The Sexual Revolution is About to Self-Destruct, Collapsing Under the Consequences of Feminism

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 . . .

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 several thousand years.

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 such is humanity that libertines will burden themselves with as many ideologies and ideologues as there are individual desires which can be met. In the context, the latent purpose of philosophical investigation is not to arrive at truth but rather to suspend any conclusion about personal accountability so that the hedonist can reconstruct the world around them in a series of epiphanies according to the developing nature of their own desires and limitations. 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 behaviourBut even Peterson shied 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 is to 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 find its sense of morality in the face of a pickup artist?

Lurking behind the scorn for Valizadeh was a scorn for the science that his conquests proved. Describing how the female sexual impulse could so easily be subverted by cynical men exposed 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. Valizadeh could not have avoided Christ forever and it is little surprise to me that he is now a committed Christian.

The distortions and censorship which cover for the Sandbergian status quo, meanwhile, are crumbling. The sexual revolution has spent down it carnal capital and can no longer sustain its inflated currency of physical intimacy. The whole 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 strain of upholding the fiat value of sacraments whose integrity really depends upon individual self-restraint, conservatives often 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 as if they were sacramentally significant.

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.

  • Shqip
  • العربية
  • English
  • Français
  • Deutsch
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • Português
  • Русский
  • Español