Why is it that matriarchy, which is so successful at the micro-social scale, as we see in traditional communities across the world, is not de facto the governing system at a global level? If the reason were simply that ‘men use violence to impose control’ as feminists would have it, then matriarchy simply would not work on the micro scale, any more than it does on the global one. So what is happening? How is it that gynocracy, which is the matriarchy scaled up to national or global level, is not ruling us now?
When I wrote ‘Why Men Made God’ I investigated thoroughly the way that Western culture had evolved. It was clear to me then and now that the impetus first towards sedentary living, then to settlement and ultimately to civilisation (city-based culture) came from women. Women need to protect and provide for their children and this becomes progressively easier as populations become more settled. That this is a highly successful strategy is clear from the population figures: 10,000 years ago, the point at which it is generally taken that widespread settlement began to occur in human populations, there were between 1 and 10 million humans. (A) Today there are over seven billion of us.
Feminism is not about equality and has not been since the 1960s. So-called ‘second wave’ feminists abandoned all pretence of that. Instead it became about women having power; not just equal power but total power. Specifically, power over men.
Feminism is fundamentally anti-democratic, because it is rooted in Marxism, which is against democracy. However, this form of Marxism is not identical to the original materialist one; it has been modified because women rank social power more highly than material wealth. So the original economic form of Marxism was modified using another philosophical system, this time called Postmodernism. This ranks everything and everyone in terms of social power.
Witch-burning is out of fashion in the West these days. Fortunately. But the intolerance that caused it is still with us, and it’s getting more strident. The Internet has given voice to some whose opinions, frankly, are odious, and ‘multiculturalism’ that shameful abrogation of the moral values of our secular society, makes it increasingly difficult for anyone to express legitimate criticism of some of the nastiest ideas put forward by what is, frankly, a thoroughly poisonous group of people.
Today, the victims of the intolerance are not witches or pagans or dissident Protestants, Catholics or Jews. They are ordinary decent people who have been brought up to believe that they have a right to speak freely. After all, the US has a Constitution that enshrines it, and through all those long years of the Cold War, the one thing we in Europe held most dear was that in our culture, freedom of speech was assured, for without it, there would be no freedom at all. If we were to be ‘better dead than Red’ and we would have been, it was in the name of Freedom of Speech that we should have faced our nuclear Calvary.
In my last video I discussed why I no longer feel comfortable calling myself an atheist. This is only partly because it’s an unscientific position. It is, more importantly, a political position that plays into the hands of those who wish to destroy Western civilisation, the finest on the planet.
The recent exchange between Hollywood star Ben Affleck and writer Sam Harris on Bill Maher’s popular show has highlighted the fundamental problem of the ‘liberal left’. The crux of the argument rested on Affleck’s Politically Correct presumption that it is never acceptable to criticise another culture. This view holds that all cultures are equally valid and that persons inside the dominant culture – in this case a Post-Renaissance, post-Christian European one – may never criticise any aspect of another culture, which in this case was Islam.
Now the rights and wrongs of the argument are clear to anyone who watches the exchange, which is here: (http://youtu.be/vln9D81eO60) and I advise readers to do this. They will see that Harris maintained a reserved and non-confrontational position throughout, whereas Affleck behaved like a hectoring bully.
Affleck, while wrong, was only iterating the underlying viewpoint of the culture he espouses, which he calls ‘liberal’.
The only way for the Muslim community to resolve the problems caused by the rise of Islamic extremism and the predictable reaction to it, is to accept secularism and to reject shari’aa and the primacy of Islam over other cults.
The issue is not between a Christian majority and a Muslim minority, it is between a society founded on democratic principles and reason, an arch crowned by the keystone that we can change the laws that govern us by electoral mandate, and a religious minority that refuses to accept this, and instead insists that no part of the law, as expressed through shari’aa — because it is ‘God’s’ law — can ever be altered, even in one word. Only secularism can resolve this.
Postmodernism is an intellectual disease that strikes that the very heart of Western democracy. It was founded by the cynical French intellectual Jacques Derrida, an old-school Marxist who realised that, in the era of Stalin, when he was writing, truth itself was dangerous.
The suggestion that settlements and cities were a function of women’s desire to have better, safer and more comfortable places to raise children, is contrary to many assessments, which see these developments as masculine. The argument is that as men accumulated wealth, they decided to build settlements and cities to protect it.
There are a couple of problems with this. In the hunter-gatherer cultures we know of, wealth is a largely unknown concept. That was why the early colonists used valueless trinkets to seduce the peoples they encountered and would eventually enslave. Those people liked shiny pieces of coloured glass because they were pretty; they had no idea of relative material value. A gold doubloon or a worthless bauble, all were the same. The idea of personal property is similarly strange to them, so how could wealth possibly be amassed; and if it can’t be, because you don’t know what it is, then why would anyone need to protect it?
There is no alternative to Capitalism in a free society. Removing it would also necessarily remove the foundation of Enlightened Culture. As I wrote here, that foundation is that we all own our own bodies and lives. They are ours to do as we will with, so long as we do not harm others. If we so choose, we may use them to earn and acquire property, which is Capital. Once acquired, it is ours to keep or exchange.
Removing Capitalism dispossesses us of our own lives and bodies, since it prevents us from using them to acquire things. Worse, it assumes that, since our bodies and lives are not our own, they must belong to someone or something else. This has been the Family, the State, the Tribe, the Earth, the Party, the Church, the Crown, the Faith; you name it. Our most precious freedom, to live our own lives with our own bodies, is removed when we attempt to remove Capitalism.