|The Anglosphere deviates ever further from canonical thought...|
In the wake of the Alek Minassian massacre, male incels have been under public scrutiny as never before. One strand of this focus involves lamestream media commentators exhorting incels to undergo counselling or psychotherapy in order to 'manage' (i.e. suppress) their sexual drives. Here is David Fatrelle:
Remarkably, there have been some very patient "normies" who have waded into these hateful spaces in an attempt to convince the obviously damaged incels to seek out the professional help they so sorely need to sort through their deep resentments and build up a healthy self-esteem.
But most incels are too devoted to their own dysfunction to even consider it. And the few who have given it a try seem bent on sabotaging any chance it might make a difference. On Reddit's main forum for incels, one recently complained that, after ten therapy sessions, "I haven't changed at all. I've not grown taller. My face hasn't become any more attractive. I haven't become any more attractive to girls. Therapy was the most useless thing I've ever tried in my life."
Therapy only works when patients truly want to change. And the sort of person that complains, absurdly, that therapy hasn't made them tall or better looking - well, they aren't likely to get much out of it.
David Futrelle, Can the Radicalization of Incels be Stopped? The Globe and Mail, April 2018
|The handsome Futrelle gives advice...|
But why are the incel's complaints about 'therapy' so absurd? In an era where young women outnumber men at college and have no economic reliance on men, looks and height have become key factors for young men seeking to attract a mate. Does Fatrelle seriously deny this? Is he still living in 1958, when relatively few western women attended college or held professional status? What he REALLY means by 'change' is incels accepting and adjusting to their 'undesired' status and living like monks; or, failing that, becoming transsexual paedophiles, like himself.
Great. What a result.
However, anyone with the most perfunctory grasp of psychotherapy and classical psychology in general knows that its founding fathers insisted on the importance of a healthy sex life for robust mental health. Freud, Maslow and Reich were all absolutely insistent on this: and modern Anglo-American psychology demonstrates total ignorance of its own foundations in promoting 'adjustment' to an asexual, denatured condition.
As usual, Anglo-Saxon culture lapses into insane puritanical denial of normal human needs when confronted with the detritus of its failed gynocentric agendas. Here we are in the early twenty first century, seriously expecting healthy young males to live like monks or 'transition' into sterile females because the Anglo-American cultural establishment failed to predict the social fallout of promoting misandrist feminism in a culture defined by residual puritanism, female entitlement and institutional misandry. It truly seems as if the Anglosphere has returned to Victorian times - if indeed it ever left them.
Not only is the Anglo-American world sexually and socially primitive, its increasing detachment from the canonical roots of western thought was never more obvious. The modern Anglosphere represents an evolutionary dead-end on the tree of occidental culture, severed by centuries of dehumanizing repression from the well-springs of psycho-sexual health and normality. It no longer even knows its own sources; clear proof of its fractured and degenerate nature.
|Marc Lepine: The Monk's Habit did not Fit...|