Fucks against jihad, or – the wife as anti-terror tactic
A nagging wife is worth ten policemen.
A man without a wife is a dangerous man. A young man without a wife even more so.
As an Islamist insurgency gathers pace in Europe – met by a rise in nationalist and neo-fascist groups – governments are turning their resources towards extracting insurgents, particularly young men, from various groups and ideologies.
This will all prove to be wasted money.
Young males who are unmarried, underemployed, and underfucked are a dangerous group for the political stability of any government. The best solution to insurgent appeal is simply marriage, jobs, and sex.
There seems to be a connection between male sexual activity, aggression, and efficacy. Athletes are instructed not to have sex or masturbate before a big game. Similarly, a politician’s charisma – possibly his murderous potential – may be greatly increased if he is sexually reserved.
Perhaps this is all related to evolutionary demands. A male is chosen as a mate by a woman, in part, on the grounds that he can face down other male opponents in a fight. A male who has not had sex in a while would, therefore, be working under the unconscious impetus to dominate another male to win over a mate. His aggression and violence is the necessary response.
Hitler remained unmarried for almost his entire political career. This was, in part, a deliberate tactic to cultivate his pop star-like reputation among German women.
Hitler hysteria was quite acute in some women, with reports that Hitler fangirls would literally worship the gravel he had walked on.
Hitler may have discovered this connection is his teenage-hood. The young Hitler mooned after a girl, writing her numerous ignored love letters. At the same time, his already existing interest in war grew apace.
We can only imagine what might have happened if the girl had returned his affection. Early sexual satisfaction might have seen Hitler ending his days as a provincial bureaucrat admired for his amateur painting, although with a reputation for being a notorious bore about politics in the local tavern.
This is fanciful, but it is worth noting that Hitler’s British counterpart, Sir Oswald Mosley, managed to marry one of the most attractive women of his day, Diana Mitford.
Quite possibly the failure of British fascism may be attributed to Sir Oswald getting first-class pussy. This venereal conquest deflated his fascist aura, fighting spirit, and charisma – along with his Blackshirt movement.
We should be very grateful to Diana Mitford for lying back and thinking of Germany, for in doing so she accidentally did Britain a great service.
On the political left, the Weather Underground terror group that operated against the US government in the 1960 and 1970s ended an initial policy of partner swapping and orgies in favour of celibacy.
Former hippies had to forget free love in their quest to smash the pig state.
They sought greater operational efficiency through sex restriction, as did Orwell’s Big Brother in 1984. The novel’s Anti-Sex League was the counterpart to the population’s mandatory two-minute hate against the Party’s enemies.
Women tend to be attracted to rather thuggish brutes as a rule. We all know that Charles Manson, the grotesque serial killer, received endless declarations of love after his arrest. Fifty Shades of Grey and the Twilight series show fairly conclusively that women want beasts – literally in the latter case.
And don’t forget the ur-story, Beauty and the Beast.
This means that, in line with the pseudo-evolutionary theorising above, women will find terrorists, insurgent, and extremists attractive. But only a few lusty jihadi brides managed to migrate from Europe to the Islamic State. Women might be giddy for the insurgent from afar, but they lack the determination and robustness of men to travel through distant, dangerous territory for sex.
The sexless, jobless, and accordingly rage filed potential insurgent has great rewards for joining the movement.
The woman will only act as a pacifying influence on the man if she can catch him before he has flowered into the fully-fledged insurgent. At this point, he is attractive to many women. But his life expectancy is short. He has the pick of women, and no incentive to settle down. He cannot be pacified at this point, and his approach towards a town heralds the moment for the proverbial cry to go out, “Lock up your daughters!”.
But the wife will act as a pacifying influence upon a man, if he is caught in time. We all know that men and women kept apart degrade in their behaviour considerably.
We can see this at any stag do.
Men without women turn coarse and taciturn. Women without men turn bitchy and neurotic.
The woman may very well want a beast before she is married, but a marriage quickly turns her thoughts towards rising her social status and children. The man, unless already thoroughly bestial, will find his ear being bent towards all manner of domestic activities quite unconnected and contrary to global jihad against the crusader or establishing a white ethnostate.
The pram in the hallway is the enemy of promise in art, and it is also the enemy of revolutionary political projects. The man will become sentimental over his child, tired at the nagging, and put away those grand dreams of political change.
It is about the same process as occurs to many aspiring garage bands, except with AK-47s instead of drums.
The important point is that young men should be married as early as possible. This will defuse their bent up sexual aggression and divert them into keeping their wife happy. No need to go to Syria, or ram a car into a crowd because you can’t get laid.
The various government schemes aimed at ‘deradicalising’ insurgents, such as Prevent in the UK, will largely fail to contain recruitment, in part because all they really need to provide for young men is a job and a wife.
The government is singularly poorly equipped to do either. It does not try. Instead, its bureaucratic schemes will be ineffective, and occasionally help the insurgents.
Government bureaucracies are always driven by foolish targets, and these targets often generate perverse incentives. This will mean youthful provocateurs will be swept into the so-called deradicalisation programs along with more determined wannabe militants.
The more potential insurgents an organisation can identify, the more money and staff it will receive from the government. This is how bureaucrats measure their success, not whether or not their activities are productive. The anti-insurgent industry has an interest in manufacturing insurgents to re-educate.
Teenage boys sharing grotesque pictures from Syria and joking around on Snapchat groups about ‘jihad’ will be hoovered into these government programs, along with would be neo-punks who draw swastikas on their schoolbooks.
Boys will be boys. Boys will revel in dangerous and grotesque activities, along with crude actions to shock their elders. They will be excited by beheadings, shootings, and engage in stupid bragging.
Their teachers and youth group leaders, under the government quash to identify ‘extremists’, will report these boys to the relevant authorities who will be gleefully processed by the deradicalisation bureaucrats.
This will have the usual disastrous effects. Muslim youths hauled before a government body for sending silly text messages will come to resent the government’s petty spying and lectures. A substantial group will feel more sympathetic to the insurgency. The insurgent warning that the government hates Muslims will be legitimised by these programs.
The same problem exists for the far right, the recruit to the far right has been told that the government is supported by a system of censorship, often dubbed political correctness, that is used to suppress indigenous dissent against madd immigration and Islam. The existence of the deradicalisation program, along with censorship of social media, will merely confirm what his recruiters have told him about the political system.
Another group will be brought into contact, through the deradicalisation program, with people significantly more serious about their politics. A boy may be hauled up for deradicalisation for sending a video to a friend. It was a prank. In the program, as with the school of criminals that is prison, he will meet more serious and committed militants who will draw him into the insurgency. Left alone, he may well have forgotten the whole affair.
A further drawback to government schemes aimed at deradicalisation is that former militants are often employed to provide evidence that a change of course is possible. We are all familiar with the lectures at school from former junkies about the dangers of heroin. Of course, there’s a glint in the old addict’s eye as he speaks because he had fantastic time, even as he bemoans his addiction.
Teenagers readily pick up on this glint.
The problem with the poacher turned gamekeeper approach is that it is quite difficult to stop following a political belief. I was in a Communist organisation in my youth, and it took me a good ten years to actually stop believing in Marxism. Even today, though I am against Communism, I cannot help but feel excited when a Communist organisation makes a gain.
This is not rational, but our political instinct is far from rational.
It is very difficult to really separate oneself from an ideology and organisation, especially if friendship groups have been made in that organisation. People who leave a group often stay on speaking terms with people who remained; it is not so simple to cut former ties and loyalties. These are what make us human, even if our ties and loyalties are to violent or dangerous organisations
And it is not always clear that everything a militant group says is wrong, if simply because no human activity or belief system can be wrong about everything. I still appreciate elements of Marxism that are true, and there will be former jihadis who think that elements of that ideology are still true – even if they have left the movement to speak against it.
This means that people who claim to have left Islamism or neo-fascism behind them may be less changed than they appear, for it is difficult to even fully know your own mind at times.
There will, I suspect, emerge a scandal in the coming decades where a supposedly reformed Islamist or neo-fascist will turn out to have been converting the youths they were supposedly deradicalising.
Indeed, the most Machiavellian groups will encourage a member to feign defection from the insurgency to become a supposedly reformed mentor in a program where they will have easy access to already sympathetic youths.
We should forget these government programs, elaborate discussions about Islamic theology, and debates about political ideology.
The young men who become Islamist insurgents, neo-fascist thugs, and other types of violent political activists know that guns, blowing things up, and bloody videos are rancidly cool. They know thugs get laid. They know girls don’t talk to them because they’re losers without jobs.
The nuances of holy books and political screeds are lost on them, even if they think the aesthetics of classical Arab calligraphy is kinda neat, or they like watching Triumph of the Will.
These people, who claim a fascination with Islam, would have joined Marxist-Leninist or Ba’athist terror groups in the 1970s when nationalism and Marxism were in the ascendency while Islam was supposedly eclipsed.
This were the means frustrated young men used in those days. A different interpretation of Marx, like a different interpretation of Islam today, would not stop them. It is a waste of time to overly study the jihad problem from a theological or ideological perspective. Treat the underlying biological causes, and the interest in religion and ideology quickly vanishes.
We should get them laid. Then get them a civilised wife. A job and a baby would help. A master plan to redecorate a kitchen would end plans for a caliphate or a white ethnostate in an instant.
It’s a policy that could save many lives, but it’s not the policy we’re likely to see.