Tag Archives: multi culturalism

On Alt Right Fundamentalists

I’ve said that I would vote for Donald Trump – not because I’m voting for him (he’s an idiot and not a conservative) nor because I’m voting against Hillary (I don’t buy the Lesser of Two Evils argument – don’t vote for either evil, no one is forcing you to vote). Rather I would vote for him just to piss off the John Olivers, Samantha Bees, Amy Schumers and all the other despicable condescending artistic and media elites, the Virtuous Ones that are always lecturing the rest of us on what defines a good and intelligent person and a proper world view. Anything that ruins their day, their week or their lives has some merit for me personally. Not a good or mature reason to vote for a despicable candidate, but a reason nonetheless.

That said, Donald Trump is an incredibly narcissistic and selfish individual jeopardizing conservatism for decades going forward. He has clearly conceded he’s going to lose the election and is now by saying all sorts of idiotic crap positioning himself for Trump TV post-election, where he can gather all the Alt-Right people from Breitbart and Info Wars and other unprincipled right-wing populist centres and, for a good amount of money, tell them they were screwed out of the election, the election was rigged, the media, Hollywood, everyone is against them. There’s a good amount of anger there to be tapped into. But he’s essentially pouring the gasoline that someone else is going to come along and light.

What is the Alt-Right, Trump’s base of support in this election?

Over the past 50 years the narrative has arisen that conservativism is a white male belief system. It’s not – it’s a belief in limited and rational government, a proper balance between freedom, security and the protection of minority rights, and a belief that only a stable society can be prosperous, hence why traditional institutions such as the family and church/synagogue/mosque and traditional values need to be protected and changed slowly and with great care, otherwise we risk destabilizing vulnerable segments of society. These beliefs have nothing to do with race or ethnicity.

But the western Left over the past 50 years has adopted the embrace of multi-culturalism as one of its Virtues, and as immigration from non-white countries has increased significantly the right has evolved the position that immigration needs to be more controlled if assimilation and the melting-pot ideas are being discarded. The position has legitimate roots in concerns about balance and stability with respect to economic impacts and social integration, but let’s be honest there was and still is a racist component in some resistance to immigration. At one time Italians, Ukrainians and Serbs were the unwanted immigrants, but over time they’ve all assimilated. Now it’s Arabs, Pakistanis and Hispanics. No doubt these are harder groups to integrate into a pluralist secular society and they bring additional questions of compatibility.

But what the Left did by adopting multi-culturalism along with open immigration at a time when demographically white people were having fewer and fewer children was allow them to say, “See those people on the right over there? They believe in certain things. But one thing they don’t believe in is you or your culture. If they’d had their way you may never have been allowed to come here.” And hence the Left successfully made it extremely difficult for conservatives to recruit from minority groups. This failure to recruit minorities only reinforced the idea that conservatives are white (and male). It’s a cycle that is hard to escape from.

This gives rise to the Alt-Right. The Alt-Right is a fundamentalist movement. The Alt-Right has essentially let the Left define them and steered them into an essentially non-conservative belief system – Fine!  If you think that that’s what the right is about, that’s what it will be about !  The future is in our past and a return to a white European ethno-centrist value system that was the basis upon which the West and America was built! Make America Great Again!  It’s not racist per se, they don’t preclude any race or ethnicity from joining the Alt-Right, but what they demand is an acknowledgement that white European ideals created our society and our decline is the result of non-stop attacks on and a dilution of those ideals from leftist traitors and immigrants with incompatible value systems.  There is merit in the argument, but it is a backwards looking world view that is doomed to failure.

Again and again I come back to Steven Pressfield’s description of fundamentalism from the War of Art. It is succinct and brilliantly accurate. Following is from the book (bolding of words is mine);

Fundamentalism is the philosophy of the powerless, the conquered, the displaced and the dispossessed. Its spawning ground is the wreckage of political and military defeat, as Hebrew fundamentalism arose during the Babylonian captivity, as white Christian fundamentalism appeared in the American South during Reconstruction, as the notion of the Master Race evolved in Germany following World War I. In such desperate times, the vanquished race would perish without a doctrine that restored hope and pride. Islamic fundamentalism ascends from the same landscape of despair and possesses the same tremendous and potent appeal.

What exactly is this despair? It is the despair of freedom. The dislocation and emasculation experienced by the individual cut free from the familiar and comforting structures of the tribe and the clan, the village and the family.

It is the state of modern life.

The fundamentalists (or, more accurately, the beleaguered individual who comes to embrace fundamentalism) cannot stand freedom. He cannot find his way into the future, so he retreats to the past. He returns in imagination to the glory days of his race and seeks to reconstitute both of them and himself in their purer, more virtuous light. He gets back to basics. To fundamentals.

But the fundamentalist reserves his greatest creativity for the fashioning of Satan, the image of his foe, in opposition to which he defines and gives meaning to his own life. Like the artist, the fundamentalist experiences Resistance. He experiences it as temptation to sin. Resistance to the fundamentalist is the call of the Evil one, seeking to seduce him from his virtue. The fundamentalist is consumed with Satan, whom he loves as he loves death. Is it coincidence that the suicide bombers of the World Trade Center frequented strip clubs during their training, or that they conceived of their reward as a squadron of virgin brides and the license to ravish them in the fleshpots of heaven?….

To combat the call of sin, i.e., Resistance, plunges either into action or into the study of sacred texts. He loses himself in these, much as the artist does in the process of creation. The difference is that while the one looks forward, hoping to create a better world, the other looks backward, seeking to return to a purer world from which he and all have fallen.

I read so many parallels with the Alt-Right in there. They’ve conceded defeat for conservative ideals and as such, want to retreat to a world that can never exist again. The Republican elites have sold us out. Free trade deals are a failure, we need more protectionism.   All immigration should not only be halted, but millions actually deported from whence they came. Men should be men, and women be women.  You’ve gotten a raw deal. If only we could go back and live in the 1950’s when America was wonderful.

And as such, it is a very dangerous movement. There is a great deal of violence lurking there and we shouldn’t be surprised if it explodes post election. And it will explode if Donald Trump loses (which he will) and he doesn’t tone down his rhetoric in the final weeks.  This should and will be every true conservative’s nightmare; the vilification and demonization of all on the right would accelerate 10-fold as we’d all be lumped in with these Alt-Right people and it would take decades to recover.  We’d probably only recover once there’s been a Great Collapse and liberal failure is laid bare for all to see, and by then it will be too late.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

On Diversity, Segregation, Cultural Appropriation and Multi-Culturalism

On the one hand you have the supposed forces of diversity; take for example the female German politician who neglected to report her own rape at the hands of three Arab migrants because she was afraid of the racial backlash against Arabs that reporting her crime might provoke. Only after there were subsequent attacks was her friend able to convince her to come forward to the police with her own story. She certainly signaled her virtues to the world – it was more important for her to avoid potentially negative characterizations of a specific race than protect other women from the same fate. It’s as though had she come forward she would be the bad person, not her attackers. Multi-culturalism practiced as a doctrine for being a good quiet victim. It’s not the victim blaming feminists so decry, but it’s close; it’s simply on the hierarchy of grievances and victim-hood, Muslims rank higher than women.

But then you have the forces of segregation; Black Lives Matter, Idle No More, etc. Ever wonder what it is exactly that these people want? As a Canadian this ridiculousness is particularly insulting; we are not a country with anywhere near the history of racism that the US has, so why is this abomination being imported from that country? Sure, we have done some bad things as a nation to First Nations, interning Japanese and refusing Jewish refugees during WWII and such, no Western nation has a flawless record on that front. No serious person would argue that we are a country free of racism, sexism, homophobia et al, but you cannot convince the majority that racism against blacks or other identifiable groups is either “systemic” or endemic in Canada, or in Toronto particularly.

One idea that gets pounded is the idea that white people, because of their “privilege” cannot understand the condition and lives of black people or any other visible minority in our country. That is intellectually absurd. By extension then how could a black person understand the life of say, a Chinese immigrant? How could the straight Chinese immigrant understand the life of gay Chinese immigrant? How could that gay Chinese immigrant understand the life of that trans-gendered Aboriginal wo/man? How could that trans-gendered Aboriginal wo/man understand the life of a paraplegic lesbian Muslim from Pakistan? How can I understand my neighbor? He has a teenage daughter and lives 25m north of where I live, his perspective on life must be different than mine… and on and on.

At some point if you carry that argument to its logical conclusion you could argue that it is impossible for any of us to understand each other, because we are individuals. We all develop as persons with our own experiences that colour who and what we are and determine our cognitive biases. For a society to function successfully we have to accept that others will be able to, for the most part, understand us and our concerns. So when you say that that is impossible then what these people argue for is segregation; the ability to exist under a separate set of laws and conditions. There doesn’t have to be physical separation of groups to have segregation, all it requires is that there are different rules for different people. And when you provide different rules for one group then every group wants its own rules. Including whites who then turn to a Donald Trump in the US and argue, hey it’s our turn for special treatment.

Perhaps it’s not all that different from the German politician who didn’t want to report her Arab rapists – she believed that they, because of their identity, should be allowed to operate under a set of different expectations for allowable behavior. This is what progressive white guilt has created; a society that every day seems more and more hell-bent on dividing into little identity groups, white, black, straight, gay, woman, single, married, native, migrant, Muslim, Christian, atheist, kids, no kids… nothing approaching a nation or unifying culture.

Unifying culture? What a quaint idea. Here’s Justin Timberlake, a pop star that does “black” dance moves and emulates Michael Jackson wherever and whenever possible. He tweets in support of a blatantly racist speech made by a black actor at the BET awards and gets hit with a request to stop appropriating black culture. What? Should we whites then volley back with blacks should stop appropriating “white” culture in the form pianos, keyboards, guitars, brass horns… recording equipment? Turntables? Records? CDs? Where is this headed?

You’d think the left would applaud cultural appropriation. Isn’t cultural appropriation is just another word for multi-culturalism, which as we’ve discussed, is a key goal of the left… but it also is simultaneously a tool of oppression by the white Patriarchy? What? Is this an example of “intersectionality” or whatever they call this crap when they teach it in universities? I can’t keep up.

Two hundred years from now we can only hope people will look back on this time in history and laugh at what utter morons we all were.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Two Sides of the Same Coin, Not Two Different Coins

So Warren Kinsella thinks that conservatives are making a stronger appeal to emotion, and thus their growing success in Canada, at least federally.

Then of course you get the analysis following the Wildrose Party losing in Alberta, and the consensus at the moment is that Albertans, especially younger and urban Albertans, shied away from Wildrose at the last minute because of their social conservative stand on a number of issues.  This analysis would fit with the left’s world view of things – that younger, urban voters may recognize the fiscally conservative viewpoint in politics, but because they’re rooted in modern times, they rationally ran from Wildrose at the last minute and their refusal to back away from a few social conservative stances. 

Both are an offshoot of the typical progressive conceit that we’ve discussed before (here, and here); that conservatives are irrational, stupid and deniers of expertise and science.  So, any electoral success has to be attributed to conservatives leveraging anger and emotion over “rational” and learned thoughts that the progressive left might have.

They’re all wrong. It’s the progressive side that relies on emotive arguments, nostalgia and attempts to appeal to people’s romantic notions of constructing the perfect society.

And incidentally, we would also flatly deny that conservatism is on the upswing or triumphing in any respect in the competition for ideas. As can be seen in the fallout from Alberta, social conservatism is regularly shat on as being neanderthal and regressive, and the vast majority of the population want to consider the debates on abortion, gay marriage, multi-culturalism and criminal punishment as passe and beneath dignifying.

But what is catching up to the world is reality – you cannot borrow from future generations indefinitely, especially when those successive generations are becoming smaller and smaller.   And thus, fiscal conservatism is on the rise, with more and more people understanding that we can’t pay for everything for everyone.

But if to be a fiscal conservative means ultimately advocating for affordable, smaller government, with strict limitations on its powers and mandates, then it means supporting also the necessary withdrawal of the nanny state from many facets of our lives because that is really the only path to a government of a size that we can pay for.

However, when you withdraw the state from people’s lives most still need support systems to deal with the various struggles of life and these have traditionally been family and churches and social communities. Hence why fiscal and social conservatism have to be flip sides of the same coin; you cannot withdraw government from people’s lives without at the same time supporting those traditional institutions that can fill the void.

Without family, church and community the void will be filled with an amoral anarchy. What is happening on the ground floor of countries like Russia and others where the government withdrew and left a vacuum filled by mobsters and vodka-soaked youth gangs roaming the streets?  Or take any formerly socialist or communist government that had supplanted religion in that part of the world with big government, and now has withdrawn – it’s chaos.

And thus, fiscal and social conservatism are two sides of the same coin; it’s cool and sexy to say you are fiscally conservative but socially liberal, however it doesn’t wash in the end – You cannot have a government advocating for every kind of social advancement and attempting to engineer people’s lives without a bureaucracy to support those kinds of endeavor.  And bureaucracies cost money.

So, social conservatives should take heart.  The first part of the wedge, recognizing that we are in a fiscal mess is starting to be driven in.  Next will come the realization that without government we will need all those traditional institutions and values that we’ve been marginalizing for the past fifty years.

Tagged , , , , , , ,
%d bloggers like this: