Curtis Yarvin has astutely observed that when people stop believing the ruling ideology, it does not mean any great complication for the ruling group. Complications only arise when the ideology is no longer believed by the narrow core of supporters on which the ruling power relies.
Until a year ago, the opera singer Anna Netrebko was known only to a relatively narrow circle of fans, in the Czech Republic mostly members of the upper classes, i.e. voters of the Soros parties. After her concert was banned, every newspaper in the country wrote about her. And she is on her way to becoming a symbol of the idiotic primitive censorship approach of the current government. A very beautiful woman with a beautiful voice, the best contemporary interpreter of Dvořák’s Rusalka (a Czech national treasure), who has never said anything that could be interpreted as support for the current Russian policy. It’s not like shutting down a dirty conspiracy theorist or blocking a website that claims Bill Gates wants to murder us with poisoned vaccines. It’s very hard to support such a ban and not feel like complete human trash. Of course, the hardest core is already ranting about Putin’s whore on social media, but that only makes the situation worse. I have no doubt that many others are asking, or will soon start asking, the question: Do I really want to be one of those people? Especially when they see Anna Netrebko’s concerts from Vienna and Paris on the Internet.
Notice that the same pattern still applies. The blows that the suicidal ruling group delivers to itself are much stronger than the attacks of the opposition.
On nations – weapons
“Our goal is not to create a Palestinian state. Our aim is to destroy Israel,” Professor Al-Arian, the darling of the Western and Turkish media, was heard to say. An educated, cultured Muslim radical.
He is right. And it has been so from the first moment of the existence of the Palestinian nation.
I remind you that Palestine is not the only such nation, created from the very beginning with the sole purpose of destroying someone else. A nation that itself is of no value even to its sponsors and supporters.
On the diversity of social environments
You may have noticed the news that American singer Lizo (the black chubby one) is facing a lawsuit for sexually abusing her dancers and chorus girls. I won’t go into detail, but Katherina Dee sums up the essentials in her comment on Unherd. “What is one person’s hilarious pastime can be another’s lifelong trauma.” Everyone’s boundaries are different. It’s sometimes difficult to find the right boundary even in the office, let alone in a show-business environment where constant sexual innuendo, playfulness and probably drugs play a role.
Maybe it’s time to go back to the tradition that there are different environments and that people count on that. That a young lady will tell herself in advance that an erotically-themed show isn’t right for her and that she’d rather find another job. Otherwise, we’re going to be in constant judgment with everyone. Someone could also sue the dancers for discriminating against him by denying him something.
But that also requires judges to have the fortitude to make judgments like “if you were climbing in there, don’t complain now”. He’s not really arguing about sexual harassment, he’s arguing about real diversity. Should there be one environment with one code of conduct or should there be diversity so that everyone can choose what suits them?
On marriage and Rolexes
So we have more research (this time from the US) telling us that people who get married and have children are happier than others. They’re also healthier, wealthier, more optimistic, and I don’t know what all. So the vicious feminist propaganda about the family being a sexist oppressive institution that causes people to stop marrying is ruining their lives. So the solution is to tell people that marriage and parenthood is great.
It would be lovely, but it raises questions for the sociologist. Like why all previous research consistently shows that parents of children feel less happy than childless people. And it’s not hard to imagine that in a country in economic decline, where one is reeling from job loss, it’s not exactly ideal to have four children depending on you. That it leads easily to depressing situations where even a decent and hardworking person is unable to take care of his family, a desperate wife falls into hysterics… is that supposed to be the happy life?
Actually, the research answers that. It states that poor people are stopping marrying and marriages are more likely in the wealthy social classes. Conservatives W. Bradford Wilcox and David Bass at Unherd recommend that welfare programs be abolished and poor people be lectured on the benefits of marriage. Hypocrites.
It would work much better to provide cheap housing and create jobs where a person can support a family and have job security for decades. Add to that an atmosphere where people don’t feel bad that they can’t afford a luxury car or a vacation (even at the cost of regulating advertising or similar drastic measures). It’s just that if America were a country where everyone could afford marriage, it couldn’t fund wars all over the world.
So in the end, the finding about the benefits of marriage is worth no more than the finding that people with Rolexes have less trouble paying their bills than people without Rolexes. And the eventual follow-up recommendation to solve poverty by advertising Rolexes.