Liberal Misogyny

*editor’s note: this post started life as a hacker news comment

I am consistently amazed by the profound contempt which modern liberalism holds for the traditional role of the wife and mother. In a healthy society, motherhood is not looked down upon or held in contempt, but mothers are honored. As the managers of families and the people that consistently invest the most in the next generation, they are the backbone of society. Every successful person today owes his success to a chain of hundreds of successful mothers, stretching back into pre-history.

It is only as our planning horizon has shrunk from a thousand years to six months that we begin to look on motherhood as a form of slavery. Females are told that they must do anything but a traditional female role to have value in society. We cajole women to act like men. Every little girl that enjoys playing mother with a baby doll is judged a traitor to her sex. In a twist of irony for the movement that enjoys so much flinging the epithet at others, liberalism is misogynist.

It is little surprise that Western liberals no longer breed above replacement rates. Denigrating motherhood is not the way for a people to last the aeons of time. I believe the future of the West is profoundly more conservative than the present, because Darwin. Liberalism is a suicidal ideology.

Who is raising the next generation? To a large extent, nobody. In the upper class, following the finest tradition of Yankee capitalism, the task is outsourced and commoditized. This allows for the mother to join the rat race and earn a second income for the family, but the parents discover that 80 hours of work is now needed to buy what 40 used to do. GDP goes up because more labor takes place in the formal economy, and politicians pat themselves on the back. Is this a way for a civilization to survive?

In fiction, too, the liberal critic demands that a female “defy gender stereotypes”, i.e. act unlike a female. The liberal wants to see warrior women preposterously beating up bigger, stronger men while walking the fine line between being attractive and being objectified. If she has a love interest, she must “own” her sexuality by being sexually aggressive like a man. And her career must not anything too soft or caring – preferably something traditionally male.

I hesitated to use hyperbolic liberal jargon like “misogyny” – literally meaning “hatred of women”. The attitude that liberal feminism shows towards females and the fruits of their millennia of work is more accurately contempt rather than hatred. While proclaiming themselves the champions of women’s rights, liberals set out to destroy femininity. Every good feminist father wants his little girl to grow up to be a boy.


This is what winning looks like

Earlier this week I stumbled on a treasure trove of videos reporting from the ground in the Muslim world on I’ve gobbled up about 5 or 6 hours of video since then on topics such as the political confrontations in Egypt, life in the Gaza strip, and riots in Turkey. Who wouldn’t prefer learning about events in the Muslim world from the mouths of actual residents instead of the same old American partisan peanut gallery?

“This is what winning looks like” is the title of a documentary on Vice about the transition of security responsibilities in Afghanistan from American troops to native police in preparation for a 2014 departure date scheduled for American forces. It’s a fascinating look into the longest running American military campaign of all time.

After the first 10 minutes of video, it’s clear that the American forces face an impossible task. When the US Army crushed the ruling Taliban’s Islamic government in the 2001 invasion, it also drove out all the native governing talent and competence.  What remains is shocking corruption, underscoring the folly of nation building and of forcing Western-style government on people that are not suited to it.

The police stations in Afghanistan are commanded by corrupt officials who are not above lining their pockets by selling their own fortifications for scrap metal. The police commanders use the vehicles and weapons given them by America to harass local rivals and pursue vendettas instead of enforcing anything like a rule of law. In their leisure time, they kidnap local boys and use them as sex slaves, shooting them if they try to run away. The front-line troops are too high on weed and opium to be of much use against armed resistance.

It’s clear that these are the dregs of society, capitalizing on the American security budget to gain a bit of advantage. When the Americans leave, they will not last a month against the Taliban, and few of them will try to do so.

One bright spot of competence comes from the national army. It largely consists of the northern ethnic groups that opposed the Taliban in the civil war of the 90s. Their officers and trained troops were spared in the American invasion. Ethnic groups from southern villages are barely represented in the Northern-dominated army, after all they supported and supplied the Taliban in the civil war.

We witness the army liberating villages from the Taliban, only to find the locals completely apathetic to the change. The army implores them to form a local police force, to resist the Taliban and aid in the construction of a new order for Afghanistan. However, the locals refuse to do so, knowing that the Taliban will be back within an hour after the army leaves. What hope does any local village have to fight the Taliban? Why should they die for nothing?

It’s clear that the new government that America is building is not a native Afghani institution, and that it is unlikely to work when American troops leave. The best that can be hoped for is a colonial government of Northern ethnic groups dominating the South, the reverse of the result of the civil war. A pan-Afghani liberal democracy is not in the cards, and one wonders how any fool thought it would result given how alien it is to local culture.

The American soldiers in the film are sympathetic. A marine (Major Steuber) is interviewed that is fully aware of the impossibility of his task, but he does his best anyway to fulfill his duty. He shows empathy and understanding of the various sides in the conflict, and a burning desire to set things right.

One gets the feeling that if this were a straight up colonial invasion, troops like Major Steuber would have no trouble imposing order. The pedophile base commanders would be put against the wall in the first week, supplies would flow, and corruption would be rooted out. But that is not his mission, and there is no greater torture than binding the hands of a capable man and putting him in the middle of a system that is deeply broken.

American Imperialism never went away, it just changed forms. Its new goal is spreading the American way of life. What America seeks is not physical dominance, but intellectual. It seeks not empire, but conversion; it is an evangelical philosophy of politics. It wants to hear the sweet ideals of Thomas Jefferson and Barack Obama tumbling sincerely out of Afghan lips. So it demands that the locals run the government themselves, blindly assuming that all peoples are compatible with a Western-style government and that they will find it desirable. This is false, of course.

Some Links

This is the most fascinating video I’ve seen in a long time. When did Vice begin shooting video on the ground in the Islamic world?

Bookmark this article from Sailer on gun usage and race. It will spread much sanity.

If you’re going to challenge the liberal idea that “race is a social construct”, you might as well link to a liberal.

Mormons live longer

The Analects of Confucius 

Rachel Jeantel is the gift that keeps on giving

A step too far

I haven’t commented on US drone strikes in Afghanistan and other countries. Frankly, I don’t have much of an opinion on the tactic. The purpose of a military is to kill the enemies of a nation, and death is a messy business. Civilian casualties happen. They’re regrettable and often counter-productive. But history doesn’t provide many examples of successful countries that had many qualms concerning the destruction of their enemies. If I were a general and if I had access to classified military information, I could make an informed decision about whether or not the collateral damage were worth the benefit of dead terrorists. But I’m not a general and I don’t have access to this information.

9/11 happened. Nearly 5,000 Americans died. Osama bin Ladin claimed credit for it, and he was found hiding in Pakistan, where he was killed. US intelligence says there’s more terrorists in Pakistan, and that is prima facie evidence that legitimizes drone strikes in the region. Don’t mistake me for some bleeding heart pacifist.

But this is a step too far, and I cannot condone it. News organs are reporting that the United States has adopted the “double tap” maneuver, launching a second missile with a delay after the first in order to kill rescuers and responders to the initial assault:

That tactic is known as the “double tap,” which bombs multiple targets in relatively quick succession — meaning that the second strike often hits first responders.

Fighting terrorists is valuable, but lets be clear that the United States has the military upper hand in the conflict. There is no need for the United States to terrorize civilian populations. The side with the upper hand can and should afford to be gracious, a little noblesse oblige  would be appropriate.

I’m listening to a podcast series on the Mongol empire under Genghis Khan, and this is a tactic straight out of their playbook. The great Khan once ordered a general to wipe out a city, and so he did, ordering his army to cut down each man, woman, and child. But to be thorough, the general returned a day later and killed everyone that had returned from hiding to pick over the scraps and to mourn the dead.

Such vicious actions fit with the Khan’s plan of global conquest, adopting the most brutal tactics possible to scare great walled cities into submission rather than fighting. But it is harder to see how the actions of the US government fit into its duty to protect its citizens and territory from attack.

China and the Cathedral

China takes a lot of flak in the West for their internet censorship program. Many popular international social networks, mostly US based companies, are blocked. And China is ruthless in censoring topics that might damage the legitimacy of the ruling regime.

But looking at the world from the Chinese perspective, and you have to admit that the strategy of the Chinese government is savvy and effective. It does not see Western companies like Facebook and Google as neutral entertainment services, but rather as information organs that can spread Western ideas. “Chinese Democracy” has no appeal to CCP leaders. They don’t relish a future where the politics of China is controlled by parties influenced and funded covertly by the US. Recent revelations of the full scope of NSA wiretapping capabilities, and the complicity of private US companies in US government spying, only add to the apparent wisdom of the ChiComs.

China is not the first regime to recognize the danger of Western information diplomacy and has taken steps to preserve their independence. But they are the country that pulls it off best. China has the brainpower and resources to make high-quality copies of Western services that it bans from its borders. There is no embarrassing Red Star OS here. Weibo, for example, is a popular service with 500 million users similar to a combination of Twitter and Facebook. But unlike Twitter and Facebook, which ultimately answer to Western governments, Weibo answers to the Chinese government on issues of censorship or access to user data. In America, social networks sometimes block users and messages who violate the standards of Political Correctness – the popular version of the Marxist religion of the ruling class. In China, social networks also block users and messages that threaten the ruling regime.

China operates the largest political sphere free from US/Cathedral influence. Recognizing the danger of Western information organs is one of the important ways it maintains its independence. It also fiercely guards its territory, ignoring Western liberals who call for independence for Tibet, greater democracy in the Chinese mainland, or the relinquishment of its claims to disputed territory – as if capitulating to enemies of the state were the best way to maintain their sovereignty. The Chinese government may have other problems, but it is not run by fools.

If there is a chink in the armor of the Chinese regime, it is probably their tolerance of religion. Christianity, in particular, is a gateway drug to Western liberalism. Wikipedia references sources putting the number of Christians at about 84 million.

I admire the savviness of the Chinese leadership required to maintain true independence from the long arm of Western influence. I am happy that some degree of political and ideological competition will remain in the world. That said, China is not utopia. It is only proof that we don’t yet live under a one-world shadow government.

Mapping the Cathedral

To shamelessly rip off an argument from Moldbug – words have meaning. “Independent” means “not dependent”. In Egypt, two governments have been overthrown by popular protest in the last year or so, and now the military is building a third. During the process of writing a new Constitution, military leaders are listening closely to the desires of the USA, on which they are dependent for $1.5 billion in annual aid.

If Egypt is letting a foreign entity influence its Constitution in exchange for a bribe, there is no reasonable way to consider it as an “independent” country. Political maps which show it to be so are best understood as a kind of whimsical artistic exercise.

Out of curiosity, I looked up some foreign aid statistics, and stumbled upon a handy web 2.0 mapping tool that the Obamatons have built. I flipped to a recent year like 2012, and this is the map that results:

Screen Shot 2013-07-14 at 5.01.12 PM

That’s a truly massive footprint, far larger than I expected. Some of these areas are not under tight US control – China remains the nation most independent from US/Cathedral dominion. The aid they receive isn’t much, and it probably reflects State Department optimism more than anything else.

But foreign aid isn’t the only way that the Cathedral conquers. Most of the gray area of the map is also firmly under American influence, otherwise Snowden would have applied for asylum in France or Australia. European countries depend on America for military protection and therefore dance to America’s tune. It would be cool to pair this aid map with a map of all the countries hosting US troops in the world.

The worst form of government

Anybody who’s discussed politics on the internet has seen the Winston Churchill quote:

“Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried.”

It seems to be wielded like a charm to ward off doubt ever more frequently as the Western democracies spiral into chain-reaction crises. But seldom do people wielding this quote seriously consider any other form of government.

Is it true that democracy is the best form of government? I’m not a religious man, but I’m a fan of Jesus’s saying “by their fruits, you will know them”. If a tree is producing poison apples, don’t count on it to reform its ways anytime soon.

So what are the fruits of democracy? A big welfare state, permanent deficits, class warfare, and birth rates below replacement. The democratic governments of the west aren’t the worst governments ever, but their history is one of monotonic decline and an increasing inability to deal with obvious impending catastrophe.

The end game for these rotting democratic hulks is high levels of immigration in order to keep the workforce big enough to feed the welfare state while hoping that the education system can turn immigrants into something close enough to natives to preserve native values and culture. It’s a slow suicide, and a ceding of the earth to others who will happily receive it.