Why “Make Love, not War” Doesn’t Work

Obvious political shill Jim Paredes’ recent shenanigan drew a lot of perhaps well-deserved criticism. A supposed “moral paragon” does the equivalent of a sex tape online. His defenders say, hey, it’s his business. But why post online a business that should be discreet? Or, why “record your love,” as the movie Parenthood puts it, and therefore create a risk of something to spread? Perhaps he deliberately let that loose as a distraction, after all.

dicks dictators dicktators make love not war stupid

But wait… Paredes is a product of those weird times, the 60s and 70s when “Make love, not war” was a popular slogan during that sexual revolution and flower children era. So let’s go to that. “Make love, not war” started out as a protest against the Vietnam War. Perhaps it also carried a suggestion: in order to stop wars, let people be busy with sex and free love so they won’t think of war. Sounds good at first, especially to sex addicts. But in truth, this is a terrible idea, and a failure.

Subscribe to our Substack community GRP Insider to receive by email our in-depth free weekly newsletter. Opt into a paid subscription and you'll get premium insider briefs and insights from us.
Subscribe to our Substack newsletter, GRP Insider!
Learn more

There are many studies, such as some from Psychology Today, that say the sex drive may itself be one of the causes of war. The Male Warrior Hypothesis for example posits that males engage in conflict as a way to obtain “evolutionary benefits associated with organized intergroup violence, such as a greater access to resources, status, and perhaps sexual mates” (that also supports my earlier point that war is all about resources than anything else). Or in short, men fight over women as part of the resources they want control over. Why are women a resource? Because they bear children in order to continue the society. Basically, “love,” or sex is a reason people go to war. The story of Helen of Troy may be an analogy for this and hints that ancient people already recognized this.

Now think of it this way: There is an innate desire for exclusive access to a mate (one of the few things I think of as innate). This desire was the basis of marital fidelity in society and the building block of society, the family. People could argue that marriage was only constructed and maintained for property ownership purposes, but I disagree. There is an innate desire to keep a mate away from others.

So when a mate goes wayward, it is more a natural reaction than a construct to be jealous and want to stop that infidelity. So what happens is two men fight over a woman (or girls fight over a guy). “Modern” people such as SJWs (social justice warrior) and politically correct would say, let the woman be shared between the two men. However, that ignores nature. Partners want to keep that one to one relationship, it is the utmost in intimacy. Perhaps nature supports this in another way: copulation can only happen between a couple at time. You can’t have two men shaft into one woman at the same, or one guy shaft two women at once (if people have tried this, it’s crazy). It’s really one-to-one. And humanity has often understood it as a natural analogy of exclusive relationships.

So the theory above, that sex does not dissuade and in fact leads to war, is not off. We have real world examples to demonstrate: Rape of Nanking and similar incidents; terrorist organizations such as Boko Haram and Daesh (ISIS) kidnapping women for sex exploitation. There are probably traditions and cultures I have not yet read about that involve abduction of women or even conflict over them.

So basically, when people say “make love not war,” they are actually trying to solve a problem with the very thinking that created it. Thus, “make love, not war” fails.

OK, you negativist, people will retort, what then should people do?

With the way SJWs and leftists behave today, the reaction of former California Governor Ronald Reagan about the “make love not war” shouters is apt: “Those guys look like they can’t make either of both.” Perhaps Reagan had in mind the other kind of “love” that is not sex: seeking the good of another despite how at odds they are with each other. This is real love for me, the love that SJWs likely couldn’t fathom.

Perhaps I can tweak the meaning of “make love not war” into using that definition of love, and thus my view can change wherein I can support the saying. Even if someone disagrees with you, don’t attack them or quarrel with them. Let people go with their beliefs as long as they don’t have the goal of harming someone, and fight for the freedom of others to disagree with you. It is love that requires a sound and level mind, working intellect, and self control, not uncontrolled hormones.

War and conflict are a result of people’s desire for control over others and wanting to impose their hegemony over the world. But these are also means for the most basic of purposes: to get something they want. It is a problem involving values. People’s values should be reoriented to acceptance that they can’t always get what they want, that sense of entitlement is wrong, they should stop trying to control others, and they should control themselves.

Defenders of “make love, not war” will say, keeping people busy with pleasures can take their minds off conflict. But that’s not always true. As I said above, objects of pleasure can be catalysts of conflict. Because people want something so much, they can fight over it, as I have said about the Opium Wars.

Let’s also look at the sex culture today. When SJWs seem to promote “love,” they likely mean promiscuity. This is also a selfie generation, where not only are they obsessed with posting photos of themselves holding up a phone in front of a mirror and calling it “sexy,” but they probably like to boast who they slept with – that same old careless culture. We have heard that not only Filipinos are among the biggest users in the world of pornography and are fond of posting pictures or videos of their own sex acts. These are their “proof” of sexual prowess (and their narcissism), and of course it means that they want more. But this of course comes with a price. AIDS and other sexually transmissible diseases are on the rise in the Philippines. “Safe sex” won’t be enough to stop this. Don’t underestimate dumbness when people throw everything to the wind just to get what they want.

But here’s another thing: let’s say posting one’s sexual activity online does get another person jealous. It’s not uncommon for Filipinos to give in to their “jealousy” and get into conflict with the poster. It’s a “pataasan ng wiwi” or piss contest moment. It could lead to a petty squabble that might even lead to murder. What, murder? Yes, this is the Philippines, where people have murdered their rivals (or even assumed rivals) for someone’s “love.”

Don’t get me started on the sextortion cases Filipinos are involved in. It probably still goes on today, hushed by its perpetrators. Sex and people’s egos about being “sexual greats” are also exploited for crime. Those with a lot of “sexual vanity” are easy prey for this.

Taming the Filipino pursuit for vanity and trying to satisfy hormones is a real solution. Of course, the SJWs and “advocates” may call me a prude and fascist. But don’t say I didn’t warn you.

I’m not here to ban sex or police thought. We need to keep our eyes out for more of these hypocrites. But it does bring to the fore the problems of sex addiction and how it could still have other effects – such as pedophilia and rape. We better step up efforts to put a handle on these things. Lots of things push this kind of addiction onto us, such as media. We should build up our resistance to these. Perhaps we need new calls for upholding of public morals. And if any of these so-called “defenders of freedom” slam such efforts, you know they’re just pretending to be busy.

28 Replies to “Why “Make Love, not War” Doesn’t Work”

  1. “Make Love, not War”, may be the shout of “YellowTard Jakoleros”…but it won’t divert the truth that Jim Paredes, made love to a certain : “Mary Palmer or Maria Palad”, in his toilet, recording it in his cell phone video. Anyway, who was the guy or girl , at the end of the line , when he was doing this session ?

    Some naughty guys, stated: ” it might be Leah Navarro”…some naughtier guys, told me : “it was Jover Laurio”…but, this top them all : “it was a long distance session with Kris Aquino “…

    Whatever, it was…I have no business in it. The only sad thing, is somebody leaked it in the social media. These anti YellowTard social warriors, were too fast in pouncing on it. Releasing it more to other media outlets. Until the mainstream media , “masturbated” the facts about it, to cover it…. And Leah Navarro, warned those naughty people who released it, that they can go to jail for it.

    It is near election time, and this might be a “torpedo” that will sink any chance of any Yelloward candidate to win any Senate seat !

  2. “You can’t have two men shaft into one woman at the same time”
    It is actually possible. And easier than you probably think.

        1. I’d think that they subjected their body parts to quite some abuse in order to do that. Probably long term, if not immediate.

  3. You’re gonna be surprised and disgusted with people who think “Open relationships” work, and these hypocrites who may not be making violent and physical warfare are just fighting for the right of their ideology to takeover, hence the excuses for the moral failings of one of their paragons. And not convinced that the idle lover can do much to address the Communist and Moro rebellions, the drug syndicates that they seem to enable by saying constantly back then that there was no drug problem but when almost billions worth of drugs confiscated they sang their tune towards EJKs and asking the International Community to play politics and remove the sitting President, and their hatred of the military and police that went to a head when they went back and forth telling them they’re supporting a dictatorship and sanctioned murder to telling them to launch a coup against the Commander of Chief, then Marawi and Martial Law happens and cries of human rights abuse and the attacks and non-support against them, and finally they goad China with their idiotic saber-rattling and ignorance of international relationships, the so-called lovers won’t go to war but they expect those evil soldiers and policeman to die for them.

  4. Women are certainly the best at opting for love not war. They say it takes so much more to avoid wars than starting them.

  5. You know who would agree with your main premise? Napoleon Hill. Author of the classic Think and Grow Rich. He has a whole chapter in there called THE MYSTERY OF SEX TRANSMUTATION. I will not bother going into details here but read the book and make up your own mind.

  6. Chino,
    “I’d think that they subjected their body parts to quite some abuse in order to do that. Probably long term, if not immediate.”

    For the female: No. The size of a baby that comes out of her vulva/vagina, is always bigger/larger than 2 penises or 1 penis together with a vibrator.
    For the male(s): also no.

  7. Chino,
    I’d think that they subjected their body parts to quite some abuse in order to do that. Probably long term, if not immediate.

    So even if you were right, it would be (and is) dumber to give birth once or 10 times.

  8. You know the greatest danger facing us is ourselves, and irrational fear of the unknown. There is no such thing as the unknown. Only things temporarily hidden, temporarily not understood.

  9. “Making love” never works, never did nor will ever. You do NOT make love, in the sense of being loving! It’s already been made; i.e., you ARE love yourself already. When you realise you are love, war is very remote. Love is your true nature and your birthright.

  10. Instead of “Make Love, Not War” as a battlecry for humanity, maybe we should say “Love Is War” as what @ChinoF said on this blog he wrote that it might lead to murder.

    Maybe some of these examples on why “Love Is War” will truly work than “Make Love, Not War” like watching this Japanese anime series called “Kaguya-sama: Love Is War”: https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/anime.php?id=21401 or listening to this hit song by the British rock band, Queen entitled “Too Much Love Will Kill You” (and we all know what happened to Freddie Mercury on how he died): https://youtu.be/ivbO3s1udic

  11. Why pay attention to homosexuality talks? To solve the problems pilipinos are facing now is the president should armed law abiding citizens to fight terrorism. That includes drugs of course. And it’s the same as declaring martial law.

    1. True but again most of the Filipinos have lack of discipline & social spoil brats in spite that there’s a strict laws against crimes like the use of drugs, terrorism, road laws, etc., etc.?

      As since this topic foretells about love & war, I would like to leave a quoted message from a 19th century Russian novelist by the name of Leo Tolstoy from his great novel War & Peace which is included on his novel, and quote: “It is easy to make laws, but hard to execute them.”

      Well he might be right, and this is the reason why our country cannot develop on their own due to the anarchism & undisciplined Filipinos no matter how President Duterte will declare a Martial Law all over our country & it will be a difficult task, just like what President Marcos had done before when he declared Martial Law all over our country in 1972. Same old BS or a Deva Ju.

  12. At the rate things are developing around Pag-asa Island island these days, a Filipino soldier might fall in love with a young Chinita-eyed babe on one of those swarming boats which would then lead to the first Chino-Filipino War, with Hollywood as usual being the biggest winner.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.