I am a big fan of macro-empiricism, by which I mean avoiding detail and instead looking at the clear, sweeping, and unavoidable patterns of history. In my belief, everything is written in the sky, while paying too much attention to detail is a good way to simply bury your nose in the grass.
One thing that struck me with the obviousness of the sun and the moon recently is how “gay” and dykey” a lot of our leaders are. By that I don’t mean they are necessarily practicing homosexuals, but that they lack strong gender bimorphic characteristics.
I noticed this early, as I am from Scotland, and Scotland is pretty phenomenal in this respect. We have essentially 3 main parties—SNP (36.9% at the last election), Scottish Conservatives (28.6%), and Scottish Labour (27.1%)—the incredible thing is that two of the leaders are openly gay women, while the remaining one, Nicola Sturgeon, is a childless woman who looks like a little boy. There is no overstating how alienating this is to a country that once gave the World Sir Sean Connery.
Anyway, once switched on to this phenomenon of androgynous leaders I started to see it cropping up everywhere. In Germany there was Merkel, who essentially looks like a “fag hag,” while the nationalist opposition there Alternative for Germany was led by the extremely boyish-looking but non-gay Frauke Petry until she was replaced with Alice Wiedel, an openly lesbian investment banker.
Canada meanwhile went to Trudeau, who, while not homosexual, is clearly the “feely” metrosexual SWPL type, who can have a good blub about global warming or genderfluid pronouns as he flies somewhere in his private jet, piloted by a man.
Staying with the Francophone world, one reason I suspect Marine Le Pen lost in France is because she was too old-school feminine, while her successful opponent Emmanuel Macron is much more androgynous and is widely suspected of being gay.
Britain’s Westminster Parliament hasn’t been exempt from this process either. David Cameron, while a bit smooth round the edges, was a pretty straight-forward “guy-guy.” But then in the wake of his Brexit defeat, he was replaced with Theresa May, an emotionally constricted childless woman, who uses garish make-up and silly hats to emphasize her ebbing femininity. May essentially presents herself as a poor carbon copy of Margaret Thatcher, who, despite her hard edges, was very much a functioning female.
But, more surprising, when May failed to secure her “thumping majority” at the recent general Election, and had to call on the “reserve army of Conservatism,” namely the Ulster-based DUP, even the leader of this supposedly homophobic party was yet another grim-looking woman. Although a mother of three, Arlene Foster has the look of a particularly strict and unforgiving female librarian.
Then, just the other day, comes a story of Macron getting a slap down on EU migrant policy from the Polish premier. Instead of someone with a giant walrus mustache, as you might expect, this turns out to be yet another “looks like a well-aged teenage boy” female in pants suit and short hair, Beata Szydlo.
The evidence is overwhelming and all around us, apart from a few surprising holdouts like Donald Trump, who is in part a reaction to the gender-ambiguity of Barack Obama, the entire West is moving towards rule by feminine-looking men and masculine-looking woman.
So far this is just an observation, and I am happy to leave it there for the time being, but it is worth considering what this may signify. An obvious take home is that the West is metaphorically losing its balls, and getting ready to be cucked big time by the Third World. There is much to back this up in migration patterns and crime data, especially that regarding sexual assaults.
A more generous interpretation would be that female leaders simply have to be more “masculine” to offset fears of the weakness and incompetence that the voters may have regarding them, and that male leaders may need to be more “feminine” in order to emit greater empathy in a political model in which the state plays an increasingly involved role in people’s lives.
But another possibility is that, as our societies become increasingly polarized and divided—as the political centre essentially disintegrates—we are replacing it with a new centrism based on sexual ambiguity, in other words an androgynocracy. Is this how civilizations die? I think the answer must be “Yes.”