The Desperation Gap
Europe, like all those parts of the world that have been affected by the cancer of modernity, has one single enemy, which is not Russia, nor ISIS, and not even the United States: it is feminism.
Despite the timely geostrategic ‘investments’ it has made in parties like the French Front National or Hungary’s Jobbik, on the whole it is clear that, regarding Europe, Russian mainstream state propaganda (for instance, in the form of Russia Today) heavily supports Western European moderate Left-wing parties and personalities such as Syriza, Podemos, or Jeremy Corbyn’s new-old Labour. Why is this so? Simply because (unlike the Hungarian dead-and-buried cleptocratic ‘Left-wing’, or the still ruling, but absolutely moribund, French Socialist Party) those Mediterranean and Anglo-Saxon Left-wingers have an actual chance at reaching power, and – though sometimes they are fiercely critical of Putin’s Russia from the social angle – they are on the side of peace. This is what must be understood about Russia’s strategy: peace is Putin’s number one priority. Why? Because Russia knows that fighting a doomed enemy with a huge arsenal is the worst possible thing that can happen to any country in history. And it is because, now that the nuclear powers have enough nukes to bomb the planet out of existence anyway, the desperation gap has come to dominate even over the missile gap. And why is the West doomed? Because of demographics – and because of Western feminism.
Economic criticism of Western financial short-sightedness (Quantitative Easing, etc.) really misses the point: the financial strategy of the Western financial elite, which is accumulating an intolerable burden of debt upon the shoulders of its future, is rational, because they can read the actual figures of Western demographics. Hence they know – as the Russian do – what European ‘nationalists’ make great efforts to ignore: that there is no future. West of Vienna (maybe even west of Budapest, or even Kiev), White populations are going to disappear within decades due to the cultural illness that is known by the name of feminism – a problem which none of the leading ‘conservative’, or even daringly reactionary, forces of today’s Europe seem ready to address in a radical fashion.
Since Western governments consistently hide these demographic figures from you, the best you can do is to look around: how many of your former school and college friends have had children with another European man or woman? Do you really think that your individual experience is exceptional? No, it isn’t. And the very few White children still being born in the West generally have no siblings, and are being raised by single women living on state benefits, since Western states – no matter whether they are governed by the Right or the Left – consistently encourage the secularist trend towards single parenthood. European genes have been transmitted to these children, but not the principles of ancestry which have characterized mankind ever since we left the jungles (generally misnamed as ‘patriarchal culture’ in academic discourse). While growing up, these last children of the West lack the principles needed to build families, which will produce an even more sterile generation than we find today among Western adults. Since motherhood has no chance of survival whatsoever of in a world without wives, even the ‘natalist’ policies advocated by some Western ‘conservative’ Right-wingers are actually little more than a consolidation of collective self-euthanasia, since they mistake biological fertility for cultural health. They are making sure that there will be one more European generation – simultaneously (and, let’s hope, unconsciously) making sure that it will be the very last. The bounce of a dead cat and nothing more.
Similarly, all the Western babble about how Islamism distorts Islam and about the sociohistorical roots of Wahhabism in the Arab world (which is merrily ignorant of the fact that Arabs are actually a minority in the world of global Islam and Islamism), or about the CIA’s pyromaniac networks playing with Islamist matches in Syria, systematically misses the point: in the global dialectics of our times, the actual antithesis – as has been ingeniously identified by Michel Houellebecq – is between Islam and feminism. All around Africa and Asia, as well as in some migrant communities in Europe, huge masses of ordinary people – with no interest whatsoever in theological questions about the reality of angels or Muhammad being the Seal of Prophecy – spontaneously adhere to Islamism, in spite of its admittedly primitive and sub-political nature. This is because it is the only credible adversary to the cultural illness known as feminism, against which they see no other remedy in the modern world – because, for the time being, there really isn’t any – since the illness has not even been properly identified as such, except perhaps by some marginal and politically isolated giants like Alain de Benoist.
Ultimately, feminism, by opposing men against women, is the last, biopolitically expanded version of the Right vs Left, Gog-Magog cancer which has been consuming the Western world since the beginning of modern times. In the epoch of post-classist warfare, men have become the Right wing, and women are the Left wing of a suicidal civilisation, with allegedly conservative, ‘nationalist’ European men digitally whining about how to score with nihilistic party girls – single women whom their own grandparents would have considered as little more than common sluts deserving all that would happen to them once their ’emancipated’, erratic, and nightly vagrancy crosses paths with young Arab men. The other side of this are the allegedly self-conscious, future-oriented European women who are calling for totalitarian controls over sexual behaviour after having systematically deprived themselves of what has been their best evolutionary card over the course of millennia: the ability to foster kindness, fidelity, and the providing of security in a man by accepting the status of a wife – in other words, by accepting ‘patriarchal culture’.
In fact, since egoism can hardly give birth to any collective cause, since nobody is willing to die for the sake of liberalism, no man – even among the few European men still equipped with some kind of ability to fight – will put himself at risk in order to guarantee their sexual ‘freedom’ (i.e., irresponsibility) to enjoy occasional ‘sexual partners’. The only possible outcome of the Cologne crisis, if there is any, will be the birth of a new argument in favour of the postmodern surveillance state, which always, and quite logically, identifies these very White male nationalists as its worst enemy and primary target. There is nothing new under the Sun: the Right fights the Left, the Left fights the Right, Europe loses and the banks win.
Since no major civilization has ever died at the hands of an outside enemy, Europe, like all those parts of the world that have been affected by the cancer of modernity, has one single enemy, which is not Russia, nor ISIS, and not even the United States: it is feminism. Hence, no political force will ever be able to reverse or even slow down Europe’s decline as long as it remains reluctant to radically question feminism, and to break the code of honour-like consensus which has been created – both on the Left and Right – around this cultural cancer.