Tuesday, January 12, 2016

2015: Raisins and Turds.

Another year has passed and I think it is worthwhile, from this vantage point, to take stock of the From from the perspective of this blog it's been a mixed year.

Firstly, the positives. As much as I deplore the rabble, any change in the zietgiest is only going to come about when a lot of people come on board. The "penetration" of Right memes has always been hampered by Cathedral control of public "idea space", and until recently, the Cathedral, through it's technological monopoly, has been able to keep control of the Overton Window. While its control over it has been gradually weakening, over the past year it seems to have taken a serious hit.  Conservative bloggers have always been since the inception of the internet,  but it appears that in the last year or so, the Alt-Right has achieved critical mass, especially in the U.S.,  as to be able to influence the tone of public debate. The emergence of the "cuckservative" meme an example in point. This is good.

Secondly, the amount of perversity, like morality, a society can abide with is limited by human nature. The extreme leftward push by the Cathedral and its operatives is finally starting to initiate some homeostatic mechanisms which are favourable to the Right wing ideas.  People like to live according to their natures, and one aspect of their nature is homophily.  Having a natural disposition toward homogeneous societies, no matter what they say to the contrary, the illegal immigration debacle in Europe--with its impotent response--has done more for the furtherance of Right wing ideas by activating some primordial response than any polemic or appeal to rationality by any Right-wing intellectual.  This is good.

Furthermore, most people have an intuitive dislike towards homosexuality and an intuitive sense of protection for children. Whilst the gay agenda was orientated toward securing sexual rights I don't think many cared to push back, on the other hand, the push for the legitimisation of marriage and access to children seems to have triggered the beginnings of an "intuitive"  counter-homosexual pushback in the community, particularly in France. This is good.

Furthermore, over the last few months I've also noticed comments popping up in unexpected places which seem to be negative with regard to the sexual revolution. People seem to be sick of the sexual degeneracy about them and there is a weariness about matters sexual. This is not to say that people want to turn the sexual revolution back, but there seems to be a growing awareness of the bigger picture of sex, especially with regard to relationship stability. This is good.

2015 Seems to be the year that mainstream "Conservatism" has died. Everywhere across the Western World there seems to be a fissuring and polarisation amongst the ranks in the Right. Merkel has effectively killed the CDU and what emerges is likely not to be very unpredictable.  This is good, as the current custodians of the mainstream Right have destroyed it.

The other great development is Victor Orban.

The other development is the rise of Trump.

From a meta level, it appears that 2015 has been a year which has resulted in rightward shift in the Overton window.  Especially in Europe. 

Now the turds.

It's been great to see the explosion of the Alt-Right presence on the social media and in the blogosphere and I think 2015 has been the year of Alt-Right achieved Critical mass. But, on the other hand, a significant portion of the is growth has come about from entryism of "naturalist " Right groups. I'm using naturalism in the sense the Michel Houellebecq has used it and I think the aptness of the french terminology is particularly important given the cultural position of the Right at the moment. These entryists  who are very active, seem to be pushing a racially aware form of progressivism. This is not good.

Following up of my reading of Houellebecq, I've spent the last couple of weeks chasing a rabbit warren of ideas by early 20th Century French authors, particularly Peguy and Blondel. What's quite eerie to note is just how much contemporary right wing thought resembles that of right wing thought in France prior to WW1. And if history is a guide, serves as a warning for what is to come.

At the end of the 19th Century, French Right wing thought was broadly divided into two main streams. There was the naturalist/Integralist steam which centered around the personality of Charles Maurras and there was a rabble of Christian humanists typified by men such as Peguy, Blondel and Claudel. Group one was a curious fusion of HBD positivism and Throne and Altar Traditionalism and called itself Action Francaise.  To be fair, it had some good ideas but in the end, the organisation betrayed France by bending over and enthusiastically supporting the German occupation of it. They were active in the  persecution of the French resistance, despite calling themselves the avowed patriots of France. When all is said an done, despite their religiosity and French patriotism they were simply racially conscious progressives. This version of the right shot itself in the head.

Group 2 on the other hand, fought the Germans, and inspired men like De Gaulle. They saw that setting the clock back wasn't going to work, neither were the mass-man ideologies of the time. They saw that Western Civilisation was in deep crisis, seeing the mass de-Christianisation that was occurring in Europe prior to Vatican Two. They diagnosed the problem as being that mainly of a crisis of faith, and a failure of traditional Western civilisation to recognise that modernity had changed the operating paradigms of society. To them the fundamental task was to respond to modernity in a Christian fashion and it was a question of how to deal with modernity successfully, not adapting it uncritically. This however was too much for Church leaders at the time who tacitly supported Group 1 and mildly persecuted Group 2. These guys were the spiritual fathers of John Paul II, Benedict and Francis.  The guys who persecuted them were the Traditionalists.

Why the French situation is important is because it is being mirrored today in contemporary Right wing "idea space" and what has really depressed me is the Naturalist bent the Alt-Right has taken. The history of the times should be studied simply to show that the Naturalist trajectory is bound to end in failure. I don't want to repeat the same mistake yet it seems to be the way we're going. This is bad.

The other tragedy of 2015 has been the Catholic Church. It's this blogs primary contention that the Crisis in Western Civilisation at the moment is primarily religious in origin and nothing gets fixed until this issue is sorted out. Europe will die if Christianity is not revived and hence the Church's current "impotence" at dealing with the spiritual failure is the pressing issue of the moment. ( I know a lot of you Positivists think I'm nuts. It would be so much easier to implement a policy solution than a cultural transformation, yet it is the latter that needs to be done.) Protestantism is dying and Orthodoxy is static, incapable of change. That leaves the Church.

Vatican Two was supposed to sort this mess out, but it hasn't, primarily because the Hierarchy reformed ineptly and inappropriately. I think Francis recognises this and his hoping for some Divine solution. I think he is aware of the problem though doesn't have any solutions of his own. I think he was hoping something would come out of the Family Synod but nothing appears to have happened. The Church's spinning of the wheels is regrettable. This is bad.


For me, the overall strategic picture looks remarkably similar to late 1920's early 30's.

2016 is going to be interesting.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

As Chesterson would say, pithyness is a virtue. Brilliant.

Cecil Henry said...

No. Race matters. People need to deal with that.

And so does progressivism in the alt-Right. To pretend otherwise is dishonest and hypocritical

MK said...

It would be so much easier to implement a policy solution than a cultural transformation, yet it is the latter that needs to be done.) Protestantism is dying and Orthodoxy is static, incapable of change. That leaves the Church.

This is a brilliant line. I've never seen it said better. Therefore, Europe is history.

Vatican Two was supposed to sort this mess out, but it hasn't, primarily because the Hierarchy reformed ineptly and inappropriately.

This isn't really true. The path to hell has ALWAYS been lined with the skulls of bishops. It's the laity who have not risen to the challenge. By this I mean: building communities of faith, building strong families, etc. The bishops merely come from the first group.

But it's changing. Read books like The Faithful Departed. Most of the new wave of American Catholics don't get the manosphere themes, but they are circling the wagons.

I think Francis recognizes this and his hoping for some Divine solution. I think he is aware of the problem though doesn't have any solutions of his own.

Nope, he's just weakening the flock with disunity. To make big change, you have to start with trust and you need to invest in your basic communities. The Church hasn't done that. We are a whole generation away from where Francis wants to go. He is, I'm sorry, and idiot.

For me, the overall strategic picture looks remarkably similar to late 1920's early 30's.

EXACTLY. I've said this a thousand time in the last few years, especially economically. And we all know what happened in the '40s. Brace yourself.

MK said...

One more thing: I know this is a bit American of me, but Trump is the biggest story since Matt Drudge broke into the MSM. You didn't give him even half the attention he deserves in your post. America is a time bomb of angry males, most of them white but plenty of minorities too, and Trump may light this fuse.

For the first time in over 20 years, the Overton Window has been enlarged to the point of danger. Once this dam starts to crack, I don't think it can be controlled.

Look at Trump's ad below. He is simply smashing the OW. He's got brains, money, and most importantly, real balls. The convo is forever changed. He's like Aleric: when you fight alongside the Power so long and breath their tactics and weaknesses, you are one dangerous SOB when you turn on them. People forget: Trump IS the media.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/01/07/trump_instagram_attack_ad_connects_clinton_to_weiner_and_cosby.html

Mark Citadel said...

In defense of Orthodoxy, it is precisely that resistance to change which has prevented any 'Vatican II' equivalent, or an infiltration by explicitly Progressive elements. For sure, the Church has issues with corruption and profligacy, as well as a lack of boldness on home fronts in what is only a tacit endorsement of the old ways, rather than an explicit condemnation of Modern secularism. However, I think we have a relatively stable foundation upon which a virile anti-Modern resistance can be mustered.

MK said...

Mark, In defense of Orthodoxy...I think we have a relatively stable foundation upon which a virile anti-Modern resistance can be mustered.

Orthodoxy hasn't been making an impact without modernity. Why would modernity have any effect one way or the other? Orthodoxy doesn't evangelize much, is very localized. It certainly doesn't threaten modernity.

Thought experiment: If you had told someone at the Schism there would be 3X more Catholic heretics by the year 2000 than all the Orthodox in the world combined, would he have believed it? I wouldn't have.

Note Orthodoxy doesn't even have the capability to have a Vatican II, or even lock down doctrine in the light of modernity. Too divided, no pope. If population trends continue, Orthodoxy will be lucky to still be around in another thousand years as a practical matter. Allowing divorce or birth control do not bode well for any religion.

ElectricAngel said...

Europe will die if Christianity is not revived and hence the Church's current "impotence" at dealing with the spiritual failure is the pressing issue of the moment

As Chesterbelloc wrote: "Europe is the Faith; the Faith is Europe." I suspect a Christian remnant will survive to rebuild, but it's going to be a long process. Buried under Musliminvited invaders will not allow this to happen.

Happy New Year, good Doctor.

Mark Citadel said...

"Orthodoxy hasn't been making an impact without modernity. Why would modernity have any effect one way or the other? Orthodoxy doesn't evangelize much, is very localized. It certainly doesn't threaten modernity."

It's not that it threatens Modernity, but has ejected it. See Russia's deportation of Norwegian NGO's and the fight against an EU annexation of Ukraine. These were moves that had more Church involvement than you might think.

"Thought experiment: If you had told someone at the Schism there would be 3X more Catholic heretics by the year 2000 than all the Orthodox in the world combined, would he have believed it? I wouldn't have."

Catholicism has evangelized populations with very very high birth rates, Africans, Asians, and Aztecs among them. I'm talking about whites mainly. And bear in mind, Catholicism did not really have to endure the mass executions of Communism except in Cuba really.

"Note Orthodoxy doesn't even have the capability to have a Vatican II, or even lock down doctrine in the light of modernity."

The doctrine remains unchanged. It is so hard to have a council, that having a Vatican II would be difficult, and this is a good thing. There has to be a consensus among very stubborn men who don't want to tinker with doctrine.

"If population trends continue, Orthodoxy will be lucky to still be around in another thousand years as a practical matter. Allowing divorce or birth control do not bode well for any religion."

Projecting population forecasts 1000 years into the future is silly. I'd agree on the divorce question, its one thing where I believe we have gone astray. Population wise, Orthodox countries are not looking at the kind of demographic replacement that their white neighbors are looking at. Poland and Slovakia are two great holdouts of Catholicism, but the rest are being invaded by filth. Look at Austria and Germany.

In the countries where Orthodoxy does hold sway, we are also seeing a rise in institutional power of the Churches. This can be a very effective future weapon.

MK said...

Electric, "Europe is the Faith; the Faith is Europe." I suspect a Christian remnant will survive to rebuild, but it's going to be a long process.

Europe went from 25% of the world's population nearly 100 years ago to 10% to be 5% soon, while at the same time made an unapologetic anti-God shift. I don't think Muslims are the problem here. Rather, they are merely the next step.

I always find if funny to listen to the "Europe" Chest/Bel crowd, since God already moved on from the Jews, going out to the outback to find anyone who will listen and come to the wedding feast. God doesn't need Europe. Europe needs God. And free will is a basic human right that God respects.

MK said...

It's not that it threatens Modernity, but has ejected it.

That remains to be seen. If and when it can sustain populations under it's own culture, I'm on board. Right now, the Orthodox countries you are talking about are some of the lowest birth-rate nations in the world (more likely to be invaded than invade) and have not evangelizing much at all. The fastest way to spot a religious powerhouse for the future? They have lots of kids. And they come evangelizing.

Catholicism has evangelized populations with very very high birth rates, Africans, Asians, and Aztecs among them. I'm talking about whites mainly.

Well, that's enough, isn't it? You have to either have kids or convert others. And if we are talking about whites, why not just end the convo? Based upon the data, whites will soon be extinct. Who cares about race within religion?

And bear in mind, Catholicism did not really have to endure the mass executions of Communism except in Cuba really.

Cause or effect? I doubt, had Orthodoxy had the moderating worldwide influence of Catholicism, Russia could have done what it did. It's no accident Poland was where Communism met its match. A pope has a unifying effect.

The doctrine remains unchanged.

And that's the problem, isn't it? Before the split, doctrine was always growing. That's what Councils were all about. After the split, there was not growth, no ability to push back at modernity, no Humane Vit. And so on issues like divorce and birth control, Orthodoxy remains helpless to unify and push back. So they give in to modernity on them. One must grow or die. Don't mistake a bloody war against modernity as a sign that it's going to be lost. Orthodoxy isn't even fighting, just hiding and imploding.


It is so hard to have a council, that having a Vatican II would be difficult, and this is a good thing.

It wasn't good for 1,000 years, but now it is? As the religion implodes? OK...

Projecting population forecasts 1000 years into the future is silly.

I'm merely projecting current trends. I'm open-minded to change; I just don't see it. Show me change and I'm all ears.

In the countries where Orthodoxy does hold sway, we are also seeing a rise in institutional power of the Churches. This can be a very effective future weapon.

Catholics tried this, and look at the disaster in Catholic Europe. The Church as an institution will not save Christians. It can only facilitate faith.

Hey, I would love to see an Orthodox revival. And a Catholic one. I see neither very convincing at this point. But as I said, I'm open minded.

The Social Pathologist said...

Thanks all for you comments. EA and Mark, MK, happy New Year to you all.

In the countries where Orthodoxy does hold sway, we are also seeing a rise in institutional power of the Churches. This can be a very effective future weapon

It's poison for the Church to be in this position. As soon as the Church becomes an institutional arm of the Government they're doomed. The Catholic Church was particularly promoted by the Spanish, Portuguese and Pre-Revolution French governments only to find as these governments fell, so did the faith. Spain has one of the lowest rates of active Catholicism in the world, despite the years of institutional privilege that it enjoyed under the Franco regime. Same in Portugal.

The one thing that the orthodox Church's are really strong on though, is Nationalism. i.e. Identity. Therefore they tend to be bulwarks against multiculturalism. As for divorce, Orthodox societies were quite stable until recently. What seems to have really undermined the orthodox is modern sexual liberalism. I think, it too, has failed against the tide of the sexual revolution--which in turn has fueled the explosion in divorce.