Monday, 16 March 2009
The anthemic ‘How Soon is Now’ by British Indy band The Smiths neatly describes many a young male’s personal dilemma:
You shut your mouth
how can you say
I go about things the wrong way
I am human and I need to be loved
just like everybody else does
There's a club if you'd like to go
you could meet somebody who really loves you
so you go, and you stand on your own
and you leave on your own
and you go home, and you cry
and you want to die
Here are great sentiments of romantic alienation beautifully expressed – but, as with even the best popular culture – this lugubrious masterwork is entirely bereft of analysis. And the briefest analysis will reveal much about the contemporary Anglosphere - and the poisoned gender-relations that prevail therein. Cool, ruthless analysis also reveals the real root of Morrissey’s romantic displeasure.
As a relatively sensitive, intelligent, literate male in a northern English post-industrial slum, the unfortunate Morrissey presumably grew up surrounded by women of low intelligence and education; and such women are interested in only one thing –thugs. Indeed, most young women are attracted to thugs, whether they hail from slums or salubrious suburbs. So Morrissey’s Dilemma – the reason why he is single, shunned and sexless – really has a rather simple explanation. His intelligence, sensitivity and relatively high level of culture – all factors rhetorically extolled by feminists as ‘appealing’ to women – are actually handicaps in trying to attract an Anglo-American woman from the social mainstream. They are solely interested in two types of males: sadistic, sociopathic thugs and swaggering plutocrats.
Of course, they have a right to their preference. However, the fallout from this aberrant exercise of choice intrudes pointedly upon the freedoms of others. Since the sociopathic male is infinitely more likely to desert his partner and their children, the Anglosphere tax-payer has been left to foot the bill for an ever-expanding underclass - dangerous, crime-prone, moronic, ungrateful, Welfare-dependent and generally cretinous (see Professor Daniel Amneus’ ‘The Garbage Generation’). Low-status women shunning males of high genetic quality for low-IQ sociopaths is surely having a dysgenic effect in the West; declining intellectual and moral standards are self- apparent across the Anglosphere.
Above all, the reflexive Anglobitch preference for moronic thugs is causing a socio-demographic disruption that must bring the West to its knees, if it continues unchecked. ‘Love’ is, in sociobiological terms, a neurological trick played on young men in order that couples can rear fit, healthy children in their prime years. ‘Love’ ensures the young male will stay with his mate when she is pregnant and nursing; one thinks of Jaguar Paw in Mel Gibson’s Apocalypto, overcoming enormous obstacles to rescue his drowning wife and child.
Unfortunately, the male’s autonomic nervous system is primed for this intense bonding process only up to the age of twenty-five; it serves little biological purpose thereafter. With young Anglo-American women choosing to shun ‘boring’ (read focused, intelligent, articulate, educated, solvent) males for dangerous thugs, men of higher genetic potential are reaching their thirties having lost the chance to pair-bond in their prime years. But by that time, the deep feelings they should have experienced in a stable relationship have fled forever; they are no longer ‘primed’ for deep commitment. Given the overtly unfair Divorce laws that presently prevail in the Anglosphere, without the irrational spur of ‘love’ such males are unlikely to contribute their stable, productive genes to a society that has served them so poorly.
But if the brightest and best men withdraw their consent from the Anglosphere – this cultural bloc will not (indeed, cannot) survive. A society comprised solely of low-IQ sociopaths must crumble, sooner or later (and probably sooner). It may well be that patriarchy evolved as a social meme closely associated with advanced civilization; mainly because unchecked female ‘choice’ allows sociopathic genes to proliferate beyond a viable level. Certainly, since the State replaced low-status males as the main underclass family ‘provider’, it is plain that the lower echelons of Anglo-American society have lapsed into widespread sociopathy. Restricting female partner-choice would seem to be the primary cornerstone of all advanced societies; for by limiting the proportion of sociopaths, patriarchy indirectly promotes genes for industry, intelligence and self-restraint. Doubtless this is why regulating female sexuality has always been a primary concern of the Abrahamic religions, intimately associated as they are with Western civilization and its myriad achievements.
Let the Western Power Elites take heed: do you want this ancient English-speaking culture to stand or to fall? It is your choice. Keep the best men ‘on side’ and promote their reproductive success, and our culture might weather the storms to come. Ignore them, and it will crumble in decades - if not sooner.