1,545 words

In Jordan Peterson’s YouTube lectures, which are really the closest thing to science you will find online if the second closest thing is a Tom & Jerry cartoon, one is told – among several other pieces of exotic anthropology – that “human females are picky.” Unlike chimpanzee females, who would happily mate with any beta male brave enough to hunt on an alpha’s territory, our females “judge men.” How they judge them seems to be quite a mystery for this Jungian prophet of evolutionary morals, who is otherwise brave enough to test his science against highly controversial themes, such as “why was Hitler evil?” or “how friendly is Islam to Canadian middle-class values?” Now, people with much less Jungian insight into the mysteries of being, but with a few hours of reading classical Greek-Latin literature, or Scandinavian, Celtic, Caucasian etc. epos (or ethnological descriptions if your interest leans toward traditional cultures with no autochthonous literature) would naively answer: women judge men according to their father’s opinion about them – whether that opinion was based on the possession of cattle, of gold, military merits, or piousness and (as in orthodox Jewish communities) extensive by-heart knowledge of sacred books written in dead languages. The reason why this “female” judgement becomes mysterious as soon as it cannot any more be based on a father’s opinion is, precisely, that it never was female judgement in the first place, but female acceptance of masculine judgements about the relative value of individuals in a given society. As to what happens when some human society has become lunatic enough to take seriously the idea of “female judgement,” the answer is the kind of collective suicide experiment currently named “Western society” – the essence of which I understood 10 years ago, while visiting Finland (for the first, and hopefully the very last time.)

It turned out that Finland, though having signed most of the fashionable pieces of international anti-terrorist legislation adopted in the wake of 9/11, was still allowing the sale of totally anonymous SIM-cards. My friend H. (who had become an orthodox monk in Karelia but had just been expelled from his monastery because of some filmed intercourse with the cleaning lady in the monastery’s toilets) explained to me with a straight face that cutting the Finns’ access to totally anonymous SIM-cards would amount to the suppression of most white births in the country, since most white children were conceived during weekends (i.e. in a state of utter drunkenness), by strangers, and then raised by single mothers. On the following weekends, I myself became eyewitness to discerning and highly evolution-trained female judgement – including teenage women judging that I was adult and solvent enough to get them some booze, and married women taking advantage of the fact that their husbands were out with other gents to become multiculturally exogamic. Had I had any interest in any unknown descendance raised by moronic feminists close to the polar circle, I could, by now, have one or two children in Finland.

No, Jordan Peterson, women are not picky. They are submissive, and you know it. Not because anybody on earth (“the Patriarchate” – or maybe “the Matriarchate”?) has made them submissive. They are submissive simply because they have glands producing estrogen instead of testosterone. Because there are only two sexes, and genders exist only within grammars. Of course, it is culturally possible to declare that those inherently submissive creatures shall be considered as having “free choice” – it’s not even a lie, provided we also describe as “free choice” the fascination butterflies have for burning candles. It is also culturally possible to declare that vaginas are erectile and shall assume the active role in heterosexual intercourse: the only structural limit to this kind of experiment is how far you are willing to take the use of English away from reality and common sense. And then, there’s a less immediate, but much more pitiless limit in the fact that generations of any given nation who play this kind of game tend to be the very last generations of those nations.

On the contrary, males are picky, because the physical fitness of mothers is key to the survival of offspring (while, in sophisticated societies, physical fitness in men can be replaced by a variety of socially useful skills), so that male mating choices have actually become the refuge of classical evolutionary logic in our species. The very popularity of Jordan Peterson (and many other YouTube gurus with a very clear male appeal) is, in itself, a symptom of male dereliction in English-speaking Western societies – i.e., a symptom of the fact that, even after close to complete feminist brainwashing, most males will still rather spend solitary evenings listening to the makeshift life wisdom of some Canadian charlatan than court or marry that unpickable piece of obese and psychopathic wreck as the average Western single woman. Ten years ago, my local post office in Budapest was exclusively staffed with nice Hungarian grandmothers. By now, most of them have retired, but none of the retirees have been replaced by any Hungarian woman. All the new employees are not-too-virile young men. Hungarian woman, who cannot afford exotic beliefs in “changing the taste of men” or “challenging cisgender sexual clichés,” generally watch what they eat and how they dress, so that their objective value on the globalized sex market is far beyond the purchasing power of average Hungarian males. As Viktor Orbán himself made it perfectly clear in his last Tusványos speech, this is the one problem that even a zero-migrant Hungary/Visegrad group will still have to face, and which FIDESZ will not be able to solve by building external walls on the Serbian border – but only, maybe, by rebuilding the much-needed internal walls of common sense and tradition.

While Jordan Peterson has become immensely popular by the process of micro-dropping such banalities which, in the terminally-ill Western academia, have become fatally heretical statements (such revolutionary truths as “men and women are not identical”), by and large, the worldview conveyed by his videos is not very far from Justin Trudeau’s: the West is the best place on earth, thanks to its liberal ideology protecting it against the demons of “totalitarianism” (meaning, of course: Hitler, Stalin, and Islam.) Why almost nobody seems to be willing to procreate and give an ethnically continuous future to this very paradise on earth is a problem which Jordan Peterson and other sycophants of shallow anti-postmodernity never confront. On the contrary, by constantly assimilating postmodernity (e.g. under the form of the LGBT ideology or the SJW culture) to 20th-century communism (which, interestingly enough, was historically also the primary target of postmodern thinkers, almost always recruited in the ranks of anti-Stalinist socialism), they indulge in the implicit illusion that before “totalitarianism” (say, in Berlin under the Weimar Republic) the West was just fine. As a matter of fact, there is hard demographic evidence showing that the lethal syndrome officially misnamed as “demographic transition” (read: transition from life to extinction) had already begun, and European thinkers of that period, whether on the right or the left (except, of course, right-liberals and left-liberals) were not as shy as today in identifying its root-causes, under the (then unambiguously and universally used) term of Americanization.

Now, what’s lethal to mankind in the American model? Certainly not the First Amendment or hamburgers – not even Coca-Cola or slavery, which – problematic as it may be morally under a Christian or Muslim perspective – was, after all, the basis of Athenian democracy. It is the idea of individual rights – or, better said: the illusion of such rights. After the divorce of state and society (which produced what is known in developed countries under the name of institutions, instead of embodied powers) and the creation of an abstract law system conceived to protect society against the inevitable overreaching of state power, it became essential to define the subject of the rights guaranteed by such a system. And, under the influence of Illuminist Philosophy, this subject was identified with a creature both unable to resist the Leviathan and unworthy in itself of such a protection: the individual. As my friend Levan Vassadze has often stated, the subject of constitutional right should be the family. Then we might have a chance to make technology and social complexification compatible with the survival of our species.

But a different choice was made, long before LGBT, SJW and the first signs of postmodernity – a choice which defines, in fact, Western modernity as such: the choice of the individual. As a consequence of this choice, it was only a matter of time before the force meant to protect society (the new demon of negative liberty) started to poison it, by allowing children to oppose the will of their parents, women to oppose their fathers and husbands, etc. Unlike characters of antique and classic comedies, who confront their Malthusian senile parents because they’re eager to get married, Romantic (i.e. bourgeois) heroes confront their mentally sane (i.e. “boring”) parents in the name of the freedom to commit suicide – a rare and expensive, hence still glamorous luxury by the time of the first Romantic writings, which, in the meantime, has become the everyday suburban reality of socially atomized and brainwashed white trash wasting a sterile life on junk food, junk TV, and the junk philosophy of Jordan Peterson.