or form constitute a family.

Easy no-fault divorce, the contraceptive pill and the misguided decision to remove the social stigma and legal disadvantages of de facto relationships combined to sound the death knell for the family but the nuclear family had already fatally undermined the actual traditional family.

Thursday, January 12, 2017

the end of retail employment

There is an issue that no-one today seems to want to deal with, or even to acknowledge, but it’s an issue that is going to cause profound trauma to what’s left of our society. That issue is the imminent disappearance of retail employment.

It’s already happening but we’re still pretending there’s no problem. Bookstores have largely disappeared. Video stores have pretty much gone completely. Music stores are now rare. This is nothing compared to the tsunami that is approaching. It seems highly likely that supermarkets will disappear within the next ten years. Most of the specialty stores in your local mall will close. Online shopping will no longer be an option - it will be the only option. Very very few retail businesses are going to survive.

And once the malls are deserted because most of the shops have closed what happens to the businesses that depend on the passing trade in shopping malls? What happens to the coffee shops? They will close too.

This will be a wonderful world for certain big corporations. With wage bills largely eliminated profits will skyrocket. It won’t be such a swell world for ordinary people. Manufacturing jobs have already been eliminated or outsourced to the Third World. What happens when retail jobs are gone as well?

We already have a problem with a large underclass that survives generation after generation on welfare. What will society be like when that underclass becomes 40% of the population?

We are facing a change as dramatic as the Industrial Revolution. Of course we will be told that fantastic new opportunities will open up. There’ll be lots of service jobs! Now let’s be honest - most service jobs are crap. The work is often ghastly, the pay is atrocious and worst of all much of the work is casual. Most service jobs are about as attractive as being in domestic service in Victorian England. And it would take a lot of service jobs to compensate for the loss of retail jobs. An even bigger problem is that a large proportion of service jobs are subsidised by the government, or in other words paid for by the taxpayer. They are not productive jobs. They do not actually add to the wealth of the country. They’re a cost, not a benefit, to the economy.

So far feminists have ignored this issue, even though a majority of the people who are going to lose their jobs are women. Feminists don’t care since it won’t impact their careers in academia, the bureaucracy and the media.

Middle-class people in general are not worried by this looming disaster. They assume that it will only affect working-class people like those horrid little shop assistants. Middle-class people however should not be too confident that their jobs are secure. More and more IT jobs are going to be outsourced. Whole industries that provide the sort of employment that middle-class people like will disappear. Does anybody believe radio has a future? Or newspapers? Even television will feel the crunch and many jobs will go.

I suppose the globalists and the SJWs will have their answer ready - they will tell us that what we need is more immigration!

The future will be interesting, but I suspect it won’t be very pleasant.

Tuesday, January 10, 2017

have we really become more conformist?

In a recent post I mentioned the natural human tendency towards conformity. The important question is - have we really become more conformist? It certainly seems that way.

Of course it has to be noted that in the political sphere conformity is more rigidly enforced than ever before. But what about other areas of life? Are we more conformist when it comes to tastes in fashion, popular culture or intellectual pursuits.

Like many other people I once believed (in my innocence) that the internet would make people less conformist. After all if you have some kind of obscure interest (and I have quite a few) the internet makes it possible to find other people who share that interest. I assumed that this would lead to a blossoming of interest in all kinds of esoteric subjects. This has happened to a limited degree, but what has surprised me is the incredibly tiny scale on which this has occurred. It’s even possible that the internet has actually made things worse. Before the internet people with unusual interests were highly motivated to find others of similar tastes. When I was young I had very obscure tastes in music but somehow I managed to connect with people who liked the same completely unknown bands that I liked.

Of course no-one twenty years ago expected the internet to end up being dominated by a handful of mega-corporations, in exactly the same way that the media/entertainment industries are dominated by a few gigantic corporations.

One of the depressing features of the internet age, for me, has been the decline of old-fashioned hobbies. It seems that for most people today leisure activities are entirely restricted to things you can do on a mobile phone.

I have no idea if anyone has done any actual research on this subject. My totally subjective view is that we really have become more conformist in almost every area of life but perhaps I’m wrong?

Friday, January 6, 2017

tipping points and the phony consensus

This is an amplification of my earlier post how intolerance wins but I think the subject is important enough to justify a second post.

My theory of politics is that it mostly comes down to the human desire to conform. Our strongest instinct is to ensure our acceptance within our social group.

Most people do not hold strong political views. If you asked the average person to explain his political philosophy you’d get some vague platitudes. It’s only a very small minority that actually holds very strongly held views on politics. Those small minorities do however have an extremely disproportionate influence merely by virtue of the fact that they are strongly motivated.

Most people choose the line of least resistance. At any one time there will only be a small range of political opinions that are socially acceptable. The average person chooses a political allegiance from within that range. It is socially acceptable to be in favour of unlimited immigration or to be in favour of very very high levels of legal immigration with a few token attempts to favour better qualified immigrants; it is not socially acceptable to be opposed to legal immigration. It is socially acceptable to be in favour of homosexual marriage; no other position on that issue is acceptable.

These limits on acceptable political views are largely enforced by social pressure. If everyone in your office claims to be in favour of open borders then anyone who disagrees will face social penalties. The most you can hope to get away with is disagreeing privately while pretending to conform outwardly. In actual fact there may be others who also disagree with the accepted view but because no-one dares to express open disagreement you will still feel totally isolated socially if you dare to dissent. If everyone in your family claims to be an enthusiastic proponent of homosexual marriage then you’d have to be pretty bold to express a contrary view.

This is how particular beliefs become the consensus view. It is crucial to note that it is not necessary for an opinion to be held by the majority in order for it to be accepted as the consensus view. A minority, if it is sufficiently motivated, sufficiently bloody-minded, sufficiently intransigent and sufficiently hysterical, can impose its view as the consensus view. Most people will then conform because for most people it’s just not worth the grief to swim against the tide. Especially when you’re dealing with SJWs. They are prepared to go well beyond mere social pressure - they will if they can cause you to lose your job for daring to disagree with them.

The consensus view is, more often than not, a phony consensus enforced by fear.

This might seem depressing but there is another side. The consensus view prevails as long as the number of people prepared to question it is so small that such people can easily be marginalised, isolated and neutralised. If however enough people are prepared to question the consensus can quickly become rather shaky. If there are forty people in your office and you’re the only one openly dissenting you’ll end up either being forced to conform or forced to leave. But if two or three other people openly dissent then it’s not so easy for the consensus to be enforced. And pretty soon you’ll have a couple more doubters challenging the consensus, at which point the usual SJW intimidation tactics become relatively ineffective. It’s all a matter of reaching a tipping point.

And bear in mind that of the forty people in that hypothetical office it’s likely that at least twenty-five do not have any really strong views on the matter at all. They just go with the flow. If a contrary view that challenges the consensus becomes socially acceptable and if there are no longer any effective social penalties for holding that contrary view then many of those “undecideds” may well find the contrary view to be rather attractive.

The key to success is to borrow a page from the SJW playbook - be just as intransigent and just as stubborn as they are. It’s not necessary to overturn a monolithic hostile majority - what appeared to be a hostile majority was probably always only a vocal minority.

Wednesday, January 4, 2017

Ways of Seeing, wrongly

John Berger
Art critic John Berger is dead, at the age of 90. When I was a young leftist Berger was one of my heroes. Looking back now I can see that Berger was not only wrong about everything, he was dangerously wrong. Unfortunately Berger was immensely influential and his books are still used as university textbooks.

Berger was best-known for his 1972 BBC TV series (and its accompanying book) Ways of Seeing. A few years earlier Lord Kenneth Clark had presented a magisterial overview of western culture from the 12th century to the modern age in his muh-lauded Civilisation TV series. Ways of Seeing was intended as a counter to Clark’s program, undermining Clark’s  positive view of our culture. Where Clark celebrated western culture Berger was determined to deconstruct and destroy that same culture.

Modernist art is of course nothing more than a sustained attack on western civilisation. The problem for modernists is that anyone who isn’t blind or stupid (or sufficiently indoctrinated) can see that modernist art, when compared to the great works of the western tradition, is infantile rubbish. The only way to get modernist art accepted was to discredit the western artistic tradition. This was Berger’s project.

Berger was a marxist and his approach to art was marxist. Of course trying to apply marxist class analysis to the study of anything pre-19th century is futile. Classes, as understood in marxism, simply did not exist in a pre-industrial world. Berger wasn’t going to let that stop him.

It wasn’t enough to make people dislike the great works of western art. They had to be taught to see them as evil and patriarchal and oppressive. Berger saw all art as expressing a political ideology, because that was the only way he could understand art. Needless to say the western artistic tradition turns out to have been evil capitalist propaganda. Berger was also influenced by feminism so of course the great works of western art turned out to have been evil patriarchal propaganda. Berger had a considerable influence on feminist art criticism, one of the great blights of the modern age.

As is the case with so many art critics in the modern world I never got any sense that Berger actually liked art. He liked politics and he liked political art but he liked political art because it was political, not because it was art. Art as such was irrelevant. It was the political message that mattered.

Berger’s knowledge of art history was unimpressive but he knew how to cherry-pick works of art that he could use to advance his misguided theories.

The trouble is that we can’t just dismiss Berger as a wrong-headed misguided leftist loon (although that’s an accurate description of him) - Berger is solidly in the mainstream of modern art criticism. Our universities and art schools are infested with such people. The work of destruction, to which Berger was an enthusiastic contributor, goes on.

Sunday, January 1, 2017

how intolerance wins

An interesting article by Nassim Nicholas Taleb on on why intolerant minorities always win - The Most Intolerant Wins: The Dictatorship of the Small Minority. They win because they’re intransigent on a particular issue and because the majority are not prepared to go to the barricades over issues that don’t seem to be of great or immediate importance to them.

He’s not talking just about politics and religion. His example of peanut allergies is very instructive. For the small minority of parents whose children supposedly have peanut allergies it’s an issue on which no compromise can be accepted. For the convenience of their children every child in the school has to be denied access to peanuts. For the vast majority of parents whose children do not have peanut allergies it’s not an issue worth making a huge fuss over. It’s not worth fighting for and so the majority chooses the line of least resistance and accepts the banning of all peanut products in schools.

While it applies to all sorts of issues the fact that an intransigent minority will almost always get its way has obvious and vast implications in the social and political sphere. It is not necessary for these intolerant minorities to convert the majority to their point of view. They can remain a small minority and still win every political battle.

Perhaps the majority needs to learn this lesson and to put it into practice. If a large enough proportion of the majority actually is prepared to put up a fight then the intolerant minority could be defeated.

There’s also a lesson for social conservatives. They have lost every battle in the culture wars because although the social radicals always were a tiny minority they were focused, intolerant and completely bloody-minded. Social conservatives assumed they were dealing with people who were essentially reasonable and open to compromise. A fatal mistake.

Another issue that Taleb dopesn’t touch on directly (although it’s implied in his article) is that successful intolerant minorities tend to be extremely well disciplined.

The article does perhaps offer some hope. It is always possible to learn from your enemies. Even if the number of social conservatives and anti-globalists prepared to put up a fight is relatively small they could succeed by adopting the same tactics - by being just as intransigent and bloody-minded as the SJWs and globalists.

The lesson is that if you try to be moderate and reasonable you will lose every time.  Maybe it’s time we gave intransigence and bloody-mindedness a chance.