Opinion
So, what’s the next Current Thing going to be? Ukraine is so 2023, already. Even the anti-Semitic left are going to get bored with screeching at Israel, eventually (after all, being social media-motivated, their concentration spans rival a gnat’s). It’s as certain as the failure of socialism next time that as soon as their Long March puppet masters upload the next Current Thing into their NPC followers’ RAM, the robots will be glueing themselves to whatever they’re told to.
Conservative commentator David Robertson twigged to the playlist, years ago. First up after gay marriage, he predicted, would be “Transgender and then the removal of gender altogether (this is all classic Queer Theory)”. Check. Check. And then?
This would then be followed by polyamory, polygamy, incest and then paedophilia.
For a while, here, it seems that Robertson didn’t quite get it right and that the left had leapfrogged polyamory, polygamy and incest. Even so, he got the methodology exactly right.
People think the latter especially is unlikely. I don’t agree. The way it will happen is for paedophilia first of all to be defined as an illness and a sexuality. Then in popular culture, we will gradually get ‘Lolita’ stories seeking to make a sympathetic ‘non-judgemental’ case”.
Which is indeed what’s been happening. Think of the whole “MAPs” thing.
But, even the dim bulbs of the left have vaguely twigged that literally coming for peoples’ kids was a troll under the bridge too far. So, they’ve made a bit of a strategic retreat (not for the first time: there was a huge pro-paedophilia push in the 70s and early 80s, too).
Now, it looks as though Robertson nailed it again: “polyamory”, it is.
As Steve Sailer argues, the only crystal ball you need is the leftist Bible, the New York Times.
Back in May 2013, I discerned that The New York Times was promoting as the successor to gay marriage—as that triumphant campaign entered its shooting-the-wounded phase—transgenderism. This seemed bizarre at the time, but transgenderism indeed proved to be the New Current Thing, with catastrophic consequences for impressionable and moody young girls.
So, what’s the NYT backing, nowadays?
Under the guise of the nonsexist, nontraditional neologism “polyamory,” groundwork has been laid since about 2015 for polyamorism to be the New Current Thing, with possibly a breakthrough going on in 2024.
The New York Times, for instance, first mentioned “polyamory” in a 1994 article about all the wacky nonsense you can look up on the newfangled internet.
But the curve is ramping up.
For the next two decades, the Times ran about one article per year on polyamory. Then, from 2015, about one per month. Last year, there appeared a record 27 articles about polyamory, and 2024 is on pace for 66.
So, we appear to be approaching liftoff for polyamory as a Thing.
The great appeal of polyamory is you can define it to mean whatever you are into.
Whether you’re a classic leftist cuck, or a “tech nerd born without the Jealousy Gene” (check out bitcoin fraudster Sam Brinkman-Fried and his Revenge of the Nerds harem for a real-life example), or a fat, smelly feminist who enjoys having men even more pathetic than you competing for your yeast-ridden favours, it’s all “polyamory”.
Or as the proverbial grandma might say, if you’re just a slut looking for a fancy new identity: bingo! “Polyamory”!
Note that, increasingly, exponents of polyamorism describe it not as their preference but as their identity, just as men who like to dress up in women’s clothes used to have a transvestite fetish, which made them figures of fun, but now have a transgender identity, which makes them sacred and entitled to abuse anybody lower on the pyramid of identity-politics privilege.
And after that, Robertson’s progression of degeneracy moves on to polygamy.
My guess is that some form of polygamy will instead be next, with computer nerds who lack the gene for sexual jealousy demanding “polyamory” and NGOs servicing African refugees insisting that Mr. Nguma and all four Ms. Ngumas and their nineteen children be let in because “love is love,” and if you don’t approve of polygamy you’re racist.
Takimag
We’re already well on the way: welfare agencies in Australia have been turning a blind eye to the fact that Muhammad signs on to multiple benefits with Mrs Muhammads 1, 2, and 3. “Refugee” quangos are already demanding that countries like Australia, Canada, and Britain, legitimise the polygamous marriage of the Ungabungas and Allahuackbars crowding onto the illegal immigration boats for a lifetime on welfare in the gullible West.
Then they’ll have another go at the kiddies.