Archive for the ‘Leftist censorship’ category

White males and welfare

April 14, 2012

In Mala Fide contributor Columnist points out a big problem with the libertarian argument that men should oppose the welfare state.

He makes a good point that since most private sector companies have now signed on to the anti-male, anti-white agenda of the public sector, white males are in a very economically vulnerable situation in terms of employment. Therefore it isn’t in their interest to spurn welfare and downsize the welfare safety net.

In reply a Swedish commenter pointed out the welfare state is hardly a safe sanctuary for right-wing white males either.

So just what position should white males adopt in regard to welfare?

Given the uncertainty of the economy and the pervasive anti-male ideology which infects it, white males would indeed be foolish to call for an end to welfare per se. Few people can take their jobs for granted, and unemployment benefits can be an essential life line in times of uncertainty. Forget the Puritan masochism.

Having said that, I’m not a fully fledged nihilist how believes everyone should go and welfare and bring down the whole rotten system (well not quite yet anyway).

Welfare comes out of taxes paid by other people like you, so if you access welfare for self-indulgent reasons you’re also dragging down your own team. On the other hand if you do need it, take it and don’t get hung up about it. Unemployment benefits only account for a relatively small percentage of welfare spending. The lion’s share of welfare spending goes on families headed by solo mothers and pensioners.

Secondly, if you do go on welfare, don’t just waste your time, sleeping, drinking and playing video games, do something constructive. If you end up on welfare because you’ve been fired for political incorrectness and you have some anti-establishment magnum opus to write, by all means cash in your dole cheque and start typing.

Remember also that just because you support basic unemployment benefits doesn’t mean you have to support every insane feminist aspect of the hyper liberal welfare state.

Women shouldn’t be able to have multiple kids on welfare and saner governments (such as those in East Asia) don’t support such dysgenic insanity. There’s no contradiction between receiving a modest amount of welfare if you need it, and opposing extravagant welfare spending for those who stupidly or self-indulgently design their whole lives around it.

Binary politics

March 3, 2012

One of the features of living under an ideological hegemony is that there is no ideological middle ground.

In today’s liberal hegemony, people either have the correct views or they have the wrong views and if they have the later, they’re labeled as “extremists” or simply backward idiots who are beyond the pale.

Take racism for example. Racism basically means favouring those of your own race over those of other races. A more scientific, and less emotionally-loaded term for racism is ethnocentrism.

Now ethnocentrism may or may not be a bad thing, depending on your view point, but most people would at least agree that it exists in varying degrees.

However, within the official ideological straitjacket of modern liberalism, there are no degrees of ethnocentrism, you can’t be slightly or moderately ethno-centric, you’re either are ethnocentric or you aren’t.

This is why you hear people making saying statements starting with “I’m not racist, but….”

Since it’s not acceptable to admit to being even slightly ethnocentric, you have to deny you’re ethnocentric before you can make any kind of ethnic observation or judgement. Thus today’s liberal society creates an ideological “no man’s land” within which no one admits to having any opinions.

Not only does this suppress debate, but it also undermines people’s ability to actually come up with workable solutions to social problems.

Take the recent issue of women serving in the front lines in the military. In practice the debate has taken place between those who promote the “correct” liberal view that women should be able to do whatever men do, and a small number of conservative dissidents who argue that this is dangerous and impractical. Naturally, the liberals have won the argument and women can now serve with men in front line roles.

However, there were other possible alternative that weren’t even discussed. For example, girls and boys tend to do better in single-sex schools. So you could make a good case that if you’re going to have women in the front lines, you should get them to serve in women’s only units. This would get around a lot of the problems associated with men and women living next to each other in arduous battlefield conditions, while still allowing atypical women to serve in the front line.

I’m not necessarily saying this is the best solution to the issue, it may be, but it does demonstrate that when you have a binary form of politics, few options outside of the mainstream paradigm will raised and given due consideration.

Enforcing ideological purity in leftist Britain

January 1, 2012

Th British folk/rock band Sol Invictus is a popular group in the post-industrial ”neo-folk” scene. Like a number of bands in the genre, it attracts interest from white nationalists, but the band does not seem to identify itself with any particular political ideology.

Some of its members have previous associations with right-wing groups like the British National Party, and present and former members of the UK’s National Front. Following protests from “anti-fascist” activists, the group issued a statement at a gig in London in June where lead singer Tony Wakefield said:

“Sol Invictus would like to publicly state that as a band and as individuals we are not interested in working with anyone who seeks to promote the glorification or rehabilitation of any of the murderous totalitarian ideologies which blighted the 20th century”.

However, this hasn’t satisfied anti-fascist activists who argue that simply denouncing WN links isn’t good enough. As can be seen by the comments on anti fascist websites (see here , here and here) anti fascist activists have pretty dogmatic and intolerant opinions. A number are of the opinion that any musician who’s previously been involved in WN politics, or even makes frequent use of fascist imagery for artistic purposes, should be barred from playing in public. That is, unless they’ve shown a positive commitment to anti-fascism by joining or donating to anti-fascist organisations or appearing at anti-fascist events.

This reminds me of the re-education programs that traditional conservatives and other dissidents had to undergo in totalitarian communist societies. For a modestly successful niche band like Sol Invictus, being denied access to gigs would be equivalent to barring an author getting published and amounts to a direct violation of the free speech principles that liberals are usually keen to defend.

Perhaps anti-fascists think we should start burning Ezra Pound books and destroy Wagner CDs?

I hope that UK music venues and events organisers won’t bow to this kind of childish totalitarian bullying and will continue to allow peaceful, law a-biding bands like Sol Invictus an audience for their music.