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 “lezzer” 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. Not so long ago two of the three main party leaders were openly gay women, while the remaining one, Nicola Sturgeon, is a childless woman who looks like a little boy who has just eaten his first lemon. There is no overstating how disappointing this is in a country that once gave the World Sir Sean Connery. Luckily, since then the Labour “lezzer” has stepped down and been replaced by a straight guy. Not that it makes me more likely to vote for them.
Anyway, once switched on to this phenomenon of androgynous leaders, I started to see it cropping up everywhere. In Germany there is the childless Angela Merkel, who is about as feminine as a jockstrap; while the nationalist opposition, Alternative for Germany, was led by the extremely boyish-looking but non-lesbo Frauke Petry, who has now been replaced by the slightly more feminine but openly lesbian investment banker Alice Wiedel.
Canada meanwhile has 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 by 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 than this, when May failed to secure her “thumping majority” at last year’s 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 there is the Deputy Polish Prime Minister Beata Szydlo. Instead of someone with a giant walrus mustache, as you might expect, she turns out to be yet another “well-aged teenage boy” type.
The evidence for this increasing androgynisation of Western political leaders 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 and even maternal role in people’s lives.
But another possibility is that, as our societies become increasingly polarized and divided—as the political center essentially disintegrates—we are replacing it with a new centrism based on sexual ambiguity, in other words an androgynocracy. Is this how civilizations die? It certainly looks like it.