My opinion on love ideology.

[Sustacel250]

I expanded a shitpost I made in a reply into a diff topic.

Love of the 60s is emotional governance. Produces self-surveilance before the police state we suffer nowadays. One thing I asked myself, is maybe what defeated love was the introduction of the internet and the digital surveillance. Maybe, if can use digital surveillance and it proves superior compared to emotional governance, then this is the reason why we abandoned love ideology.

Most criticism I found on the blogs and the newspapers is taking into consideration the fall of sexual revolution which I think is dated dead since 2011 more or less. Conservative observers were very pleased when sexual revolution failed I still remember, it was considered one of the greatest most blatant defeats of the left. The crash of the sexual revolution was so big that no leftist commentator talked about it later, its like they completely unexisted the entire phenomenon, just to avoid the shame in dealing with the objective failure of their ideology.

We incels back then were also cheering, because we were armed with "blackpill science" which allowed us to predict the catastrophic failure of sexual revolution. Many of us incel scene were blatantly aware of the shortcomings of communist analysis. We knew women like only a subset of the male population and for many of us this was enough to show there is no mass emancipation and sexual revolution can only work for 20% of normies and chads.

We also clashed with old hippy boomers, who told us lies about "everyone gets pussy" we made friends with sexless boomers who told us the truth.

Instead, love for the masses is dated around the 60s more or less, thats where there was the rhetoric of "emancipation".

What I present here is another hypothesis. Its not conservative rhetoric, its also separated from incel perspective. It could be love for the masses was a cheap control system that relied on internalization. In a nutshell, it operates inside the subject (the normie) and made conformity feel like "its authentic" or rappers would have said "real". Internalization (especially of blame and guilt) was what elites and social managers did in the past to control the pleb. Before they had access to algorithmic digital surveillance everyone used peer pressure and guilt, shame and anything reliant on internalization.

In the 60s no algorithm could predict behavior, state authority was not able to tell us how to do everyday intimacy. So concepts like "Love" could have been used to emotionally govern the normies in absence of predictable reliable tools used in contemporary times.

Love requires: belief, slow internalization, ambiguous ever-changing norms, guilt and shame. Result is: fragile and can be refused. An incel such as myself was able to refuse it. And mind it, at the time I did not have a language erudite enough to describe the phenomenon. I was merely reacting with instincts. If someone asked me back wen I was 15 "why you refuse love" I would have stuttered, mumbling, unable to reply anything meaningful. I just had my incel instincts kicking, I was having a strong sense of alert, I knew it was bad. I could not tell why. Nowadays it changed, im a mature incel with 10+ years of experience and I can write essays on the internet explaining, arguing my reasons. I can tell you why now.

Digital surveillance requires data and realtime feeds, meters to evaluate the data, and can be reliable once is fully implemented. I mean, it can be very tricky to escape. Normies surely will be powerless against it, unless they are deep into cyber counter cultures that prepare to defeat the digital surveillance.

So, it can be, that these intellectuals online are wrong, and im right instead. It can be my hypothesis is correct even if is simpler. If desires are trackable and we can mediate social life with these new digital surveillance tools, what do we need love for? Answer: nothing. So there was no grandiose "fiasco" of the sexual revolution like told by newspapers. Maybe it was just tech updates that defeated it. This is my hypothesis. Incels would have said it was "digital hyper-hypergamy" that defeated it. I would not say it because I dont believe in hypergamy.

If someone wants to reply, for your consideration, I am not considering for this discussion the history of aristocratic europe. I am considering the context of "love for the masses". TLDR: fiasco because new tools made love redundant.