Phuket, Thailand. Midnight: Bangla Road is packed with tourists. They’re mostly Westerners and Russians, but many Asians and a smattering of Indians. There seems a disproportionate number of unattached males. The music is very loud, and throbbing. Outside the bars, on elevated stages, Thai girls are dancing provocatively. They’re tall, fantastically beautiful, and seductive. They look, and move, like supermodels, but with better bodies. Then you realise: there are other Thai women here too, but they’re short, cute and pretty, not at all statuesque or magnificent. Alongside the kathoey, Thailand’s famous trans women, they are all but invisible, like candles next to a searchlight. It’s easy to see who has the attention of the gathered men.
On stage, one girl rolls her dress down to her hips so that her naked breasts and torso – she sports a delicate dragon tattoo on her back – are shown off, as she wriggles to the thrumming techno. Her body is as flawless as a Greek goddess’ and her dance mesmerising as a Siren’s: you just can’t help but watch and smile at her exquisite insouciance.
Women always think in terms of power. When they decorate a home they are showing their power within their space. When they outlaw masculinity and masculine behaviour, they are exercising power.
Men think in terms of targets and things. That is why a man gets irritated when his wife interferes with his prized model collection. It’s also why men ‘objectify’ women. Men objectify everything, there is no need to feel it’s special treatment.
Men, innately, seek to achieve targets and to acquire things as measures of status with which they can persuade women to give up what they want, which is sex. Women see their power over that sex as the means by which they can control the individual man they might be partnered with, but also the broader society.
Leftist violence led directly to last night’s tragic events in Charlottesville, Virginia, USA. While the actual crime that led to the death of one person and the injury of 19 was committed, presumably, by one of their political opponents, the simple fact is that the Left in the USA has been doing its level best to engineer a situation like this since it lost the 2016 Presidential election.
It is never acceptable to use violence in the furtherance of political ends. Our sympathies go out to the victims of this attack and to their families. They also go out to the young man whose life has been ruined by the commission of this crime and to his family.
Let us be quite clear, however: this foolish and cruel act of violence was the result of a fire stoked by the Left; and it was the result most fervently desired by the Left. Now it has its longed-for martyr, whose memory it will abuse to its own ends.
Women think in terms of power and men in terms of sex; this is innate.
Women’s best chance of success in evolutionary terms is the protection of their children. They are limited in how many they can have and rear to maturity, and childbirth, without modern medicine, is extremely dangerous. So women constantly (and reasonably) seek control (power) over their own reproduction, since for them, choosing a good mate is paramount. This extends over the space they live in — so that male aggression in particular is removed and with it the risk of violence, accidental or otherwise to children.
As women move out of the Home Group space and into the broader society they take these objectives with them, and this leads them to try to gain power over that society in the same way. So, although the impetus is evolution and reproduction, this is expressed as a desire for power. That is why the abortion debate is so polarised: nothing can ever be allowed to challenge a woman’s power over her own body, even the rights of her unborn child.
Postmodernism is an intellectual disease that strikes that the very heart of Western democracy. It was founded by the cynical French intellectual Jacques Derrida, an old-school Marxist who realised that in the era of Stalin, when he was writing, truth itself was dangerous.
There is no alternative to Capitalism in a free society. Removing it would also necessarily remove the foundation of Enlightened Culture. As I wrote yesterday, that foundation is that we all own our own bodies and lives. They are ours to do as we will with, so long as we do not harm others. If we so choose, we may use them to earn and acquire property, which is ours to keep or exchange. That is Capitalism.
Removing Captalism dispossesses us of our own lives and bodies, since it prevents us from using them to acquire things. Worse, it assumes that, since our bodies and lives are not our own, they must belong to someone or something else. This has been the Family, the State, the Tribe, the Earth, the Party, the Church, the Crown, the Faith; you name it. Our most precious freedom, to live our own lives with our own bodies, is removed when we attempt toremove Capitalism. Continue reading Capitalism: is there an alternative in free societies?→
Events of recent months contributed to a discussion between myself, Rod Fleming, and Karis Burkowski. Karis carried out the role of editor and eventually co-author of our book ‘Why Men Made God’. In reviewing the book for a second edition, we encountered several points of discussion that highlight the difference between enlightened culture and regressive-left Snowflake Culture. I thought our discussion was worth sharing.
Karis Burkowski (KB): The climate catastrophe is inevitable, but can still be somewhat ameliorated. How our cultures rebuild themselves in a post-catastrophe world is a valuable discussion…Self-serving cults, particularly those with medieval attitudes, must not be allowed to gain ascendancy. We must change as a species, like we did post-Toba, and do better next time.
You mentioned that the friends of atheists are Christians. That may be so in Europe, but it is far from true over here. Atheists are still ‘closeted’ in many parts of the US and for good reason…The antithesis of Islam is not Christianity, it is secularism. Both groups would destroy atheists if they could. Continue reading Enlightened Culture versus Snowflake Culture→
We have no time left to deliberate, now. Appeasement has failed, just as it did in 1939. The enemy is among us. He is far more cruel and vicious than Adolf Hitler and more totalitarian than the Nazis. He uses any weapon he can to kill us, while we have allowed our governments to take from us our own, with which we might, perhaps, have defended ourselves. His name is Islam and he has declared war.
Our cultural values of freedom and toleration we must now put aside, because our continent is sick. The dream of a free, peaceful Europe that we have been building for seven decades is dead. We must, now, fight to preserve what is left, the essential core of our cultural values. To do that we must accept that many of our privileges, afforded by the system we live under, must be suspended. We are at war and that is one consequence. Continue reading Time has run out: War has begun→
‘Phobia’ just means ‘fear of’. ‘Islamophobia’ therefore, is the fear of Islam. But Islam is not a group of people, a race or an ethnicity. It is just a religion. A religion is a set of ideas, so Islam is an ideology.
It is reasonable to fear an ideology that calls on its followers to kill you and destroy your culture; so why does ‘Islamophobia’ have special status? Why are people deliberately shamed into not stating that they are afraid of Islam and what it instructs its benighted followers to do to them?
Why should Islamophobia be reviled, when it is actually the only intelligent position to take? Is self-preservation a bad thing? Is it wicked to want to protect a culture that you are justly proud of? Is it wrong to want to protect yourself and your children from a 9th-century travesty of lies and delusions fabricated by an evil warlord whose closest modern equivalent is Adolf Hitler?
Islamophobia is not only a reasonable fear, it is also the only intelligent and rational position to take.
Identity Politics (IP) is a development of the thinking that gave us Political Correctness, which operates by denying an opponent the language needed to present a case, and thus preventing that person from doing so. It is intellectually lazy and morally bankrupt, because it is directly contradictory to free speech. You cannot speak freely if the language you must use has been censored so that you cannot express yourself. However, the Regressive Left has never been very keen on free speech. It prefers that people toe the party line.
IP ‘identifies’ a hierarchy of privilege in the patriarchy. It proposes to counter this by saying that those who are awarded most patriarchal privilege should not be allowed to speak about matters that affect the less privileged. This applies even if the person speaking is a recognised expert quoting the best science.
IP then follows up by constructing an inverted system of status such that those who ‘identify’ as being in an ‘oppressed group’ are regarded as being higher in status than those who are not. The more oppressed the group you ‘identify’ as being in is deemed to be, the more authority you have. This we might call a ‘status of oppression’.
Well, there is a system of status in the patriarchy. In the West and indeed most of the world, this posits that men are above women, high status men are above low status ones and so on. White men have higher status, under this, than black men, while Asian men are somewhere in between. It is a nasty, controlling, anti-human social order. However, it has one thing in its favour: it actually exists. It can be recorded and observed like any other natural phenomenon. It may not be desirable, but then, neither is bubonic plague and nobody argues that because the latter is not very nice, it doesn’t exist. Continue reading Identity Politics — the secret oppression→