Saturday, 8 October 2016

The Revolution That Ruined Us: How Hippies Destroyed Marriage









Written by RW Jetz




According to the Jewish media, the sexual revolution which burgeoned in the 1960s was a time of much-needed freedom from prudish oppression. The dawn of free love, ‘flower power’, and hippy culture was a symbol of times changing towards equality and mass acceptance of diversity. The revolution was cleverly marketed. With the concurrent (Jewish) inventions of the pill and condom, gays and straights, men and women alike, were now ready to be liberated from societal judgement on their sexual habits. A human being could now choose to have casual sex with someone, without fear of being judged and ostracised. To most people, this must have sounded wonderful. However, the reality of such liberalisation of traditions has proved quite the contrary – at least, for those who care for the future of the White race.

A few statistics make this sobering fact clear. The average age of the (primarily White) population is quickly rising while (White) birth rates slump to an all-time low. Meanwhile marriage rates are down to their lowest levels since 1862, and the divorce rate creeps steadily upwards. The environments in which children could be raised and thrive are therefore far fewer than in past generations, because those environments have historically been the preserve of married, monogamous couples. The problem is – clearly – that people aren't getting married much anymore. And when they are, it doesn’t last long. What has happened to marriage since its heyday, and what part did the sexual revolution play in its decline?

To formulate an answer to such a broad question, it is necessary to first review how the revolution came to pass: what could a revolution stand to offer either sex, and how did its leaders bring it about? The sexes are innately dimorphous, and so sexual liberation, as promised by the revolution’ proponents, would necessarily stand to mean a different thing for men and women. F. Roger Devlin aptly outlines the two divergent ideals of sexual freedom as envisaged by both the male and female imperatives in his polemical essay 'Sexual Utopia In Power' (which I heartily recommend). First, the male vision:

Marriage, after all, seems to restrict sex rather drastically. Certain men figured that if sex were permitted both inside and outside of marriage there would be twice as much of it as formerly. They imagined there existed a large, untapped reservoir of female desire hitherto repressed by monogamy.
 To release it, they sought, during the early postwar period, to replace the seventh Biblical commandment with an endorsement of all sexual activity between 'consenting adults'. Every man could have a harem. Sexual behaviour in general, and not merely family life, was henceforward to be regarded as a private matter. Traditionalists who disagreed were said to want to 'put a policeman in every bedroom'. This was the age of the Kinsey Report and the first appearance of Playboy magazine. Idle male daydreams had become a social movement.

So, men wanted freedom from the restraints of marriage upon their urge to fornicate with plentiful attractive women, due to their inherent (and generally well known) biological drive towards polygamy - having multiple partners, or the harem Devlin refers to. This drive was sublimated by the societal expectation of monogamy, symbolised by the wedding ring. It was assumed, then, that the abolition of previous societal norms around sexuality would allow men to have more sex. But in fact, the opposite became true for most men - a fact I will dwell on later.

What, then, about women? As Devlin correctly notes, it is falsely 'commonly assumed that men are polygamous, while women are monogamous.'. Alas, as is more obvious than ever in today’s society, this face-saving veneer for women does not hold true when exposed to the cold light of analysis. Whilst believing in an innate female monogamy is to society's benefit - "a Platonic 'noble lie' which is salutary yet false" - the truth of their mating process is that they are wired to seek out only the very best male available to them in order to pass those genes to her offspring (hypergamy). A woman, like a man, is only as faithful as her realistic options.

Devlin expounds: 
By definition, only one man can be the best. These different male and female 'sexual orientations' are clearly seen amongst the lower primates, e.g. in a baboon pack. Females compete to mate at the top, males to get to the top. Women, in fact, have a distinctive sexual utopia corresponding to their hypergamous instincts. In its purely utopian form, it has two parts. First, she mates with her incubus, the imaginary perfect man; and second, he 'commits', or ceases mating with all other women. This is the formula of much pulp romance fiction. The fantasy is strictly utopian, partly because no perfect man exists, but partly also because even if he did, it is logically impossible for him to be the exclusive mate of all the women who desire him.
It is important to pause to consider just how powerful these innate biological drives are. Though obviously in possession of higher faculties - self-aware consciousness and so forth - human behaviour is still, as with all animals, driven by the biological drive to reproduce. We must die - but through reproduction, our mortality can in a sense be cheated. Our physical form deteriorates, but our blood is passed on, and a part of ‘us’ thus lives on, through our children, and then our children’s children, and so on. This knowledge constitutes the singular consciousness of our genes: survive and reproduce.  The unique properties of each sex’s anatomy turn this into a sexual strategy – polygamy for males, hypergamy for females. But this end is the only thing our genes - those ‘selfish genes’ à la Dawkins – ‘care’ for. They care not for our human abstraction of ‘society’, with its subjective conceptions of morals. They care only that sex occurs, and occurs often, that our DNA might live on. It’s true that humans are not slaves to their coding, as animals may be. But the ability of individual humans to resist their base impulses varies immensely. Such is the value, then, of societal institution – marriage, ‘slut-shaming’, heck, I reluctantly concede it – religion.
Without social institution and the culture of ‘healthy’ (from a civilizational perspective, at least) shame for adulterers and loose women to bind us, how do the competing visions of sexual utopia of men and women play out? Our behaviour becomes so primitive as to remind us of what we share with animals. Focusing purely on the sexual market, relatively few highly desirable, high testosterone males - 'alpha' males – enjoy ample sexual relations, but rarely commit to anything beyond repeated copulation. Women, duped into ‘Sex and the City’ fantasies of successful careerist motherhood, often use their most fertile years to sleep with those same unreliable personalities. After all, she has been told she needs to build a career before a family… and there’s plenty of time left, right? As modern man flounders without identity, his historical provider role having effectively been usurped by the modern welfare state, modern woman, too, is increasingly encountering existential trauma. From her early thirties, when her glow of youth begins to dim, she is increasingly finding herself unmarried, childless, stung by ‘bad boys’ and often bitter. Not quite the liberated careerwoman and mother that is shown on the television.

When marriage was a healthy, traditional proposition which offered benefits to both sexes - monetary and lifestyle provision for the female and housekeeping and childrearing duties provided to the benefit of the working male, high testosterone men had reason to marry, taking them off the market and ensuring feminine hypergamy couldn’t be quite so utopian. Of course, individuals would inevitably cheat, but broadly speaking, marriage would ensure most men (even those men deficient in masculinity, the Darwinian ‘beta males’) would get the opportunity to reproduce, while most women could still practice smaller-scale hypergamy in choosing from her reduced pool of perceived options (with fewer desirable (yet non-committal) single males on her radar). The system wasn’t perfect. But it was workable.

The sorry state of modern marriage, by contrast, has been caused not only by the diseased popular culture but by lawmakers as well. It’s not my intention to delve too deeply into the current legislation regarding divorces - which are hideously skewed against men - but it’s worth pointing out that despite marriage’s status declining due to endless (((cultural mockery))), dated laws which prioritise women have been kept (and in some cases intensified) for what is, to my mind, the express purpose to make marriage a more unappealing proposition to the male. Traditionally, men have been the more reluctant to marry anyway, owing firstly to their sexual utopia being polygamy, but secondarily to the fact that their own sexual appeal being less tied to contingent factors such as looks (indeed, many men are considered to peak in attractiveness in their early 30s, with appeal lasting into their 40s, and even 50s). Now, the primary benefits the arrangement brought him - being able to provide for a doting wife who makes his meals and raises his children in the proper way - are a fading memory. The modern ‘equality’ is alimony and no-fault divorce. Despite the fact women can now work just like men - and indeed benefit from positive discrimination at times in doing so – men must take the majority of financial responsibility.

With the fall of marriage, and the concomitant loss of the traditional gender roles that it (de facto) institutionalised, has come also a slow shift towards societal androgyny. The media-massaged freakshows that call themselves ‘transsexuals’ are the vanguard of this depressing movement. They are, mercifully, disdained by most ordinary folk. Yet our direction of travel is clear. The beautiful and natural sexual divergence of the human species has become anathema. Biological sex is a dated norm beyond which we have ‘progressed’. Masculinity is as scarce as we might expect in a society where many modern men are raised by single mothers, with ostracised fathers, and find only feminist propaganda in the mainstream news to guide them. The result is the steady death of raw manliness, emblematised in the sexless fashion of 'hipsters': skinny jeans, leopard-print t-shirts, and large cartoonish glasses the tragic norm. The typical modern White middle class male (the type, from a eugenics perspective, that we most want to breed) is exposed most intensively to feminist propaganda in the media, and learns to hate his own masculine impulses. Don’t hit on women – you’ll be a ‘creep’ perpetuating ‘rape culture’. Don’t oppose civilizational cuckoldry – that’s racist.

As if to compromise for the inherent lack of traditional masculinity in culture since the sexual revolution, women have taken steps in the opposite direction, becoming more like men. The freedom of sex meant the necessary abolishment of old ideals, including the notions of monogamy and marriage, and the encouragement of females into typically male spheres: the pursuit of careers, and sexual promiscuity. What was previously the quixotic goal of only unattractive, unfeminine women - to become a man in all but genitalia - has now become mainstream, due to cultural conditioning (to which, it must be said, women are particularly susceptible) that it should be so. The pill has allowed this de facto masculinisation to happen en masse. Women too may now amass a high number of sexual partners without being burdened by accidental pregnancy. This has led to the proliferation of the type of woman our grandparents would have called ‘whores’ (or something more unkind, perhaps).

Feminists defend the commitment-free woman, who is being 'strong and independent' (code for ‘male’). However, due to their newly-found ‘freedom’, they have become negligent of the ticking clock that is female fertility. Sooner or later, it will become apparent that you can't cheat biology; that anatomy is destiny. Women (again, predominantly White women) are now  giving birth later than ever before as they hold out in vain hope of getting a truly desirable man to commit. I hope I don't need to illustrate why this is no great thing: the reduced fecundity of greater age leads to increased risks of mental retardation of the offspring or miscarriage, if they are able even to conceive at all. Whilst immigration has played its part, there is no doubt that Western birthing is becoming dysgenic – the average IQ figures for the Occident are in continual decline as the working class expands while the middle class shrinks.

When feminism convinces women that masculine measurements of power are the ones they must follow, and careerist mentalities are cultivated in women who historically would have been committed to raising healthy and happy children, the result is not only a seething inter-sexual resentment (women resent weak men, and men resent butch women) but patent negligence of one of the most important duties the nuclear family has - raising children. The end result is that many kids grow up without knowing proper parenting - with two career-driven professionals in wedlock, the traditional female role must be outsourced to daycare and nannies, resulting in all kinds of pathologies in child development (many of which we already see made manifest in the youth of today).

And with heavy hearts, let us finally return to the issue of birthing numbers. With such feeble birth rates recorded by the indigenous people of Europe, which barely reach replacement rate as a rule and drop as heartbreakingly low as 1.3 per couple in Germany, the ongoing state-sponsored invasion of rapidly-breeding African and Arab communities guarantees an Islamic, third world future. Patriarchy is returning to Europe: the question only is in what form; first or third world, majority White or majority brown, floral dresses or black hijabs. The somewhat nihilistic blogger Cesar Tort frequently states that the White race is doomed unless ‘our women become birthing machines’. Men, by contrast, must be ‘killing machines’ (it is the probable truth in this statement which makes it so chilling). If this is to happen, the White patriarchy must be quickly restored, and White men will need to rediscover the characteristics that made them, for millennia, the undisputed rulers of the world. If not, Western civilisation as we know it and love it will be – it is irrefutable – lost forever.




No comments:

Post a Comment