One of the more spectacular current misunderstandings of the world is of the oft-expressed idea that feminism is turning the clock back to Victorian times, with women cast as delicate little flowers who can’t handle the real world. This idea has resurfaced in the wake of the latest sexual harassment witch-hunts. This whole idea is entirely false.
The women who scream and cry and stamp their feet about their feelings getting hurt are not delicate little flowers. They’re vicious bullies who are out to destroy anyone who dares to disagree with them or who is unwilling to grovel to them. They’re crybullies. Their feelings are not hurt. It’s all an act, and a very successful one. Feminists have figured out that pretending to be reduced to tears by nasty misogynist men is an incredibly useful and effective tactic for getting what they want. It’s a tactic that women discovered quite some time ago. Probably around 100,000 years ago.
They are not turning back the clock to Victorian mores. Nor do they have any intention of doing so. This is the age of slut culture and slut culture is one of the products of feminism. The objective is not to resurrect traditional sexual morality. The objective is to demonstrate their power.
It’s a tactic that has been adopted by most so-called victim groups although none of them do it quite so effectively as the feminists.
Women being women and therefore complicated and contradictory it is of course likely that other things are going on. Recently we’ve seen the phenomenon (chronicled with gleeful amusement by Steve Sailer) of women complaining because they were not being sexually harassed. Never underestimate the bitterness of women who find that they are not the object of male sexual attention, either because they’re too fat or too ugly or they’ve hit the wall.
Women also get angry when they find they’re not being sexually harassed by the right men. If for example the men concerned are not hot billionaires. It’s also quite probably that some women start throwing harassment allegations around when the sex turns out to be not as good as they’d hoped. Or when the sex turns out to be too good, which makes them feel too much like sluts. Or when they’ve basically behaved like whores and they’re afraid that people will notice.
The lesson is that nothing said by a feminist can be taken at face value. There are always wheels within wheels.
Friday, December 29, 2017
Saturday, December 23, 2017
a better monarchy
I can understand the appeal of the idea of ethnostates. I can understand the appeal of nations bound together by a common culture, history and religion.
The only problem with the idea is that very few of the currently existing nations qualify as ethnostates.
Britain doesn’t qualify, unless you regard Scots and Welsh and English as interchangeable. Italy doesn’t qualify - northern Italians and southern Italians are certainly not ethnically interchangeable. Spain definitely doesn’t qualify. Belgium is most certainly not an ethnostate.
I’m not talking about these nations as they are today - even fifty years ago before the beginnings of mass immigration they were not ethnostates. Germany maybe, but it was divided on religious lines.
As for countries like Australia, maybe up until the 1940s there might have been a chance for a kind of ethnostate except for the fact of the Irish Catholics. Canada never had a chance, unless they were prepared to sacrifice Quebec. There was never the slightest chance in the US.
So the big problem is that the creation of European ethnostates would have required the dissolution of most of the major nation states. That would not necessarily have been a bad thing had the EU been conceived as a loose federation rather a centralised bureaucratic super-state.
It’s understandable that those who dislike globalism tend to lean towards nationalism since nationalism seems like the only viable alternative. But is it? Perhaps we should be looking at other alternatives. Perhaps we should look to the Holy Roman Empire as an alternative. The reputation of the Holy Roman Empire never really recovered from Voltaire’s characterisation of it as neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. But in fact its weakness (or its apparent weakness) was the very thing that was so great about the Holy Roman Empire.
It was also the great strength of the empire of the Habsburgs which overlapped with but was by no means identical with the Holy Roman Empire. There was a strong enough central authority to keep it intact and provide a strong army but it was not string enough or bureaucratic enough to enforce conformity. As a result the Habsburg Empire had lots of diversity. Cultural diversity, ethnic diversity, linguistic diversity, even religious diversity.
How could this have worked? Very simple. It was a monarchy. Unity was maintained by a common loyalty to the House of Habsburg. If you want to maintain a unity based on a concept like shared values you need the apparatus of totalitarianism in order to do it. Unity based on loyalty to the crown does not require totalitarianism.
That’s one of the key weaknesses of the United States. The one thing that might have made America workable was a monarchy.
On paper Australia is lucky. We are a monarchy. But it doesn’t work and we are sliding towards the horrors of the proposition nation nonsense as a result. It doesn’t work partly because the House of Windsor is not our monarchy. An English queen cannot provide a focus for unity and loyalty. What we needed, right from the beginning, was our own monarchy. Our own king. The other reason it doesn’t work is that the Windsors are a truly awful family. They’re basically celebrity trash. They’d provide a great basis for a daytime soap opera but as a force for Australian unity they’re pretty useless.
Our problem is that the failings of the present monarchy are likely to result in a renewed push for a republic and that would be much much worse. We need a monarchy, but we need a better monarchy.
The only problem with the idea is that very few of the currently existing nations qualify as ethnostates.
Britain doesn’t qualify, unless you regard Scots and Welsh and English as interchangeable. Italy doesn’t qualify - northern Italians and southern Italians are certainly not ethnically interchangeable. Spain definitely doesn’t qualify. Belgium is most certainly not an ethnostate.
I’m not talking about these nations as they are today - even fifty years ago before the beginnings of mass immigration they were not ethnostates. Germany maybe, but it was divided on religious lines.
As for countries like Australia, maybe up until the 1940s there might have been a chance for a kind of ethnostate except for the fact of the Irish Catholics. Canada never had a chance, unless they were prepared to sacrifice Quebec. There was never the slightest chance in the US.
So the big problem is that the creation of European ethnostates would have required the dissolution of most of the major nation states. That would not necessarily have been a bad thing had the EU been conceived as a loose federation rather a centralised bureaucratic super-state.
It’s understandable that those who dislike globalism tend to lean towards nationalism since nationalism seems like the only viable alternative. But is it? Perhaps we should be looking at other alternatives. Perhaps we should look to the Holy Roman Empire as an alternative. The reputation of the Holy Roman Empire never really recovered from Voltaire’s characterisation of it as neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. But in fact its weakness (or its apparent weakness) was the very thing that was so great about the Holy Roman Empire.
It was also the great strength of the empire of the Habsburgs which overlapped with but was by no means identical with the Holy Roman Empire. There was a strong enough central authority to keep it intact and provide a strong army but it was not string enough or bureaucratic enough to enforce conformity. As a result the Habsburg Empire had lots of diversity. Cultural diversity, ethnic diversity, linguistic diversity, even religious diversity.
How could this have worked? Very simple. It was a monarchy. Unity was maintained by a common loyalty to the House of Habsburg. If you want to maintain a unity based on a concept like shared values you need the apparatus of totalitarianism in order to do it. Unity based on loyalty to the crown does not require totalitarianism.
That’s one of the key weaknesses of the United States. The one thing that might have made America workable was a monarchy.
On paper Australia is lucky. We are a monarchy. But it doesn’t work and we are sliding towards the horrors of the proposition nation nonsense as a result. It doesn’t work partly because the House of Windsor is not our monarchy. An English queen cannot provide a focus for unity and loyalty. What we needed, right from the beginning, was our own monarchy. Our own king. The other reason it doesn’t work is that the Windsors are a truly awful family. They’re basically celebrity trash. They’d provide a great basis for a daytime soap opera but as a force for Australian unity they’re pretty useless.
Our problem is that the failings of the present monarchy are likely to result in a renewed push for a republic and that would be much much worse. We need a monarchy, but we need a better monarchy.
Thursday, December 21, 2017
wars and revolution
Revolutions do not very often break out spontaneously. There has to be a severe crisis first. A very severe crisis. The usual prelude to a revolution is a disastrous war.
I’m speaking here of revolutions in a very broad sense. Not just armed insurrections, but any very rapid and very dramatic and permanent shift in the status quo.
The 1905 Russian Revolution occurred after a series of military disasters during the Russo-Japanese War. The 1917 Russian Revolution followed Russian catastrophe in the First World War. The Chinese Communists gained power after the country had been ravaged and exhausted by years of war against Japan.
It seems quite likely that a successful revolution is simply not possible without a pre-existing crisis, and that nothing short of an unsuccessful war will do.
These were all spectacular revolutions - attempts to overthrow the existing order by force. There have been quieter revolutions as well (although these are often even more catastrophic than the violent ones).
Consider the United States in the 1960s. The anti-civilisational forces that have become so familiar were already present. Hollywood had been spreading its cultural poison for decades. The cultural elite was doing its best to demoralise the nation. The mass immigration of the late 19th century had caused social devastation from which the country had never really recovered. Corruption had always been endemic. And yet somehow the United States was surviving.
Then came the disaster of the Vietnam War, ending in humiliating defeat. And that was the time when the anti-civilisational forces really kicked into high gear. They became much more confident and aggressive, and they gained support from the liberal media establishment. This was the period, from say 1965 to 1975, when second wave feminism raised its depraved head. This was the period when homosexual activists began openly agitating. This was the time when racial hatred was being energetically stoked.
What was really odd was that this was also the period in which the political Left in the US ceased to exist. The Cultural Left took its place.
The usual explanation was that the Left adopted the strategy of cultural marxism - undermining the culture to prepare the way for the Glorious Workers’ Revolution. In fact the Cultural Left were not marxist in any meaningful sense. They had no plans to reconstruct society in order to make it more just. Their aim was simple destruction. Destruction for the sake of destruction. They were fuelled by hate, not idealism.
Of course if you’re inclined towards conspiracy theories you might suspect that the transformation of the American Left from an organised coherent political force into a collection of deranged dingbats who just wanted to destroy society might just possibly have been engineered by an arm of the US Government, like the CIA for instance. That’s just a wild conspiracy theory of course.
The Cultural Left (nowadays funded by bankers and billionaires) has turned out to be infinitely more dangerous than the Political Left ever was.
The question is, could this have happened without the Vietnam War? I think not.
All this has considerable relevance to anyone who hopes for another political revolution, one which will restore sanity and sweep away the nonsense of identity politics, political correctness, feminism and other associated evils. Such a revolution is unlikely to happen, and very unlikely to succeed, unless another military disaster like Vietnam comes along. Of course given the lunacy of US foreign policy another Vietnam War is always a possibility. That is perhaps our only hope.
I’m speaking here of revolutions in a very broad sense. Not just armed insurrections, but any very rapid and very dramatic and permanent shift in the status quo.
The 1905 Russian Revolution occurred after a series of military disasters during the Russo-Japanese War. The 1917 Russian Revolution followed Russian catastrophe in the First World War. The Chinese Communists gained power after the country had been ravaged and exhausted by years of war against Japan.
It seems quite likely that a successful revolution is simply not possible without a pre-existing crisis, and that nothing short of an unsuccessful war will do.
These were all spectacular revolutions - attempts to overthrow the existing order by force. There have been quieter revolutions as well (although these are often even more catastrophic than the violent ones).
Consider the United States in the 1960s. The anti-civilisational forces that have become so familiar were already present. Hollywood had been spreading its cultural poison for decades. The cultural elite was doing its best to demoralise the nation. The mass immigration of the late 19th century had caused social devastation from which the country had never really recovered. Corruption had always been endemic. And yet somehow the United States was surviving.
Then came the disaster of the Vietnam War, ending in humiliating defeat. And that was the time when the anti-civilisational forces really kicked into high gear. They became much more confident and aggressive, and they gained support from the liberal media establishment. This was the period, from say 1965 to 1975, when second wave feminism raised its depraved head. This was the period when homosexual activists began openly agitating. This was the time when racial hatred was being energetically stoked.
What was really odd was that this was also the period in which the political Left in the US ceased to exist. The Cultural Left took its place.
The usual explanation was that the Left adopted the strategy of cultural marxism - undermining the culture to prepare the way for the Glorious Workers’ Revolution. In fact the Cultural Left were not marxist in any meaningful sense. They had no plans to reconstruct society in order to make it more just. Their aim was simple destruction. Destruction for the sake of destruction. They were fuelled by hate, not idealism.
Of course if you’re inclined towards conspiracy theories you might suspect that the transformation of the American Left from an organised coherent political force into a collection of deranged dingbats who just wanted to destroy society might just possibly have been engineered by an arm of the US Government, like the CIA for instance. That’s just a wild conspiracy theory of course.
The Cultural Left (nowadays funded by bankers and billionaires) has turned out to be infinitely more dangerous than the Political Left ever was.
The question is, could this have happened without the Vietnam War? I think not.
All this has considerable relevance to anyone who hopes for another political revolution, one which will restore sanity and sweep away the nonsense of identity politics, political correctness, feminism and other associated evils. Such a revolution is unlikely to happen, and very unlikely to succeed, unless another military disaster like Vietnam comes along. Of course given the lunacy of US foreign policy another Vietnam War is always a possibility. That is perhaps our only hope.
Saturday, December 16, 2017
the cruel illusion of romantic love
The idea of romantic love as the basis for marriage, and the basis for personal happiness, is so deeply entrenched that it is easy to imagine that it is both universal and eternal. It is neither. It’s a purely western idea and it didn’t get off the ground until around about the twelfth century. That was when the European upper classes discovered courtly love.
Courtly love seems to have been to a considerable extent a literary invention (this proving once again that writers are in general a foolish and empty-headed lot) although the increasing feminisation of the Church and the rise and rise of the cult of Mary may have played a part. In any case courtly love spread like wildfire through the upper classes. Or to be more precise, it spread like wildfire among the women of the upper classes.
At the time it was perhaps not entirely a bad idea, or it didn’t seem like such a terrible idea. Life was still somewhat brutal and the upper classes were still to a large degree a warrior aristocracy and they were a little unpolished (although it needs to be emphasised that the Middle Ages were never as barbarous or uncivilised as hostile propaganda has led us to believe). Still, life wasn’t as much fun for the ladies as they would have liked. Courtly love sounded wonderfully exciting to them.
Marriage at the time was basically an economic contract. Your parents selected a prospective spouse for you (and this applied to young men as much as to young women) on the basis of the degree of advantage it would bring to the family. As long as you didn’t find the person repulsive the marriage would go ahead (actual forced marriages were always forbidden by the Church). It was a sensible system that worked but it was also a system that put the interests of family and society ahead of the interests of the individual. Marriage was about responsibility and duty. That’s not to say that marriages were loveless. If both parties accepted the situation and made the most of it strong bonds of affection could and did develop. And if those bonds of affection failed to develop and either party decided to seek emotional or sexual solace outside the marriage it was not considered to be the end of the world as long as it was done discreetly.
The new concept of love changed all this. Now the idea was that you would fall in love with someone before you married them. There was also a very strong emphasis on sex, and especially on women’s sexual pleasure. There was a simple way to know if you had found True Love or not. If your emotions were not coupled with sexual lust it wan’t True Love.
The writers of romances who promoted courtly love, writers like Chretien de Troyes, were not unaware of the dangers and Chretien certainly seems to have nourished the fond hope that couples would satisfy their emotional and sexual appetites within the safety and sanctity of the marriage bed. Of course in the real world that was never going to happen, and it didn’t always happen in the romances either (adultery makes for more exciting literature than faithful marriage).
For a long time the old and the new concepts of marriage co-existed and balanced each other out. The quest for True Love was important but responsibility and duty still mattered. You could choose your spouse, but you were expected to choose sensibly and to consider family and economic interests.
It all started to go wrong after the First World War. Responsibility and duty were now very old-fashioned notions. They were positively Victorian. And in the 1920s everything Victorian was of course assumed to be hopelessly bad, stupid, oppressive and worst of all old-fashioned.
And at around this time Hollywood came along. Romantic love was made to order for Hollywood. It provided exciting plots that women loved and it proved to be an ideal weapon with which to undermine marriage (Hollywood was fanatically devoted to sabotaging our civilisation right from the start). Romantic love was soon to reign supreme.
There are several major problems with the romantic love ideal. The biggest problem is that it implies that marriage is only really valid as long as True Love still flourishes. If True Love starts to fade, or if the sexual passion that is the unfailing indicator of True Love starts to falter, then marriage becomes oppressive. And surely it’s wicked to expect people to stay married if there’s no True Love any more? Romantic love therefore, in practice, implies that marriage is temporary and that it should be approached from a purely selfish perspective. It’s all about feelings. It’s all about me!
Romantic love is also quite useful from the point of view of social control. Our lives might be empty and meaningless and we might be just nameless faceless consumers but that’s OK because one day True Love will come along and then everything will be hunky dory. We won’t even notice the atomisation and alienation of modern society, or the crassness of our culture, or the way we’re lied to and manipulated. Because Love Conquers All.
Courtly love seems to have been to a considerable extent a literary invention (this proving once again that writers are in general a foolish and empty-headed lot) although the increasing feminisation of the Church and the rise and rise of the cult of Mary may have played a part. In any case courtly love spread like wildfire through the upper classes. Or to be more precise, it spread like wildfire among the women of the upper classes.
At the time it was perhaps not entirely a bad idea, or it didn’t seem like such a terrible idea. Life was still somewhat brutal and the upper classes were still to a large degree a warrior aristocracy and they were a little unpolished (although it needs to be emphasised that the Middle Ages were never as barbarous or uncivilised as hostile propaganda has led us to believe). Still, life wasn’t as much fun for the ladies as they would have liked. Courtly love sounded wonderfully exciting to them.
Marriage at the time was basically an economic contract. Your parents selected a prospective spouse for you (and this applied to young men as much as to young women) on the basis of the degree of advantage it would bring to the family. As long as you didn’t find the person repulsive the marriage would go ahead (actual forced marriages were always forbidden by the Church). It was a sensible system that worked but it was also a system that put the interests of family and society ahead of the interests of the individual. Marriage was about responsibility and duty. That’s not to say that marriages were loveless. If both parties accepted the situation and made the most of it strong bonds of affection could and did develop. And if those bonds of affection failed to develop and either party decided to seek emotional or sexual solace outside the marriage it was not considered to be the end of the world as long as it was done discreetly.
The new concept of love changed all this. Now the idea was that you would fall in love with someone before you married them. There was also a very strong emphasis on sex, and especially on women’s sexual pleasure. There was a simple way to know if you had found True Love or not. If your emotions were not coupled with sexual lust it wan’t True Love.
The writers of romances who promoted courtly love, writers like Chretien de Troyes, were not unaware of the dangers and Chretien certainly seems to have nourished the fond hope that couples would satisfy their emotional and sexual appetites within the safety and sanctity of the marriage bed. Of course in the real world that was never going to happen, and it didn’t always happen in the romances either (adultery makes for more exciting literature than faithful marriage).
For a long time the old and the new concepts of marriage co-existed and balanced each other out. The quest for True Love was important but responsibility and duty still mattered. You could choose your spouse, but you were expected to choose sensibly and to consider family and economic interests.
It all started to go wrong after the First World War. Responsibility and duty were now very old-fashioned notions. They were positively Victorian. And in the 1920s everything Victorian was of course assumed to be hopelessly bad, stupid, oppressive and worst of all old-fashioned.
And at around this time Hollywood came along. Romantic love was made to order for Hollywood. It provided exciting plots that women loved and it proved to be an ideal weapon with which to undermine marriage (Hollywood was fanatically devoted to sabotaging our civilisation right from the start). Romantic love was soon to reign supreme.
There are several major problems with the romantic love ideal. The biggest problem is that it implies that marriage is only really valid as long as True Love still flourishes. If True Love starts to fade, or if the sexual passion that is the unfailing indicator of True Love starts to falter, then marriage becomes oppressive. And surely it’s wicked to expect people to stay married if there’s no True Love any more? Romantic love therefore, in practice, implies that marriage is temporary and that it should be approached from a purely selfish perspective. It’s all about feelings. It’s all about me!
Romantic love is also quite useful from the point of view of social control. Our lives might be empty and meaningless and we might be just nameless faceless consumers but that’s OK because one day True Love will come along and then everything will be hunky dory. We won’t even notice the atomisation and alienation of modern society, or the crassness of our culture, or the way we’re lied to and manipulated. Because Love Conquers All.
Wednesday, December 13, 2017
unlocking the power of hate
Never underestimate the power of hatred. Or more specifically, never underestimate the positive effects of being hated.
Take the Jews. How on Earth could they have survived as a distinct ethnic/religious/cultural group through the 2,000 years of the Diaspora? The answer is simple. They survived by being hated.
The Jews maintained their own traditions and beliefs and ethnic identity because they were regarded as outsiders, and regarded with suspicion and dislike. Most of the time they weren’t actually persecuted or even hated but simply looked upon with suspicion. But there were times when they were actively hated and persecuted and this proved to be their salvation as a people. They were not only considered to be outsiders, they thought of themselves as outsiders.
This was a powerful incentive to avoid what was in fact the greatest threat to their survival - marrying outside their own community.
It strengthened their faith and it made their traditions seem very precious indeed.
Other cultural groups have benefited from being hated, although none so spectacularly as the Jews. For centuries the Irish Catholics maintained their faith and jealously preserved a distinctive cultural identity. The force that bound them together was the oppression they suffered at the hands of the English. Then in the latter part of the 20th century the English did something very terrible. They gave up oppressing the Irish. The Irish response was immediate. They abandoned their faith, they abandoned their identity and they set about committing national suicide. Within a few decades from now the Irish will have disappeared as a distinct people.
It’s not necessary to be oppressed to enjoy these benefits. Having an external enemy who hates you and wants to destroy you can be almost as good.
It’s worth taking a bit of a look at the history of Christianity. In its early centuries it suffered sporadic persecution at the hands of the Romans. These were boom times for Christianity.
By the 4th century AD Christianity was the official religion of the Empire but luckily there were still plenty of enemies. Most of Europe was still pagan. Even within the Empire paganism was down but not out. When the Empire in the West collapsed it was by no means certain that Christianity would triumph. The surviving Empire in the East had plenty of very real non-Christian enemies. And would soon have a new and very formidable enemy in the shape of Islam. Islam would even threaten the territories of the now-defunct western Empire.
For centuries to come Christianity would have real enemies and Christians with a taste for martyrdom could find endless opportunities for indulging that taste.
The boom times came to an end at the end of the seventeenth century. The Islamic threat to Europe was over. European Christianity had no viable enemies. And Christianity began its long slow decline.
The interesting bit is that the boom times might soon be back. Liberals (and I use liberals as shorthand for the globalist elites and their SJW foot soldiers) have hated Christianity for a long long time but up till now they’ve been content with harassment. This is clearly going to change, probably within the next decade. They’re going to move towards full-blown persecution.
This may be the salvation of Christianity. Being a persecuted minority once again might lead to a Christian revival. At the very least it should eliminate most of the mainstream churches, and that would be a very good thing indeed for Christianity.
Take the Jews. How on Earth could they have survived as a distinct ethnic/religious/cultural group through the 2,000 years of the Diaspora? The answer is simple. They survived by being hated.
The Jews maintained their own traditions and beliefs and ethnic identity because they were regarded as outsiders, and regarded with suspicion and dislike. Most of the time they weren’t actually persecuted or even hated but simply looked upon with suspicion. But there were times when they were actively hated and persecuted and this proved to be their salvation as a people. They were not only considered to be outsiders, they thought of themselves as outsiders.
This was a powerful incentive to avoid what was in fact the greatest threat to their survival - marrying outside their own community.
It strengthened their faith and it made their traditions seem very precious indeed.
Other cultural groups have benefited from being hated, although none so spectacularly as the Jews. For centuries the Irish Catholics maintained their faith and jealously preserved a distinctive cultural identity. The force that bound them together was the oppression they suffered at the hands of the English. Then in the latter part of the 20th century the English did something very terrible. They gave up oppressing the Irish. The Irish response was immediate. They abandoned their faith, they abandoned their identity and they set about committing national suicide. Within a few decades from now the Irish will have disappeared as a distinct people.
It’s not necessary to be oppressed to enjoy these benefits. Having an external enemy who hates you and wants to destroy you can be almost as good.
It’s worth taking a bit of a look at the history of Christianity. In its early centuries it suffered sporadic persecution at the hands of the Romans. These were boom times for Christianity.
By the 4th century AD Christianity was the official religion of the Empire but luckily there were still plenty of enemies. Most of Europe was still pagan. Even within the Empire paganism was down but not out. When the Empire in the West collapsed it was by no means certain that Christianity would triumph. The surviving Empire in the East had plenty of very real non-Christian enemies. And would soon have a new and very formidable enemy in the shape of Islam. Islam would even threaten the territories of the now-defunct western Empire.
For centuries to come Christianity would have real enemies and Christians with a taste for martyrdom could find endless opportunities for indulging that taste.
The boom times came to an end at the end of the seventeenth century. The Islamic threat to Europe was over. European Christianity had no viable enemies. And Christianity began its long slow decline.
The interesting bit is that the boom times might soon be back. Liberals (and I use liberals as shorthand for the globalist elites and their SJW foot soldiers) have hated Christianity for a long long time but up till now they’ve been content with harassment. This is clearly going to change, probably within the next decade. They’re going to move towards full-blown persecution.
This may be the salvation of Christianity. Being a persecuted minority once again might lead to a Christian revival. At the very least it should eliminate most of the mainstream churches, and that would be a very good thing indeed for Christianity.
Sunday, December 10, 2017
losing touch with reality
My recent post how dumb do feminists need to be? and a recent post at The Knight and Drummer, The Survivability of Men and Women both deal with the issue of feminists being hopelessly out of touch with reality. It’s not just a problem with feminists though. It’s more and more a problem with our whole society.
As an example, there has always been a city-country divide. City dwellers have always despised rural folk. And city dwellers have always been a little vague as to how reality actually works. They have a vague notion that food comes from farms but they’re pretty sketchy on the details. They probably know that milk comes from cows, but they’ve almost certainly never seen an actual cow. The fact that farming is hard work undoubtedly never occurs to them. It is very unlikely that any city dweller realises just how dangerous an occupation farming is.
That city-country thing has always existed of course. But there are other divides that are just as dramatic, and becoming more dramatic. Middle-class urbanites generally have no notion whatsoever that they are dependent on nasty horrid working class people for their very existence. They assume that when you flick a switch you get electricity, and when you turn the tap you get clean fresh water. They do not comprehend that such miracles only occur because blue-collar workers labour night and day to keep them happening.
Middle-class urbanites also never stop to wonder how all that food and other stuff gets onto the shelves at the supermarket. They remain blissfully unaware that some dreadful working-class man drives the truck that brings those things to the supermarket.
They have no comprehension of the full extent of their dependency. If those blue-collar workers weren’t there for even a brief period it would be more than just an inconvenience. Within a few days people would start dying, In large numbers. Middle-class city dwellers would start dying. A city without electricity, running water and trucks to deliver food would become a very very unpleasant place very quickly.
The things that blue-collar workers do for a living tend to be the things that keep us all alive. The things that a large proportion of those urban middle-class people do for a living are often entirely useless. What would happen if all the sociologists, psychologists, investment counsellors, financial advisors, insurance brokers, diversity officers, advertising execs, aromatherapists, interior decorators and social workers disappeared? The answer is that it would have no effect on society whatsoever. Life would go on. The same applies to the majority of bureaucrats.
It’s not just that women in the workforce generally contribute little or nothing productive to society. A very large chunk of middle-class males don’t contribute anything either.
This has become more pronounced as we have moved towards being a service economy, as distinct from an economy that actually makes stuff. The great thing about a service economy is that you end up with a situation where the majority of people do entirely useless jobs. They are mere drones, supported by a small number of men (yes, men) who do the work that keeps everybody else alive.
And the drones develop an extraordinary detachment from reality. They don’t even know of the existence of the people keeping them alive.
As an example, there has always been a city-country divide. City dwellers have always despised rural folk. And city dwellers have always been a little vague as to how reality actually works. They have a vague notion that food comes from farms but they’re pretty sketchy on the details. They probably know that milk comes from cows, but they’ve almost certainly never seen an actual cow. The fact that farming is hard work undoubtedly never occurs to them. It is very unlikely that any city dweller realises just how dangerous an occupation farming is.
That city-country thing has always existed of course. But there are other divides that are just as dramatic, and becoming more dramatic. Middle-class urbanites generally have no notion whatsoever that they are dependent on nasty horrid working class people for their very existence. They assume that when you flick a switch you get electricity, and when you turn the tap you get clean fresh water. They do not comprehend that such miracles only occur because blue-collar workers labour night and day to keep them happening.
Middle-class urbanites also never stop to wonder how all that food and other stuff gets onto the shelves at the supermarket. They remain blissfully unaware that some dreadful working-class man drives the truck that brings those things to the supermarket.
They have no comprehension of the full extent of their dependency. If those blue-collar workers weren’t there for even a brief period it would be more than just an inconvenience. Within a few days people would start dying, In large numbers. Middle-class city dwellers would start dying. A city without electricity, running water and trucks to deliver food would become a very very unpleasant place very quickly.
The things that blue-collar workers do for a living tend to be the things that keep us all alive. The things that a large proportion of those urban middle-class people do for a living are often entirely useless. What would happen if all the sociologists, psychologists, investment counsellors, financial advisors, insurance brokers, diversity officers, advertising execs, aromatherapists, interior decorators and social workers disappeared? The answer is that it would have no effect on society whatsoever. Life would go on. The same applies to the majority of bureaucrats.
It’s not just that women in the workforce generally contribute little or nothing productive to society. A very large chunk of middle-class males don’t contribute anything either.
This has become more pronounced as we have moved towards being a service economy, as distinct from an economy that actually makes stuff. The great thing about a service economy is that you end up with a situation where the majority of people do entirely useless jobs. They are mere drones, supported by a small number of men (yes, men) who do the work that keeps everybody else alive.
And the drones develop an extraordinary detachment from reality. They don’t even know of the existence of the people keeping them alive.
Saturday, December 9, 2017
how dumb do feminists need to be?
Are we really getting dumber? It’s difficult to know because often we’re dealing with a mixture of stupidity and craziness, but it’s hard to resist the conclusion that intelligence is in increasingly short supply.
Feminists are an interesting case in point. Just how dumb do you need to be in order to be a feminist? The answer is, very dumb indeed.
Recently I came across yet another feminist spouting the line that if only all men could be removed from the planet women would be able to live in a safe peaceful Garden of Eden.
Apparently it had never occurred to this woman that a world free of men might not be so wonderful. For instance, there would be no electricity. No running water. No internet. No telephones. All these things have been built and are maintained by men. There would be no fire brigade so if your house caught fire you could be in trouble. There would be nobody to collect the rubbish.
In fact women probably wouldn’t live long enough to have to worry about most of the consequences because within a few days there would be no food in the stores. Farming, fishing and all forms of food production are done by men. Of course even if there was food it wouldn’t help since there’d be nobody to drive the trucks to deliver the food to the stores.
This is all pretty obvious. Civilisation was created by men and it’s men who keep it running. And women are absolutely dependent on civilisation. I don’t believe any woman in the 1950s (or any earlier period in history) would have been dumb enough to think that women could survive more than a few days in a world without men. But today our universities are full of women who believe such nonsense. They really are completely unaware of how the world actually works.
Of course if you’re a feminist today such mind-boggling ignorance is not enough. You also have to believe that a man wearing a frock is just as much of a woman as any actual woman, and is entitled to all the privileges that go along with being female.
Is it stupidity or craziness? Like I said earlier, it’s difficult to tell. Maybe a bit of both.
I suspect that most older feminists don’t believe this kind of silliness. They believe some of it, but not all of it. At the very least, they have some serious doubts about the magical power of a frock to transform a man into a woman. They don’t say anything because they’re afraid to. The younger feminists really do seem to believe the whole insane package. If they’re college-educated they believe it, without any doubts at all.
The obvious conclusion is that universities make people dumber. Much dumber. They’re not the only factor making people dumber, but there’s a certain level of stupidity mixed with insanity that can only be attained through a university education.
All this is worrying enough, but even people who don’t identify as feminists are inclined to believe this kind of madness. Such beliefs are common among the sad pathetic creatures known as male feminists.
The interesting and amusing thing is that while the world would collapse with terrifying rapidity without men, if you somehow removed all the feminists from the world civilisation would suffer no adverse effects at all. The contribution of feminists to civilisation is zero. The contribution of male feminists to civilisation is less than zero.
Feminists are an interesting case in point. Just how dumb do you need to be in order to be a feminist? The answer is, very dumb indeed.
Recently I came across yet another feminist spouting the line that if only all men could be removed from the planet women would be able to live in a safe peaceful Garden of Eden.
Apparently it had never occurred to this woman that a world free of men might not be so wonderful. For instance, there would be no electricity. No running water. No internet. No telephones. All these things have been built and are maintained by men. There would be no fire brigade so if your house caught fire you could be in trouble. There would be nobody to collect the rubbish.
In fact women probably wouldn’t live long enough to have to worry about most of the consequences because within a few days there would be no food in the stores. Farming, fishing and all forms of food production are done by men. Of course even if there was food it wouldn’t help since there’d be nobody to drive the trucks to deliver the food to the stores.
This is all pretty obvious. Civilisation was created by men and it’s men who keep it running. And women are absolutely dependent on civilisation. I don’t believe any woman in the 1950s (or any earlier period in history) would have been dumb enough to think that women could survive more than a few days in a world without men. But today our universities are full of women who believe such nonsense. They really are completely unaware of how the world actually works.
Of course if you’re a feminist today such mind-boggling ignorance is not enough. You also have to believe that a man wearing a frock is just as much of a woman as any actual woman, and is entitled to all the privileges that go along with being female.
Is it stupidity or craziness? Like I said earlier, it’s difficult to tell. Maybe a bit of both.
I suspect that most older feminists don’t believe this kind of silliness. They believe some of it, but not all of it. At the very least, they have some serious doubts about the magical power of a frock to transform a man into a woman. They don’t say anything because they’re afraid to. The younger feminists really do seem to believe the whole insane package. If they’re college-educated they believe it, without any doubts at all.
The obvious conclusion is that universities make people dumber. Much dumber. They’re not the only factor making people dumber, but there’s a certain level of stupidity mixed with insanity that can only be attained through a university education.
All this is worrying enough, but even people who don’t identify as feminists are inclined to believe this kind of madness. Such beliefs are common among the sad pathetic creatures known as male feminists.
The interesting and amusing thing is that while the world would collapse with terrifying rapidity without men, if you somehow removed all the feminists from the world civilisation would suffer no adverse effects at all. The contribution of feminists to civilisation is zero. The contribution of male feminists to civilisation is less than zero.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)