Subjectivity Has Replaced Objectivity

What we are seeing in Western society is a systematic attempt to break down all of the traditions and conventions and cultural mores that used to provide social cohesion and a unity of purpose. In short, the rules that have governed human interactions for thousands of years are being destroyed by ‘progressives’.

What will remain will be a quivering, pulsating wreck of an organism that has been torn apart by its contradictions and loss of direction.

A similar situation has already happened in the Art world. We have only have to look at modern art to realise what happens when the rules are thrown out. Subjectivity replaces objectivity.

There used to be a gradual progression to art. New forms and styles came in rarely. Part of the reason for this is that those elites that controlled the dissemination of art pushed back against changes to what was considered ‘art’. A famous example of this relates to the introduction of impressionism:

Impressionism coalesced in the 1860s when a group of painters including Claude Monet, and Renoir and others started pursuing a new form of painting. However, the art produced by these painters was not accepted by the organisation that had overseen the art world standards since 1667, the Academie des Beaux-Arts. This conflict between what these painters wanted to create and what was deemed permissible by the governing body of art led to a famous insurrection. The group held their own exhibition in 1874 that was an alternative to the ‘Salon de Paris’ exhibition held by the Academie. The exhibition they staged comprised works that had been submitted to the Salon but rejected by the Academie. Soon enough the group organised themselves as ‘Impressionists’. They adopted this label from an insult hurled by the press at one of Monet’s paintings, Impression, Sunrise.

And so a new art movement came of age.

There have been many art movements throughout human history: Prehistoric art; Ancient art; Medieval art; Renaissance art; Baroque art; Neoclassicism; Romanticism; Realism; Impressionism; Art Nouveau; Post Impressionism; Fauvism; Expressionism; Cubism; Surrealism; Abstract Expressionism; Pop Art; Contemporary Art.

Each movement had its own style and its own superstars that founded the movements for which they were the leading ambassadors. (Think Picasso for Cubism; Magritte for Surrealism; Warhol for Pop Art etc). Art started to become all about the artist. Each movement lasted less time than the movements that had preceded it. Art was speeding up. Art was shifting and splintering into new forms of expression all the time. The rules that dictated what was or wasn’t art were worn away. At some point art as something that could be appreciated objectively became something that could only be appreciated subjectively. Art became of matter of lived experience rather than universally recognised themes or symbolism or talent. And so we are now in the latest and, possibly, final art movement: Contemporary Art. Contemporary Art is the catch-all label that we use to describe any art that is produced these days. It is called ‘art’ yet we, the non-artworld punters don’t know why it’s art. We don’t get to decide what is or isn’t art. The liberal elites that curate Contemporary Art galleries decide it is art. We the punters must accept what we are told by our cultural overlords. We no longer know the rules. The rules are secret.

As it was with Art, so it will be with Society.

Society is experiencing the same fracturing of the rules of engagement that happened in the art world. For the last two thousand years, we were all bound by the same rules of biblical morality: The 10 Commandments; personal responsibility; care for your fellow man; modesty; putting the needs of others before your own etc. People who transgressed these rules could expect to be ostracised in some way. The rules were objective: they applied to everyone and everyone understood what they were. The Catholic Church was the gatekeeper for morality. As such, the Catholic Church was the equivalent of the Academie des Beaux Arts: the ultimate arbiter of the conventions we should all abide by. However, Catholicism’s grip on Western society was weakened by the arrival of Protestantism. Eventually, even Protestantism fractured as the Non Conformist religions sprung up. People were beginning to have a choice as to what rules they chose to follow. Biblical morality started to lose its power. Human morality started changing. New moralities emerged. Divorce became an empowering lifestyle choice. Homosexuality was accepted, then celebrated. The Pill freed women to have consequence-free sex. Therefore, a new morality was required to accommodate casual sex. Old morality was about putting others first. New morality became all about putting yourself first. Thus, the family unit reduced in importance. The rules that dictated morality were worn away.

Since 2014, things have sped up. Now we are in a place where there is no stigma to any way of life. No one is ostracised. We are told that all lifestyle choices are equally valid. People create bespoke versions of morality based on their own lived experience. Morality, like art, is now subjective. Objective morality, applicable to all, has been superceded. There is no shame in illegitimacy; there is no shame in single mothers; there is no shame in transient sex with any number of partners; there is no shame in any form of sexuality (Paedophilia is the one last bastion but even that is under assault). There is no shame in not knowing who is the father of your child.

To defend the traditional morality of society marks you out as a bigot.

We have torn down the rules to such an extent that even science no longer holds dominion over us. Science itself is now subject to lived experience. People have been given the power to decide what gender they are. We can also decide what race we are. We can choose to believe in anything that feels correct to us. Thus, academics can advocate that spelling is racist.

And that time is racist.

And liberal politicians decide that theft is no longer a crime.

The new gatekeepers of our behavioural mores are the liberal elites in the media and universities and liberal politicians. They decide which rules are no longer valid and which new rules we should follow. However, the same rules no longer apply to everyone. Different identity groups have different rules depending on where they exist on the Intersectional hierarchy. The rules are not intuitive. We no longer know the rules. The rules are secret.



For the State. Against the Country

Western Leftists hate their countries. I assume there are no dissenters on that point, yeah? That’s a given. To a Leftist all Western countries are riddled with racism and systemic inequality towards minorities. Not to mention that all Western countries  are just a day away from a fascist junta declaring martial law. As a result, Leftists loathe their countries.  They are the opposite of patriots. Leftists loathe patriots. A Leftist would never die for his / her / their own country. No way. They might be prepared to die a martyr’s death over climate change but certainly not for their country. They never want to leave their countries, mind you. They hate the bourgeois reactionaries they have to live amongst. But they never leave. They have trouble figuring out a country that will meet all of their demands – economic; ecological; educational; medical; political; linguistic; etc etc. So here they stay. Bitching and moaning all the while.

Yet Leftists always vote for Big Government. They want the biggest government they can possibly have. Leftists have this innate belief that all of the many faults of the country in which they live can be fixed if they just had a Big Enough Government. A government that was prepared to spend huge amounts of money. If enough money was spent, the government would be able to change the nature of the inhabitants. Racism, inequality, bigotry, bourgeois attitudes, the climate and social conservativism could all be ‘fixed’. It all comes back to the blank slate philosophy with Leftists. Nature vs nurture. A Leftist will always adopt the ideology that human behaviours are entirely the result of how they were educated, i.e. nurture. Therefore, they believe that humans can be ‘re-educated’ to embrace different behaviours. And since the government provides education, we need a huge state in order to provide the massive amounts of re-education that are required.

True, Hitler didn’t manage to iron out all the problems in Germany but then Hitler didn’t see it through to the end. 

Of course, Leftists would still moan. And not just because Leftists love to moan but because there would still be that troubling colonial past to be ashamed of. However, a good Leftist would soon be able to change the history books.

So, if I were to summarise, it would be as follows: Leftists love governments but hate countries. 

It’s just an observation. Do with it what you will.


Creative vs Productive People

Creative people tend to have a very strong empathy with people. Thus, they tend to be left wing.

Productive people tend to have a very strong empathy for science. Thus, they tend to be right wing.

This explains a lot of the disconnect in our society: the creatives think the productives are heartless bastards that put money above progress whereas the productives think the creatives are fucking morons that can’t apply deductive reasoning.

Unfortunately, the creatives are the ones we have to listen to all the time: they’re the celebrities: the singers and designers and writers and actors. They have the public forum. They have the moral high ground. They are the elite. They have the social profile.

It is a direct result of the power and influence of the Creatives that feelings now outweigh objective facts.

This is why Lived Experience of a single person carries more weight than statistics that portray the opposite story.

This is why there is a movement dedicated to replacing merit with identity group quotas when it comes to all the good things our society has to offer (university places, jobs, CEOs etc.).

This is why holding everyone to the same standards of grammar and punctuation is seen as racist.

That is why there is yet another push for socialism because it feels more fair to make people equal (and ignore all evidence that people aren’t equal).

This is why individualism is on the rise

Unintended Consequences

The Left are desparate to overthrow all aspects of the traditional Western way of life in order to create a new system based on fairness and equality and diversity and socialism.

However, what always strikes me about the objectives of Leftists is that they never consider what negative outcomes might occur as a byproduct of their policies. These negative outcomes are known as unintended consequences.

For example, lets look at the unintended consequences of socialism. Leftists look at Socialism and are irresistibly drawn to it. Socialism hits so many of Leftist touch points that it seems the perfect ideology: equality; punishing the rich; reduced personal responsibility in favour of increased powers of the state; more social services etc etc. Yet, we have all learned that there are many unintended consequences of Socialism. For a start, humans are not all equal. Some humans are more intelligent and some are lazier than others. Some are more ambitious. Some people would rather run their own businesses than work for the state. Some people may object to paying very high rates of tax to subsidise people that dont wish to work very much. As a result, humans will try to find ways to work around Socialism. That’s when the nasty side of Socialism shows itself. Socialist governments start finding ways of rooting out transgressors. Secret police forces are set up. People are encouraged to report people that break the rules. Yet everyone breaks the rules so reporting of rule-breaking serves the objective of settling petty grievances. Trust breaks down. Punishments become more draconian. Gulags, anyone? A Socialist Government always ends up using force to keep the population under control. Or is it that we just haven’t done Socialism ‘properly’ yet? 😉

The Left push Transgenderism as a noble cause without considering necessary checks. and balances. The Left argue that anyone should be able to self-identify as the opposite gender without any cost or disadvantage to themselves: no requirement to have undergone hormone treatment or therapy, no requirement to have shown a history of gender dysphoria and certainly no requirement to have undergone any corrective surgery. As such, transgender women, Leftists assert, should be free to use all women’s spaces and facilities: toilets; changing rooms; prisons etc. This places a huge impact on women and girls. It also exposes them to obvious risk: the risk that a ‘bad actor’ could choose to identify as a women for nefarious purposes. At this point, The Left asserts that there are no ‘bad actors’, there are only victims. They assert that minor inconvenience to women is a price worth paying for the colossal historical oppression that transgender people have been subject to.

Transgenderism also undermines gayness. If you are a young man coming to the realisation that you are attracted to men, is that because you are gay? Or is that because you are trapped in the wrong gender? Should you become a transgender woman in order to pursue your attraction to men? How does a person make the decision as to whether they are gay or transgender? The fashion, currently, is for transgenderism. Transgenderism is being pushed as the ‘latest thing’. But no one is talking about how you might just be gay. The emphasis now is that you have been born in the wrong body and transgenderism is the only option. In the case of pre-pubescent children that are showing ambiguity in their sexuality, hormone blockers are prescribed. Youth is a confusing time for most people. Adulthood is quite intimidating. How many young people will embark on the course of transgenderism and live to regret it? The transgender populism we are seeing now will run out of steam in a few years. Yet how many lives will have been ruined because they were netted by over-zealous teachers or social workers or well-meaning parents.

UBI is another fashionable Leftist issue that has unintended consequences. I have discussed UBI before – Men (Not) At Work – so I won’t repeat myself. All I will say, is that people guaranteed an income without having to work for it do not turn their attention to loftier pursuits.

4 day week: The Labour manifesto for the 2019 general election included a pledge to reduce the working week from 43 hours to 32 hours – with no drop in pay – within 10 years. There is no consideration as to how that will be funded. Firms will lose 20% of their manpower but their costs will not be reduced. Take a business like the NHS: Can the existing staff be expected to achieve the same productivity in 4 days that previously took them 5 days? Of course not. Patients need care every day. You can’t look after patients 25% more than normal during Monday to Thursday so that they won’t need looking after on Friday. Instead, the NHS will have to hire staff to cover all those hours that have been lost. Consequence = much higher costs for the NHS. Has the Labour Party considered these consequences? Of course not!

The Left have always championed women going out to work. But who looks after the children if both parents are working? Result = family life suffers. The consequence of this is that Western women are now having less children. The procreation rate has dropped below replacement levels. So now The Left tell us that we must bring in migrants to keep the population levels up. Result = The Great Replacement.

Thank you, Leftists for your commitment to ideology over common sense.

Leftist Control Belies Their Insecurity

I am constantly surprised at the need for the Left to impose their will on the rest of the population. Whatever the latest Social Justice issue of the day is, the Left operate en-masse to tell us how we must accept the new rules of speech and behaviour that accompany this issue.

We all know the tendency towards fascism that the Left exhibits. There is a strong need to control. To force their orthodoxy on everyone else. There is very little ‘live and let live’ with the left. Their constant cries for ‘tolerance’ only apply to others being tolerant of the Leftists. It does not mean the Leftists being tolerant if anyone else.

So far, this is what we know and recognise.

However, it dawns on me that Leftist behaviour is symptomatic of the insecurity of Leftists personally.

This is witnessed by their need to group into factions. They display herd mentality.

Therefire, we must realise it’s not a coincidence that the public sector is so dominated by Leftists.

Antifa, the Left’s paramikitary wing, only operate en-masse.

The left would never be able to do a solo mass shooting. That’s what the Right does.

Climate Emergency Crisis Panic Hysteria Delusion

Here are some details from Climate Realism websites that may be useful to point out to the most hysterical amongst us…

Firstly, CO2 is trace gas (0.04% of atmosphere). Levels of CO2 are not high by historical standards

The forecasters of climate doom assert that CO2 levels have never been as high as today. Well that is only true for the past 800,000 years. They prefer to view the increase of 120 ppm [parts per million] over the past 150 years through the narrow lens of recent geologic time. To properly analyze the current levels, we need to put the data into the proper context. During our current geologic period, called the Quaternary, there has existed the lowest average CO2 levels in the entire history of the Earth. In the lush vegetative days of the dinosaurs, the CO2 levels stood in excess of 1600 ppm. The average CO2 concentration in the preceding 600 million years was more than six-times our modern era level.

Secondly, there is no link between global temperatures and CO2 levels. Here’s a graph from Tom Nelson’s Blog that charts temps and CO2:

Here’s some more temperature data that shows warmer weather 80 years ago:

Yet, in the GIF below we see that NASA has amended the data to remove the 20th century warm spell in the 1930/40s:

In 1989 the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) stated there was no evidence of increasing temperatures:

In 1999, James Hansen of NASA stated there was no evidence of US warming despite increases in CO2 levels

Note how the graph of US temps (above) shows the 1930s temp spike that has since been ‘adjusted’

Here is an article that highlights the many apocalyptic climate predictions that didn’t come true…

2019 Election – The Best Quotes

Paul Embury in ‘Unherd’

…they [Labour] failed to grasp that working-class voters desire something more than just economic security; they want cultural security too.

They want politicians to respect their way of life, and their sense of place and belonging; to elevate real-world concepts such as work, family and community over nebulous constructs like ‘diversity’, ‘equality’ and ‘inclusivity’. By immersing itself in the destructive creed of identity politics and championing policies such as open borders, Labour placed itself on a completely different wavelength to millions across provincial Britain without whose support it simply could not win power. In the end, Labour was losing a cultural war that it didn’t even realise it was fighting.

Sarah Ditum in ‘Unherd’

with a few honourable exceptions, political writing on the Left gave up on the eye and ear approach in this electoral cycle, favouring instead a passionate solipsism that sought to reassure Labour voters that everything would be OK, and if it wasn’t OK then it would be someone else’s fault.

Ed West in ‘Unherd’

But one side is more justified in feeling that time is working against them, for even if the Tories do win a majority, they face serious future problems driven by demographic and social change. The sort of people who vote Tory are decreasing in number, ageing and not being replaced, while the lifestyle factors that lead people to vote for conservative parties are heavily in decline.

Douglas Murray in Unherd

The other loyalists, Owen Jones and Paul Mason, have both performed as one would expect. Neither has any experience in getting a prime minister elected; neither has ever been in frontline politics; both are full-time campaigners for the far-Left anywhere who present themselves as “journalists” everywhere; both spent recent years telling the country to vote for Jeremy Corbyn to be PM.

So it has been a joy of a kind to watch both men spend the days since the General Election explaining what the Labour Party needs to do now to get back into power. Both men presumably think that the switcheroo they have been hiding behind for years (journalist, not a journalist) is going to keep working and that people will forget that having pounded the streets for Corbyn they are now merely disinterested psephologists who are available to provide help whenever asked.

Labour Party Reflections

Corbyn has announced he intends to lead a period of reflection by the party in order to better understand why they lost the general election. Once the lessons have been learned, he will step down and a new leader, better suited to the voters will replace him.

I can you exactly why this process of reflection will be a waste of time. I’ll give you both the short and the long versions:

The Short Version: there is a fundamental disconnect between the PLP and the electorate that isn’t going to disappear anytime soon.

The Long Version:

Anyone who sees the direction of travel of Labour knows they are just going to keep on making the same mistakes.

The reasons people didn’t vote for them are:

1) They are socialists.

2) They want to gerrymander future elections by reducing voting age to 16.

3) They support the whole social justice movement that is so divisive and overturns merit as a basis of success.

4) They are weak on law and order.

5) They advocate mass immigration (more gerrymandering and more social justice).

6) They dislike the UK: they take no pride in British history, traditions or culture.

7) Their position on Brexit. What a joke that was. No further comment required.

8) Anti-semitism: I don’t think anti-semitism itself was a significant factor. It was more what that anti-semitism meant: Labour presented themselves as the party of tolerance and diversity and inclusivity. The repeated anti-semitism issues showed Labour to be a bunch of hypocrites.

9) Dislike of Corbyn: True, Corbyn has no sense of humour but that’s true of all Lefties. Lefties take themselves very seriously. They really are the roundheads of the 21st century.

10) Labour offers no cultural security to white Britons. There is a feeling that Labour would sell out the indigenous population in the name of multiculturalism

Most of the factors above are locked in as central to how the PLP see themselves. The easiest positions to address would be Brexit and Corbyn. Corbyn is going so that takes care of that (and, hopefully, takes the anti-semitism issue with it) and Brexit will no longer be an issue by the next election. Everything else can remain the same. Job done. The PLP will convince themselves that nothing else needs to change. They will then lose the 2024 election.

Furthermore, Labour will almost certainly select a woman as next leader. In 2019 a left-wing woman will always be a passionate advocate of social justice and fairness and feelings and so will double down on those social justice issues that cause so much division in our society.

In short, there is a fundamental disconnect between the PLP and the electorate that isn’t going to disappear anytime soon.

Update 29 Jan 2020:

An Labour Party investigation has exonerated Corbyn from any blame in the election:

It appears that Brexit was solely responsible! So they are still not prepared to consider any of the 10 points listed above. I cannot see an election win any time soon for Labour.

As of today the 2 favourites for the leadership position are Rebecca Long-Bailey and Kier Starmer with RLB probably most likely to win. She full heartedly continues to support the manifesto. As such, she will continue Corbyn’s work with similar levels of success.

Don’t Be Friends With Your Kids

I’ve noticed a lot of friends take pride in being friends with their teenage – or younger – kids.

Well, I’m here to tell you: you gotta cut that shit out!

How can you discipline your kids if they are your friends? You can’t. And the kids realise that.

I know this is seen as reactionary thinking from a bygone age but it doesn’t hurt to have your kids be a little scared by you. After all, you are still teaching them at that age. You are still resonsible for their moral welfare. You can’t teach them if there’s no clear separation between your role as a parent and their roles as children. A certain distance is required.

Asking your kids, ever so gently, if they wouldn’t mind, perhaps, picking up that wet towel from the bathroom floor is not going to cut it. They are less likely to do it if they see themselves as your equals.

From my experience, the kids who are matey with their parents start to think they are no different from adults. They have no boundaries: they start swearing in front of their parents. They start thinking that, since they are in a family of equals, they can start telling their parents what to do. In short, they lose respect for their parents. I’ve noticed this phenomenon most between daughters and their fathers: the girls start treating their dads like pieces of shit.

I can see how we got to this point. It’s a combination of:

1) less children per household and …

2) single parent families.

Taking each one of these points in turn…If you have a lot of kids, then the need for discipline is paramount. If you have less children, that need is reduced. A particular factor here is only-child households. Every one knows that only-children are spoilt bastards that aren’t very good at sharing. There are no well-adjusted, selfless only-children. That’s because their parents indulged them when they were young and became matey with them as they grew older. Think of that only-child friend of yours. You know, the one that thinks the world revolves around them, the one that has a carousel of partners because they can’t maintain a relationship. That selfish fucker! Is that what you want your children to be like?

In households with just a single parent – ie. single mother – the same situation plays out (only driven by different reasons): women are not as comfortable with discipline as fathers. The parental approach of mothers is to reason with their children. Communication is the magic beans of parenting for mothers. They think that if they explain to their children how tired they are and what a rough week they’ve had, their child / children will undergo a sudden empathy makeover. This won’t happen. Children are not adults. They are too selfish to be empathetic. Their frontal cortexes are not yet fully formed. Stop treating them like adults. Yet, they do and the same end-point is reached: they become friends with their self-centred children.

So married mothers see single mothers being friends with their kids, particularly daughters, and they decide they want the same kind of relationship. They not only want to be friends with their daughters, they want to be best friends with their daughters. They want their daughters to ask them to go shopping together. They want to become friends with their daughter’s friends. They want their daughters to tell them their secrets safe in the knowledge that they won’t be judged – or parented! I know one girl – an only-child as it happens, not that it matters what the route was, the endpoint is the same, as per above – who broke the news to her parents when she lost her virginity! What good can come of that? That’s some fucked up bullshit, right there. It’s not natural.

Furthermore, it seems to me that such children will be totally unprepared for work life. Work is about the hierarchy. There is a chain of command and when you start work you will be at the bottom. The fact that you are all adults in the workplace doesn’t mean squat. How are you going to take instructions from an adult who has no interest in being friends with you when you’ve never been in that situation before?

I’m convinced that kids being friends with their parents is partly behind the explosion of over-anxious, depressed millennials we keep hearing about these days. They are not being prepared for life.

Gender Conformity Is Not Sexy

People, particularly young people, are having less sex.

Here are some articles on the subject that reference recent US polling on this subject

From the BBC:

From The Atlantic:

From The Washington Post

Many reasons are put forward in these articles to explain the issue: economics; porn; risk aversion and more. One article I haven’t included even included this gem:

The rise of individualism means that people have more opportunities to live the lives they want, not the ones dictated by norms or pressures

Which suggests that people have just been having sex because of peer pressure rather than being an evolutionary instinct!

I suspect that individualism is a factor in decreasing sex rates, just not in the manner that the above writer supposes.

The cult of ‘individualism’ means putting yourself first. Feminists say this philosophy enables women to be true to their real selves rather than being subservient to the needs of others. However, to me, this feels like they are not being true to themselves but are instead playing the role of ‘strong, independent woman’ that feminism now demands of them. Also, the idea of putting yourself first is not a likeable trait. What is now known as individualism used be known as selfishness. It’s not very attractive to potential sexual partners. Not so long ago, individuals conformed to the demands of their societies. These days there is a lot of pressure for societies to conform to the demands of individuals.

However, I have another theory that i feel is even more relevant: these days, men and women are too similar to be attracted to each other.

Historically, the attraction between men and women has been based on differences. Yet those differences no longer exist.

Women used to appeal to men because they were so different from men. Women were seen as exotic creatures. Not only were their bodies so very different, but their minds also. They thought differently from men and they had different interests. Men didn’t understand women and that was a large part of the attraction. Men were drawn to these mysterious creatures in the way cats are compelled by curiosity to investigate new or different things: warily but unable to resist.

I imagine that women were similarly intrigued by men: men were these powerful creatures, capable of brilliance but also frightening at times. Men were tough and aggresive but also offered protection and tenderness. Men must have seemed quite exhilarating when viewed from afar.

Also, women and men were largely segregated in society which added to the frisson when they encountered each other. Men and women didn’t work together. When boys and girls attended school together, it was during the pre-puberty years. Also, education ended around the time of puberty so there wasn’t much time for smooching behind the bike sheds. In short order after leaving school, the boys started working at the local factory and the girls learnt that being a scullery maid wasn’t as exotic as it sounded.

In most areas of life, men had their own spaces and women had their own spaces.

As such, men and women could let their imaginations direct their sexual longing. To men, women could be anything that men weren’t. And as far as women were concerned, men could be anything that women wanted them to be.

These days, the genders do not have their own spaces: they work together, they attend university together, they use the same gender neutral toilets. Women have demanded access to all males spaces, including the boy scouts. There is a lot more contact between the genders than there was 50 years ago. Increased contact reduces mystery.

In addition, to increased contact, the latest Leftist ideology tells us that there is no difference between the genders: not only can women do everything that men can do, but the new definitions for ‘men’ and ‘women’ are blurring the lines between the genders. The old definitions are banned. We are now told that gender is merely a lifestyle choice. Every child is told that they can choose their own gender based on how they ‘feel’.

Men can easily choose to be women if they feel like it. Women can choose to be men. Gender benders. We are told that the differences between men and women are just social constructs: in reality, there are no differences between men and women. All of this realignment kills sexual attraction. Where’s the attraction if boys no longer grow up with the belief that women are these mysterious creatures. Now boys are told that women are exactly the same as them, but with tits. And actually, women don’t even have to have tits any more. Not only are there no longer psychological differences between the genders, there no longer need to be physiological differences: it is possible for a woman to have a penis just like you do.

Women are told they can be just like men. So women drink more and swear more and adopt the casual sexual practises of men. Androgynous appearances are the new thing. A certain minority of Leftist women has always refused to dress to please men but there are now increasing numbers of women that ascribe to this approach. As such, more women are dressing functionally so they can be ready for SJW duties at a moment’s notice. Make up is a definite no-no. This look is not attractive to men. Feminists are mistaken if they think that their personalities are going to compensate for them looking like men.

As for men, we are told to be less like traditional (toxic) men. Men must show how in touch they are with their feelings. The Gillette advert tells us that that striking up a conversation with a women you don’t know is little different from sexual assault. Certain men have disgendered themselves to such an extent that they now call themselves feminists. Women do not feel a strong sexual attraction to these men. However, if you are a female social justice warrior operating within a Leftist bubble, you will have very little choice but to select from this category of ‘man’. I think this explains the attempts by the Left to re-brand polyamory: Leftists are now seeking out quantity over quality.

More and more things are unisex. From toilets to toiletries. Companies are embracing androgynous products as the way forward: why have separate products and marketing campaigns for men and women when you can sell the same stuff to everyone and reduce the risk of offending a transgender activist?

The differences between between the genders are being closed down. Men can choose to stay at home and look after the children. Women can play football. All well and good but blurring the distinctions between the genders has implications.

All in all, men and women are being thrust together like never before. And, as a result, they are discovering that they just don’t like each other.

Of course, the fact that loads of young people look like a dumpster truck full of lard doesn’t help the mating game either.

The only people having decent amounts of sex these days are right wing people: they are the people who are not afraid to adhere to the gender stereotypes that were accepted in our society prior to last Tuesday. Right wing boys aspire to be men and right wing girls aspire to be women.

Watts Up With That?

The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change

Tallbloke's Talkshop

Cutting edge science you can dice with

True Masculine Value

Being a man of value in a world increasingly hostile to authentic masculinity: Redpill, Marriage, Fatherhood, Counter-Feminism.

Adam Piggott

Gentleman adventurer

Atticus Fox

The Truth, The Whole Truth, And Nothing But The Truth


A daily selection of the best content published on WordPress, collected for you by humans who love to read.

The Atavist Magazine

The Truth, The Whole Truth, And Nothing But The Truth


The best longform stories on the web

The Blog

The latest news on and the WordPress community.

Create your website at
Get started