Progressive Saviour Complex?

Is it just me or as DLS ages is he increasingly transforming from a polemic ‘veteran radical centrist’ to a menopausal woman?

Far from being the razor sharp observations stabbing at the heart of our political hubris that drives ALL the players in our politco-media-developer economy, DLS’s political rants bear an increasing resemblance to shrill journalistic hot flushes… I mean ffs making Grace Tame a special minister?!? Frankly his rants are getting close to the point where the next time he thinks about writing one, maybe he should consider going outside and having a lie in the snow with Selma.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not having a go at MB. Despite EZFKA being unfairly characterised as a MB ‘hate site’ I still get a lot of enjoyment from reading the odd article (mainly Leith’s, some of DLS’s, the others…. meh). I know many posters here dislike MB, but on the balance I still think they do more good than harm. Economically I mainly agree with both DLS and Leith, and where I disagree it is fairly insignificant and generally not worth commenting on – everyone is allowed their own opinion.

Honestly I generally doth my cap to both of them in respect towards the issues that they have pushed from the fringes, often at great personal cost to themselves and their reputations. Simply campaigning against the mass migration ponzi, purely on the economic and social harm it is doing to ordinary Australians, has had them characterized as racists by our university globalist trained and media filtered intelligentsia.

But that said I’ve got to say that DLS’s rants are increasingly starting to appear like the unhinged, irrational, feelings based diatribes of a middle aged woman whose becoming aware that her sexual and social relevancy is rapidly fading. Maybe it was triggered this week by MB being excluded from a summary that was doing the rounds on Twitter, essentially providing a political spectrum of Australia’s media landscape:

Anyhow, the purpose of this post isn’t to simply indiscriminately lash out at DLS but to offer a couple critiques that center on the central blind spot of all his analysis – his complete dismissal of the importance of culture.

I touched on this over a year ago with my ‘Accepting the Enlightenment means rejecting cultural relativism in all its forms‘ which was coincidently another article that was triggered by DLS’s complete inability to put aside his own biases and see the world for as it is, rather than as he believes it should be according to his progressive secular social viewpoints.

In that article I pointed out that although DLS was correctly cursing cultural relativism, his own personal value system means accepting MultiCulturalism, which is one of the main intellectual descendants and enablers of the cultural relativism which he supposedly despises. You cannot say your despise the cultural relativism that the ABC has embraced without also criticising the pursuit and propagation of MultiCult as a social policy.

Interestingly this very issue was compelling written about in a 2013 US Pentagon report titled ‘The Strategic Consequences of Chinese Racism: A Strategic Asymmetry for the United States‘ that was commissioned (not written) by the legendary Andrew Marshall. Steve Sailor, a truly independent thinker as opposed to poser, has already written a good summary of it. As I’m not capable of doing a better job than Steve I’m just going to leave the above link and rip some notable quotes out from it.

Basically the gist of the Pentagon article is that it was written by a incredibly naive doofus, who for some reason believes China’s race realism, which he terms ‘racism’ in respect to HBD, is in someway a strategic weakness for the Chinese, where as the United States of Diversity, is supposedly now in a stronger position…. this is despite the author providing numerous examples of just how the diversity is working against the US and its people, as opposed to the people its elites are importing.

“The United States used to be a strong society that the Chinese respected when it was unicultural, defined by the centrality of AngloProtestant culture at the core of American national identity aligned with the political ideology of liberalism, the rule of law, and free market capitalism. The Chinese see multiculturalism as a sickness that has overtaken the United States, and a component of U.S. decline.“

– The Strategic Consequences of Chinese Racism: A Strategic Asymmetry for the United States‘

Rather than addressing the possibility that the Chinese are correct, the author and people like DLS, simply assume the propagandized message in the West that ‘Diversity makes us Stronger and more United’ is the truth.

“Why do the Chinese refuse to change their racist views of the rest of the world?”… “Why don’t the Chinese like black people; or Indians; or South East Asians; or Latin Americans?”… “Why do the Chinese support eugenics generations after it was discredited in the West?”

– The Strategic Consequences of Chinese Racism: A Strategic Asymmetry for the United States‘

The reason the Chinese hold these ‘racist’ views is because they understand that in order for ‘diversity’ to exist, different population groups MUST have different group characteristics. Quite simply the Chinese haven’t been completely brainwashed by a hostile elite intent on transforming their society into a globalist economic zone, where elites can harvest our social capital like a farmer shearing his sheep:

The primary and secondary educational system has been completely remade since 1970s to emphasize the contributions of racial minorities and the dangers of racism. The students receive instruction about the evils of prejudice and bigotry from K-12, while positive education about minorities is heavily emphasized. For the American student today, anti-racism and minority history months are as much a part of his primary and secondary education as instruction in mathematics, government, or physical education.

– The Strategic Consequences of Chinese Racism: A Strategic Asymmetry for the United States‘

Basically DLS, like the author of the article, is a victim of this intense propaganda, and is quite simply unable to see the truth, that these so called ‘eugenic’ differences are really just regular HBD which we are simultaneously expected to both accept and reject. As far as progressives are concerned, diversity only extends superficially to population groups skin colour and cultural preferences, like chopping off foreskins and clitorises. Any other differences, like in academic ability, proclivity to violence, etc are all supposedly a result of white racism.

All of this brings me to the second part of my own personal diatribe – DLS’s dismissal of the importance of culture and more to the point, his increasingly overt secular hatred towards any display of religious value based decision making, especially when those values might in anyway be derived from general Christian precepts.

This is an increasingly common phenomenon in a society ruled and controlled by hostile elites who have a long, long history of hatred an enmity towards Christianity, and its values in regards to the family, the role of men & women, and of course the gender binary. In such a society it is inevitable that over time, cultureless goyim immersed only in the values that elites around them promote, will gradually take on these values; hate your history, disown your culture and people, accept mass migration and dissolution of your society and culture as atonement for your collective guilt. And so they do.

While cock sure progressive know it all’s like DLS and DrSmithy can spend all day listing what is wrong with religion, the one thing they cannot do is list the things that religion does help society be a better place to live.

Religion exists to counter the effects of free will, and the behavioural population sinks which would otherwise emerge. In the 1960s social scientists built various Utopia’s for mice, “Mousetopias”, to see how having every need provided to them, would impact them. The result wasn’t pretty:

“At the peak population, most mice spent every living second in the company of hundreds of other mice. They gathered in the main squares, waiting to be fed and occasionally attacking each other. Few females carried pregnancies to term, and the ones that did seemed to simply forget about their babies. They’d move half their litter away from danger and forget the rest. Sometimes they’d drop and abandon a baby while they were carrying it.

The few secluded spaces housed a population Calhoun called, “the beautiful ones.” Generally guarded by one male, the females—and few males—inside the space didn’t breed or fight or do anything but eat and groom and sleep. When the population started declining the beautiful ones were spared from violence and death, but had completely lost touch with social behaviors, including having sex or caring for their young.”

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-mouse-utopias-1960s-led-grim-predictions-humans-180954423/

The end result of every single one of these experiments was that the mouse population, first boomed and then completely collapsed – to zero.

Attitudes to sex, marriage, gender roles and supposed LBGT identities are all examples of Chesteron’s fences, where the problems that necessitated these cultural rules, attitudes and biases in order to solve or prevent, have long been forgotten (…except by our hostile elite perhaps? 🤔 ).

Now in our supposed ‘progressive’ enlightenment based on the morality of ‘self over society’ that all progressives favour, we have removed the cultural barriers to many of these population sinks, and like human nature it is, the same old problems are starting to re-emerge.

Take turd burglary or pre-marital sex for example.

For thousands of years the main tribal composition of most primitive societies was one which encouraged brutal homosexuality and pedophilia, like the Spartans of old or more contemporarily many tribes in PNG. The reason for this was the 80/20 rule, whereby 20% of the men ended up with 80% of the women.

In such a society there isn’t much point for excess men other than warfare, which coincidently is another characteristic that is found in these societies that normalise boofing each other up the arse. Genetic comparisons of the Y chromosome generally support this theory, in contrast to most women in history (and here I mean tens of thousands of years) having at least one child, on average less than 1 in 4 men ever got the chance to procreate.

With the arrival of consequence free sex and apps that encourage it, the 80/20 rule is starting to re-emerge. A few guys get heaps of dates and female attention, while the majority get none giving rise to the incel phenomenon. This doesn’t work out well for most women either, sure they may get serviced on a semi regular basis, but it is by a feckless guy who has no interest in committing to them or in any way building a future with them…. all these women end up doing is burning through their sexual capital, such that by the time they’re in their mid 30s they are a bunch of man hating, wine aunts lamenting their fate.

Religion and particularly the encouragement of monogamy as a social value, is a weapon against this population sink. Likewise religious attitudes towards poking pooh. Participating in society, means working to perpetuate society, i.e. getting married and raising kids. Speaking from experience that is hard work, especially in the societies that we live today, where our economic output is harvested by elites, rather than reinvested in societies ability to propagate itself. FFS even the most famous pooh stabber of recent history, Oscar Wilde, managed to have two sons.

The easy left hand path, and one which is increasingly advertised as not only socially acceptable, but empowering as well (through better access to employment prospects thanks to ‘diversity’ policies) is to simply give up on the idea of having a wife and family, and simply pursuing sexual gratification where ever you can find it – for 20% of the guys it will on tinder, but for the remainder it will increasingly be paying for sex or finding some other bloke to mutually get each other off.

The promotion and empowerment of ‘gay’ as a lifestyle choice and identity, means many kids will rationally choose it over the hard work of perpetuating society – and this is exactly what we find with nearly 40% of US Gen Z’s now identifying as LGBT.

“The pollster who worked on the new study, George Barna, attributes the unusually high number he found to social and news media coverage that makes it “safe and cool” for young Americans to identify as LGBTQ—whether or not it represents their actual sexual orientation.

“It’s a subset of a larger issue, that this is a generation where three out of four are searching for meaning. This is a group that doesn’t have a reason to get out of bed in the morning,” Barna says. “Therefore, the LGBTQ identity gives them comfort. A lot of this generation claim to be moving in that direction, but there’s a big difference between claiming the identity and living the lifestyle.”

Religion appears to offer a little protection against the deluge of advertising and propaganda designed to promote gayness as only 30% of Christians identify as LGBT….although I suspect that 30% is fully represented by Protestant sects that have foolishly allowed women like this chick to teach the faith, as opposed to Orthodox Christianity:

Likewise the current fixation on Trans identities, especially in regards to children IS AN ABOMINATION.

One of the main cultural values of Christianity is the sanctity of childhood – allowing children to be children and find out for themselves who they are. Nowadays the progressives fixation of identity means you have all these adults keen to foster their own identities onto children, in no small part as a means of validating their own choices.

Going through puberty is hard and confusing enough for most kids, without some adult whispering in their ear as to who they should be. This is a huge issue for young girls, especially girls who might be on the autist spectrum. They grow up in a society where they are told (falsely) from an early age that men have all the power, and not only that, now anyone can identify as being a male. Where as in the past many of these girls were merely tom boys, and who would grow up to become strong independent women often with families of their own, now many of them are being told that they are really men, and then set about permanently mutilating themselves in a futile quest to transform themselves into something they will never be.

This social pressure exists. Even if it hasn’t been well discussed in public (since it goes against the progressive narrative), it has been well documented. The pressure exists within society, within peer groups, all across social media and is now constantly being reinforced by the media as not only an acceptable life choice but an empowering one.

The fact that various religious groups push back against these social manias is a good thing, yet to the radical progressive centrist, anyone daring to push back against these manias such action is a hateful, evil, intolerant person that should be silenced (tolerate everything, stand for nothing).

Religion, for all its criticisms, helps counter these natural tendencies and behavioural sinks to pursue self gratification over the hard work of ensuring the civilization we hand over is at least as good as, if not better than the one we were given.

That is something that progressives and hateful secularists, simply cannot accept.