The two greatest forces that impact any community are economics and politics. Economics is primarily concerned with the distribution of resources, whereas politics is concerned with the distribution of power. Conventional wisdom states that societies and culture are formed at the intersection of the two. So, which came first, politics or economics?
I recently finished reading Orwell’s 1984. This is a project that I’ve put off for years, and in hindsight, it was probably for the best, as many of Orwell’s predictions have manifested themselves in recent times. Let’s go over some of Orwell’s warnings. There are spoilers up ahead.
Why did Orwell select the title 1984?
The conventional view states that he merely reversed the last 2 digits of 1948, however, I think there is more to this than meets the eye. Orwell was a member of the socialist Fabian Society from whom he later broke away. Contrary to popular belief, 1984 wasn’t aimed solely at the Soviets, but rather at the ideals of the Fabian Society. The emblem of the Fabians is the tortoise, which symbolizes the Fabian’s stratagem of wearing down the enemy. They believed that they could bring socialism to a society through gradual imperceptible increments even if it took them a 100 years. The Fabian society was formed in 1884, and giving them the benefit of the doubt, Orwell titled his dystopia 1984.
Women are some of the biggest supporters of The Party
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy."
Women are the shock troops of today’s Inner Party. Feminists owe their success largely to the generous financial contributions made by the very Capitalists that they instruct their unthinking acolytes to despise. The State plays its own role in buttressing feminism via social welfare programs and affirmative action paid for by male taxpayers. The nanny state allows women to make false rape accusations without any fear of legal reprisals, retroactively withdraw consent and move the goal posts on rape, and in general create a consequence free society for women.
Our Inner Party has correctly deduced that women require a bloated nanny state to help them achieve parity with men and thus women are “empowered” by these elites. As I’ve pointed out before, strong willed men desire small government whereas “strong and independent women” desire a large nanny state to hold their hand. Unsurprisingly, most women tend to vote liberal.
Orwell also mentioned that women were the "nosers-out of unorthodoxy." This is easily observed today as young women routinely initiate social media witch hunts against individuals that hold views contrary to those espoused by the Inner Party (anti Homosexuality/anti-Feminism/anti-immigration). These witch hunts are intended to kill an individual’s livelihood by smearing their reputations and rendering them unemployable. Orwell stated that women were the most fanatical supporters of the Inner Party and we see numerous examples of their mindless zealotry on social media.
Women possess a key characteristic that endears them to the Inner Party, and that is their propensity towards doublethink. Orwell defined doublethink as a form of mental gymnastics where an individual could simultaneously hold two contradictory beliefs. We are surrounded by examples too numerous to list here. We’ve noticed how women defiantly state that they don’t need men while simultaneously living on a man’s charity (alimony, child support, etc.). We’ve noticed how some women have consensual sex and then and then genuinely believe that they were raped. We’ve noticed how ‘strong’ women often rely on boyfriends, cops, bouncers, etc., to solve their problems. Doublethink is the enzyme that facilitates the digestion and assimilation of Inner Party propaganda. Female solipsism is the catalyst which aides this process naturally.
The destruction of gender
"I’m going to get hold of a real woman’s frock from somewhere and wear it instead of these bloody trousers. I’ll wear silk stockings and high-heeled shoes! In this room I’m going to be a woman, not a Party comrade."
Orwell was obviously not familiar with the cancer that would eventually become feminism. He was, however, intimately acquainted with the nature of communism and rightly surmised that the nature of communist “equality” was essentially a bland sameness. The Party did not tolerate the pillars of identity as they rightly believed that the latter would allow individuals to define reality on their own terms. Thus race, religion, and gender must be neutralized. Our Inner Party today uses Cultural Marxism to assault Western ethnicity (Critical race theory) and gender (Feminism). The classification of transvestites as women is another blow against gender. Ultimately, I believe most women want to be feminine, but feminists (the Outer Party) have other plans for them.
The destruction of language as a means of controlling thought
"You don’t grasp the beauty of the destruction of words. Do you know that Newspeak is the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year? Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. Already, in the Eleventh Edition, we’re not far from that point. But the process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller."
This is arguably Orwell’s most stunningly brilliant observation. Vocabularies seem to be shrinking at an astonishing rate every year. Bay Area Guy once told me about an acquaintance of his who did not know the meaning of the word ‘amoral.’ How could anybody discuss politics without being familiar with the word ‘amoral’? Popular culture has played a decisive role in the erosion of the average individual’s vocabulary where shows like the Simpsons openly glorify ignorance. There is not much else for me to add.
Perpetual Warfare
"War, it will be seen, accomplishes the necessary destruction, but accomplishes it in a psychologically acceptable way. In principle it would be quite simple to waste the surplus labour of the world by building temples and pyramids, by digging holes and filling them up again, or even by producing vast quantities of goods and then setting fire to them. But this would provide only the economic and not the emotional basis for a hierarchical society.
The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact. The very word ‘war’, therefore, has become misleading. It would probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous war has ceased to exist."
War is an industry and a large chunk of the US economy. The reason for perpetual war is not so much as to keep this industry going, but to instill a psychological dependence within the minds of the sheeple towards the Inner Party that governs them. The World Wars were old fashioned wars that were brutal and fought to the finish. What Orwell is referring to is continuous war, a war that does not threaten total destruction (and is technically less dangerous) and is perpetual. Oceania and Eurasia (or Eastasia) are evenly matched and are incapable of utterly destroying one and another. Elites on both sides understand that neither side can totally triumph against the other and thus the charade of perpetual war is maintained indefinitely to strip the sheeple of their liberties. The deluded masses fail to understand that the outside war is a prerequisite for the war that is perpetually waged against them.
The Cold War was the first prototype of the continuous war model followed by the newly perfected war on (Islamic) terror. Combating Islamic terrorism is like playing whack a mole: Whack Hamas, and then Islamic Jihad shows up. Whack Al Qaeda, and then ISIS pops out. Whack Harkatul Mujahideen and watch the Deccan Mujahideen spawn out of another hole. The US government does its part in indirectly supporting Islamic terrorism so that the continuous war may go on. By attempting to oust Bashar Al Assad in Syria, the US hopes that ISIS will be strengthened. Bashar has repeatedly warned that his Syrian Arab Army is the only force that stands between ISIS and the genocide of Arab Christians. The US would rather support the Christ hating nation of Israel than prevent the genocide of Christian Arabs at the hands of radical Islamic savages. A US official was quoted as saying:
"This is in perpetuity what we’re dealing with. It’s like the war on drugs. This isn’t going to stop."
2 + 2 = 5
"Physical facts could not be ignored. In philosophy, or religion, or ethics, or politics, two and two might make five, but when one was designing a gun or an aeroplane they had to make four.
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. His heart sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him, the ease with which any Party intellectual would overthrow him in debate, the subtle arguments which he would not be able to understand, much less answer. And yet he was in the right! They were wrong and he was right. The obvious, the silly, and the true had got to be defended. Truisms are true, hold on to that! The solid world exists, its laws do not change. Stones are hard, water is wet, objects unsupported fall towards the earth’s centre. With the feeling that he was speaking to O’Brien, and also that he was setting forth an important axiom, he wrote:
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
It would be an act of unparalleled stupidity to think that Liberals are the modern inheritors of the Enlightenment’s rational tradition. Today’s Liberals are the inheritors of Marxism and are just as averse to science as their religious counterparts on the Right. If reality contradicts ideology, reality is to be disposed off. The UCLA Women’s studies department had this to say about the works of Kevin MacDonald:
“Women’s Studies rejects any claims to a natural, biological or essential basis for social hierarchies that impute lesser or greater social value to designated populations. As such, the mission of Women’s Studies and the ethical and political impulse of feminism stand in direct contrast to the fields of socio-biology, evolutionary psychology and, by association, the work of Professor Kevin Macdonald.”
and this:
“Professor MacDonald works in fields that are considered to be legitimate by academic standards, and unfortunately, research into the genetic basis for the social value of racial and ethnic groups, women and homosexuals continues under the auspices of many fields of study. As such, we wish to raise some broader questions about any research that promotes bigotry, intolerance and racial superiority.”
The highlighted part is crucial because what it is really saying is this:
Since we can’t challenge Professor MacDonald’s research on empirical grounds (i.e. 2+2=4), lets shift the matter into the realm of theory by questioning the value of his research as opposed to its findings and methodology.
The reason why Science (Biology and Mathematics in particular) upsets leftists so much is because these disciplines directly challenge the ideology of our Inner Party. Evolutionary Psychology and Biology alone are capable of demolishing the foundational myth of Feminism which states that gender roles are socially constructed. These fields demonstrate that gender and sex are irrevocably linked and cannot be changed as easily as one changes clothes. In order to control people’s minds, it is essential to first control their eyes. It is to this end that college professors (Outer Party) hammer into their students the pernicious message that reality is “socially constructed.” By internalizing this message the student effectively mistrusts his eyes and allows the Party to construct and re-define his reality for him.
From the Occidental Observer article linked above:
"John Horgan, the scientist who wants to ban research on race and intelligence, is not quite fit for the pages of Nineteen Eighty-Four. But he is getting there, because he thinks like O’Brien and puts ideology before science. Unlike O’Brien, he wants to stop science, rather than pervert it, but his predecessor Gould imitated O’Brien and perverted science in the cause of ideology. Gould’s award-winning best-seller The Mismeasure of Man (1981) was a polemic against “racist” brain-science and the concept of g, or a general factor of intelligence that underlies human cognition."
Nobel Prize winner James Watson (Molecular Biologist) was similarly attacked by our Inner Party for violating the sanctity of leftist/Marxist ideology by insinuating the genetic basis for the IQ of racial groups. I am not interested in HBD or Biology and have no vested interests in those fields. The matter that agitates me is that the Cultural Marxist left, in Orwellian fashion, wants to censor science for the preservation of ideology and not academic integrity. Two plus two must equal five. This is ultimately why the Left despises Positivism and preaches Anti-foundationalism in University classrooms across the West.
Orwell’s 1984 is required reading for anybody that wishes to penetrate the structure of the world we live in. It serves as map and compass in a world where language and reality are bent to serve the interests of a Party whose interests can never converge with out own.
Inspired by Dota’s old post on 1984, I recently finished reading George Orwell’s dystopian novel. This won’t be an extensive review, as he already covered the book’s most pertinent points; I will likewise presume that readers are already familiar with the main plot, so I won’t provide much context.
The idea of Ectogenesis (artificial womb technology) has been with us since the 1920s. Its implications have been discussed in Brave New World and even The Matrix. The purpose of this article isn’t to predict the viability of this technology but to highlight the feminist response. The evolution of this technology began to gain momentum about twenty years ago and the feminist response has been quite amusing. Some feminists like Shulamith Firestone believed that anything which would free women from reproduction ought to be welcomed. Soraya Chemaly writes:
"In her seminal work, The Dialectic of Sex, written in 1970, Shulamith Firestone argued that inequality between genders, and women’s virtual imprisonment in the home, was the direct result of biological reproductive differences and women’s correlating investments in mothering. For her, ectogenesis, accompanied by revolutionary social changes, was the way to free women from the tyranny of their own biology put in the employ of patriarchal structures, including the traditional family. She noted that, so far, these technical and social changes have been impeded by medicine’s domination by men, who have no vested interest in upsetting the traditional status quo." (Emphasis mine)
It is remarkable that feminists who wage war against their own female biology should have the temerity to brand others “misogynists,” but that is the subject for another post. Nevertheless, we must give Firestone credit for remaining faithful to the tenets of her ideology, demented as it may very well be. Other feminists have responded with great alarm that this technology (when fully developed) would result in the obsolescence of women.
We on the Alternative Right share a peculiar aversion of economics. We seldom discuss it, preferring instead to focus our energies on matters pertaining to culture and politics. Nevertheless, Bay Area Guy and I have long maintained that social and cultural stability are not sustainable without economic prosperity. Neo-Liberalism (global capitalism) and Communism have one thing in common – they are both essentially internationalist ideologies. Neither Communists nor Neo Liberals possess one iota of loyalty to their nations. Where we see nations, Neo-Libs see markets. Where we see people, they see labour pools.
This video says it all. Somehow I’m not surprised to see these South Asians beginning to use their wealth to buy political clout; what’s shocking is their naked tribalism which they make not even a token attempt to conceal. Indians and Pakistanis both fundraising for Hillary Clinton, and somehow I doubt it’s because they support radical feminism.
Roosh was recently pilloried on the feckless Dr Oz’s show. Dr Oz is the sort of hack who practices pop medicine and has been criticized for often endorsing unscientific nonsense to the gullible masses. Nevertheless despite Roosh’s lackluster performance on the show, many regard this as a victory for the manosphere. It indicates that the manosphere is gaining mainstream recognition (or notoriety) and no publicity is bad publicity. I believe there are a couple of reasons why Roosh is despised and I shall briefly discuss each one.
Stacey Eden is a young Australian woman from Sydney who recently defended a Muslim couple that were verbally accosted by a middle aged woman on a train. The woman accused Muslims in general for the atrocities of ISIS and directed her ire at the hapless couple. Stacey Eden sat there for around 10 minutes listening to the conversation before intervening on the couple’s behalf; but not before hitting the record button that captured her heroic intervention. According to the BBC: "Stacey Eden’s Facebook page got an enormous surge of interest after she posted a video of herself defending a Muslim couple"
The easiest way for most people to deal with the Middle East is to mock it, show it contempt, or ignore it. This is understandable because, even at the best of times, the Arabs come across as a rather unpleasant bunch; while untangling just what is going on in the Middle East is about as inviting as unravelling a rats' nest.
"Pew’s 2014 Global Attitudes survey, 26 per cent of us have ‘unfavourable’ attitudes towards Muslims in this country; compare that to 46 per cent in Spain, 53 per cent in Greece and 63 per cent in Italy."
The leftist BBC self righteously took pot shots at Greece as Athens was the only major city in all of Europe that refused to permit the construction of a Mosque. It seems that this will no longer be the case as plans for a new Mosque are being discussed.
As I watched the video in the above link I couldn’t help but notice that this hostility to Muslims stems not from religious prejudice, but xenophobia. This brought me back to an excellent point Bay Area Guy had made a while ago about how Muslims had become a legitimate target for pent up anti-immigrant frustration. I suspect this is also the case in Europe. Muslims are bashed especially hard because North American Whites and Europeans are not allowed to bash any other group for fear of being labelled racist.
Throughout my years in elementary school I felt that certain teachers harboured unwarranted prejudice against me. I’d complain to my parents and my Dad’s response was fairly consistent: “What have you been up to?” My Mother’s response was somewhat more sympathetic: “Why don’t they like you? You’re so likable!” Both of their responses subtly implied that the way people treat you is a function of your own behaviour toward them. I have mentioned numerous times that the West needs to embrace this virtue of reciprocity. The virtue of tolerance that was championed by the Old Left of John Stuart Mill has been degraded by the modern left. In his essay On Liberty Mill championed a diversity of opinions (NOT a diversity of races) while placing one sole limit on free speech: using it to incite a mob.
I know I’m a little late on this topic but I’d be remiss if I didn’t impart a few thoughts on this oh so auspicious occasion. India’s evil twin just turned 68 and continues to teeter along a fine line between existence and oblivion. Like a brain dead patient on life support, Pakistan doesn’t stand a chance of recovering; yet disconnecting this nuclear powered failed state from its life support system terrifies the world.
Pakistan has skillfully leveraged it’s existence as an elaborate protection racket where failure to comply threatens global destruction, with the possibility of its nuclear arsenal ending up in the wrong hands. Thus the world’s foremost beggar state sustains itself on the charity of other states while contributing virtually nothing to human civilization.
The brutal rape that occurred in Delhi two years ago was followed by unprecedented national outrage and demands for legislature reform. They were also followed by a spike in sexual assaults including the shocking rape of 2 peasants girls whose corpses were hung on trees. India is but one country in the global tapestry we know as the third world. Why does the third world reject feminism? I will for the sake of clarity attempt to answer the question by using India as a case study.
The word alpha is bandied about on every far flung corner of the manosphere and PUA universe. The alpha is emulated as the paragon of manliness where every ‘beta’ and ‘omega’ strives to be an alpha, but for all the wrong reasons as we shall see. Who is an Alpha male? According to many in the PUA community (whom I do not affiliate with), an alpha is the archetypal masculine man who is cool, confident, and is irresistible to women. Men want to be alphas so that they can have access to an inexhaustible supply of poon. But is this all there is to it? I tend to believe that Alphas have certain character traits that are innate or that one acquires with years of disciplined self improvement. For the purpose of this post, I’m going to rely on cultural references (TV/Books) as it makes the portrait easier to sketch.
