This article originally appeared at:
During China’s dark era of martial law, Premier Chou En-lai is said to have proposed to President Nixon that it was still too early to assess the impact of the French Revolution.
This academic effort of the mad Qing aristocrat — pushing the envelope for his utopianism past the Quaker farm boy — resonates as the ‘sexual revolution’ enters its third generation.
As a technological and social development, the separation of sex, marriage and childbearing is probably the most radical injunction we have served in the human condition in the past dozen millennia.
Yet, having exploded this ecological bomb in the global village, you are still more likely to hear an educated person ponder the psychobabble of Viennese witchdoctors or the effects of estrogen levels in tap water to explain the shattered edifices of our cultural institutions.
If we were Macaques in a laboratory, the collapse of our fundamental unit of society, the rise of social pathologies, political delinquency and several novel types of collectivization would easily be checked out under the rubrics of the Darwinian epistle.
But humanity defaults to as many ideologies and ideologues as there are desires which can be met. The latent purpose of libertine philosophy is not to arrive at truth but to suspend belief in accountability, reconstructing the world in a series of epiphanies according to the impulses and limitations of each individual. Disenchantment of another person, or even forming a line of inquiry which might lead to an unwanted conclusion, becomes a hate crime.
Enter neomasculinity’s fresh ‘sort yourself out’ message, which pundits like Professor Jordan Peterson bring to the behemoth of consumer academia. Triggering all 57 genders of his own cash-cow audience, Peterson challenged self evident falsehoods with self evident truths in matters of sexual polarity, encouraging his audience of predominantly young men to be stable, honest, hard working and accountable for their own behaviour. But even Peterson shies from discussing why young women, unshackled from biological and social oversight, would pick out men for tokens of their long-run stability. Feminist Sheryl Sandberg busts the Quixotic myth: they don’t.
“When looking for a life partner, my advice to women is date all of them: the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys. But do not marry them. The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands. When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. Someone who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home. These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.”
– Sheryl Sandberg, addressing young women
Sandberg’s candour is refreshing, because this mandate of modern feminism is now couched in nearly all mainstream thought: men must fit themselves around the female sexual impulse. To imagine, as Peterson does, that young men can somehow lead young women by example of virtue isto imagine that a bank can be regulated from a picket line on the pavement.
“If all the women are rejecting you, the problem is you!”
– Jordan Peterson, addressing young men
With equally refreshing candour, the infamous pickup artist Dalryush Valizadeh (Roosh V), revelled in the first stage of Sandbergian unchastity. Running lurid commentaries on how to seduce women his website was demonetized and the British government debarred him from the UK.
The recrimination was revealing.
“The flak is strongest,” a WWII British bomber pilot remarked, “when you are right over the target.”
Every year, the UK admits to its jurisdiction thousands of editors of glossy cosmopolitan magazines and Sandbergian pundits while Amazon publishes their books. Why does this same society suddenly clutch its pearls in the face of a pickup artist?
Lurking behind the scorn for lollards like Valizadeh is terror for the science that their conquests reveal. Describing how the female sexual impulse could so easily be subverted by cynical men exposes libertines not as agents of morality but as carnal automatons feeling their way along the path of least resistance. Valizadeh blasphemed against a religion of female sexuality whose idols our society has set up in the highest places.
Even Professor Peterson — a doctor of the human mind with a serious admiration for those who speak truth to power in censorious societies — joined the chorus of contempt for those who study what women find attractive and broadcast how to behave accordingly, branding them ‘psychotic.’
But the path of truth is always vindicated. It is little surprise to me that Valizadeh’s deductions have now led him to the Orthodox Christian faith.
The distortions and censorship which cover for the Sandbergian status quo, meanwhile, are crumbling. The sexual revolution has spent down its carnal capital and can no longer sustain the inflated fiat value of physical intimacy that kept it moving. A generation of men are now alert to the risks of going all in with women who are practiced at breaking up sexual relationships – so the whole free love charade will now collapse in a succession of phenomenal gambits.
Pass the popcorn…
Most rainbow flags flown on instagram are held up by some nubile young girl while the doyennes of the glossy girl magazines likewise preen their bisexual credentials. Whether a hundred new gender identities exist or not, they needn’t exist to explain how the LGBT lobby has risen to such prominence as a rallying cry for general acceptance of normal fornication.
And the same galleries which once adopted #metoo are now inferring the unchastity of men who fail to show enough interest in women. Thus we have developed the trope of ‘dangerous involuntary celibates’ — men liable to hysterical terrorist outbursts on account of their sexual frustration. The USA recently put its army on high alert during the screening of ‘Joker’ — a film that was said to play on this hubris. The irony, of course, is that militarising cinemas against a terrorist threat from men who ‘cant get laid’ in a country where anyone can get laid practically for the price of a cinema ticket really is a form of mass hysteria.
The proxy war wouldn’t exist, of course, if hypocrites on other side weren’t so easily baited. Even as their own churches buckle under the legislative strain to uphold gravitas of sacraments whose integrity really depends upon individual self-restraint, conservatives draw attention away from the commonplace sins of their own households by pointing, for example, at red herrings such as the tiny minority of gays who want to gain civil marriage certificates.
The unstoppable force of the Revolution will thus drive its investors into a barren wilderness of burnt out party girls and aging gigolos who will shrug that it was an ‘irreversible aspect of modernity.’ Then they will die and be replaced with a generation of people, the majority of whom have come from patriarchal nuclear families – because those are the only people who are currently breeding.
Whether society as a whole will learn from this experience or not is irrelevant. We can’t go on like this, so we won’t.