Wednesday, December 21, 2016

Sexual Liberation Through Rules,

with Notes on Tastemaking




A truly hedonistic society makes marriage for reproduction only. Since edginess lies on the other side of transgression, wherever the line is between acceptable and unacceptable, defines what is cool on the other side of that line. Things directly on the other side are fashionable. Things far on the other side are criminal. Moving the line to a more permissive place simply reduces the number of things that are transgressive, and thus, excessively pleasureful, while increasing the pointless "masturbatory" nature of the act. Acceptance of everything destroys its fun.

If the line is a standard that says that sex is for reproduction only then a couple may transgress that line by secretly doing it while the religious authorities are kept in the dark. Marital sex then becomes cool. Imagine that.

If the line is premarital sex then that becomes cool. (Like in the 1950's).

If the line is lesbianism then that becomes cool. (Like in the 1990's).

Additionally, as the line moves more acts become bourgeoisie, boring, and normalized. These newly boring acts are now meaningless and masturbatory. Repression enhances pleasure. Acceptance ends it. And thus we see that the modern liberal puritan is vastly more puritan than her predecessor. It is precisely as things have been normalized that sexual enjoyment has been destroyed. The leftist puritan accomplishes the destruction of pleasure far more effectively than her ancestor, and she does it through the perversity of "tolerance" and "acceptance." She may practice a perverse sexual act — not to enjoy it, but to annihilate it's meaning and fun. This is beyond frigidity. Seen in this light, false rape accusations follow a perverse kind of logic. It is sexual conquest through sexual annihilation. It is the inversion of a thing into its opposite. It creates no life, enjoys nothing, persecutes everything, and wastes all. It's perversion is not enjoyment but both castration of the falsely accused male and self-castration. The "pervert" (normal heterosexual white male) is really the healthy one here and the "healthy feminist woman" (probably a closet pederast or asexual) is really the pervert, since she can enjoy nothing but power. She is a power freak, and the worst kind of prude. Her only gratification is the sadism of envy. The males crime is enjoying her sexually; something that she cannot reciprocate, and her violent hatred of him for having what she cannot have his her motivate for persecuting him.

Traditional moral limitations are not limitations but liberations. They enhance women's and men's pleasure by getting betrothal over with so they can get on with sexually enjoying each other. In a world of millions of potential partners, a woman's hypergamy will simply run on overdrive until she wastes her entire fertile years pursuing the small group of "worthy" males who she can never trap with commitment. This is the reproductive equivalence of choice paralysis.

The Indian caste system restricts female hypergamy by confining women to selecting a mate within a small group. The western political prohibition of premarital sex forces people into committed relationships so they can achieve enjoyment. The Middle Eastern burka reduces sexual competition among women, and between men over women, by removing the display of the female body from public view. This opens up the environment for greater commitment between the sexes and pleasure. Tribes and small towns restrict sexual competition through population size limitations. Anabaptists restrict choice through a rural lifestyle. Other groups restrict competitive choice through arranged marriages, bride buying, or matchmaking with a chaperone. Even Scientology has a process for restricting sexual competition between its members.

The woman who bans the burka creates one type of freedom and destroys another. She creates the freedom to be sexual in public and destroys the freedom to not be objectified — not at least, if she wants to attract the attentions of a male. Since she is in "skin competition" with other women to display her body in order to attract attention, if she dresses modestly she does not attract attention. And so by eliminating the burka she has forced herself to show her body for male attention. It is an example of stupidity that feminists then complain about objectification of the female body while advocating for the policies that lead to it.

This is why there is no one "right" way. In the end what is right must be discovered by having multiple competing societies (systems) within exitocracy and then measuring levels of happiness. Then, the proven systems of greatest flourishing should out-compete the less successful ones. But there is a shortcut; traditions have already arrived it a multitude of right ways through historical trial and error.

Due to the xenophobic tribal natures of homo sapiens the human brain is "sticky," and gets stuck defending one way over others; the way of ones own tribe. Humans compulsively find groups to tribe together in. They then use their evolved cognitive biases and logical fallacies, (especially the genetic fallacy), to engage in motivated cognition for their tribe. In fact probably all fallacies serve some tribal function. Straw man arguments misrepresent the Other. Genetic fallacies disregard the Other. Red Herrings distract the Other. No true Scotsman affirm one's own tribe no matter what. Appeal to threat silences the Other. The fallacy of taking offence defines the speaker as Other. Censorship silences the Other. Calling someone "racist" is the biggest genetic fallacy of our era and exclused the Other. Virtue signaling affirms tribal membership and signals fitness and worth. Calling someone a "white male" is a dehumanizing exclusion of the Other.

Is there any cognitive process not bound in some way to tribalism?

The puritan liberal opposes sexual restrictions precisely because she opposes enjoyment. Never forget that the worship of equality is the worship of envy, and that envy is NOT wanting what other people have, oh no. Envy is hating them for having it — and wanting to destroy them for it. So the feminist is seeking the destruction of pleasure through the ideology of equality.

Rules and rituals give prediction to peoples lives, opening those lives up for pleasure and meaning. As already stated, the celebration of choice is paradoxically about denying pleasure through choice paralysis.

Married people have more sex than single ones. "Freedom of choice" is about denial of pleasure for others. It is motivated by envy. It's effect is to reduce rates of marriage — and of other peoples pleasure.

One woman's heaven is another women's hell. "Freedom of choice" is slavery to sexual objectification, abortion, and birth control. It's effect is to make commitment impossible — to reduce the happiness of other women.

There is a structural component here — a prisoner's dilemma. Birth control makes premarital sex something that women can do without guaranteed pregnancy. Since every woman can give it up without demanding marriage first, every woman is expected to. The ones who refuse simply receive no commitment at all. The ones who provide premarital sex are often used up by the experience and become jaded. They seek self-castration to remove the pain. This self-castration (and castration of men) is the true origin of modern feminism and its nonsense ideas of "liberation," — which is really just an abject submission and slavery to the material forces of birth control. Every woman is enslaved to promiscuity and this is branded as female sexual freedom; a precise negation of reality as a psychological coping mechanism. The total absence of choice to marry become the perverse celebration of "choice" as an absolute ideal. No woman really chooses to have an abortion or get thrown away like trash.

The technology changes the landscape. The very existence of birth control and abortion creates an environment of mass promiscuity where birth control and abortion are mandatory. This is called "choice."

The name for this is false consciousness, or alternately, adaptive preference formation. It's cause is the cognitive dissonance of environmental conditions at odds with human needs.

In a society where pornography, birth control, abortion, and premarital sex are all illegal people are forced into monogamy. Paradoxically this frees them sexually.

Since one woman's heaven is another woman's hell, whatever the majority does imposes itself on the minority as decreased life options. If everyone is married there are decreased options for promiscuity. Conversely, if everyone is promiscuous there are decreased options for marriage. The majorities behavior is an imposition. One cannot really avoid sexual usury in this society. This is behind the drive to criminalize anything that does not please a woman as "rape;" a misguided and destructive reaction to mass promiscuity. No, the threat of a false rape accusation will not inspire men to marry you, especially now that feminism has made marital rape illegal, and the same potential for false accusation exists within marriage as without. Why would he sign up for that?

She cannot force men into liking her with the threat of false rape accusations. Force breeds resentment.

Freedom is never really "freedom." It is not that simple. Freedom, as the term is used in vernacular conversation, really just means the absence of impositions by human external agency on a persons life. But this misses the boat because there is never simply an absence of impositions. Just because you are not being imposed on by human will does not mean you are not being imposed on. We are surrounded by technology, and it affects every aspect of our lives — including, yes, our sex lives.

Freedom, in the libertarian sense, simply means the relaxation of social standards to the lowest technologically obedient equilibrium. It means "the technology of birth control will determine our sex lives." Similarly, if one allows one's children the "freedom" to do what they want then one is simply saying "the technology of addictive screens (TV, internet, smart phones) will determine how our family spends it's time." This is not really freedom. The technology of screens has the side-effect of destroying the time families spend together. It is today completely possible to not even know ones own children as much as the internet does — for a family of strangers to grow up in the same house. A family raised on the internet is not really a family. Children do not know their parents. The alienation this can produce in a young mind is substantial and horrible for psychological well-being.

In the modern world there is no absence of imposition, no condition of "freedom." If humans refuse to define rules for their existence they simply relinquish the territory to technological determinism. This can have a truly drastic cost, as we see with birth control whose negative effects on society include;
1. Compelling women who would not otherwise be promiscuous into that lifestyle.
2. Warping female consciousness into the self-deception of celebrating ones sexual enslavement as a "choice."
3. Making a "virtue" out of racial extinction.
4. Producing mass abortion.
5. Causing female hypergamy to go on overdrive into choice paralysis.
6. Creating men who enable all of this, and who use women habitually.
7. Producing millions of "cucked" "beta" males.
8. Creating massive economic demand for pornography by said males.
9. Destroying the marriage rate.
10. Causing epidemic levels of single motherhood.
11. Warping the will of the people, such that the people are unwilling to save themselves from technology's negative effects because it has irrevocably ruined their morals for the worse.
12. Producing a philosophy of anti-values in the form of feminism that represents the psychological internalization of insane material conditions as an insane ideology.
13. Causing feminist philosophy, as a secondary effect, to produce a worsening of sexual and marriage conditions beyond the simple first-order material conditions caused by birth control itself.
14. Causing feminism to oppose any attempt at genuine reform or society since feminist women have been driven insane by the corruption of morals that material conditions have produced.

For thousands of years women reproduced themselves on the virtual motto of "if I must do something then I will trick myself into enjoying it." This is how she could adapt herself to being kidnapped and enslaved (sexually) by the barbarian enemy tribe. Feminist "choice" is nothing but the continuance of this pattern of psychologically internalizing conditions. In the modern world she must ride a pile of cock, so she deceives herself into enjoying it. Then she celebrates "choice." But women have never had a choice, and choice presumes the existence of a moral agency to begin with — something women are notoriously bad at.

Women are the ultimate conformists. Jim thinks that they actually like ridding the "cock carousel." Me thinks that he is assigning too much agency to the female sex. He should take his own premises to heart and realize that women are too low agency to even know what they want in the first place. The female sexual mandate is "adapt to conditions." Whatever condition men create through rules and technology is ultimately what women will conform to. That is, whatever the strongest masculine incentive is, constitutes what women will follow. If commanded to fuck some ugly slob she will obey, provided that everyone around her thinks it is right and virtuous, or at least politically advantageous, and most importantly, her friends approve of it. She will desire whatever society celebrates as the "best" male, whatever is portrayed as the highest kind of man she can get, whatever is fashionable.

Technology corrupts the morals of the people. And then the people, having their morals corrupted, cannot envision a better way and cannot accept limitations placed on their behavior. So focused on short-termism are they that they cannot envision the long-term benefit of rules that control their sexual behavior. They cannot even see that married people have more sex than single ones, and that embracing a legal prohibition on premarital sex would in fact increase the frequency of their sexual encounters (within marriage).

Or as the Prophet of the Technological Singularity would say;
"Never forget that the human race with technology is just like an alcoholic with a barrel of wine."
And understand what I mean when I say that women obey what they are commanded to fuck. I do not mean that women obey orders. I mean that they obey fashion. Women absolutely do "choose" in a sense. Here is how female choice has worked throughout the ages;

1930's Germany says, "The Nazi is cool. German mothers are awesome. Fuck the Nazi. Have lots of blonde German babies. The Nazi is a glamorous leader of the Reich. He is the hero of the nation."

1930's German woman says, "Nazis are glamorous. I CHOOSE to fuck the Nazi."

1950's Hollywood soap opera says, "your husband is boring and dull. He lacks adventure. Have an adventure! Buy our soap and fuck the handyman while your husband is at work."

1950's American homemaker says, "The handyman is rugged and hot, I CHOOSE to fuck the handyman while my husband is at work."

2000's Hollywood America says; "lesbians are edgy. You know you really want to lick some pussy. Experiment with your sexuality. Men think its hot! Go ahead, kiss a girl!"

2000's American Woman says, "female sexuality is more flexible than male sexuality. It's my body and I'll do what I want. I CHOOSE to be bisexual."

2010's American Society says; "abortion is cool. Sleep around and have an abortion.

2010's American women says; "I wish I had an abortion."

Funny how only 20 years earlier nearly all American women thought lesbians were repulsive and abortion was evil. Today they say that women's sexuality is more flexible than male sexuality. But this is inaccurate. It is simply more conformist. Women have sex with what is glamours; that is, whatever their friends approve of. Glamour controls female sexuality. And men will follow any movement that promises them women. Put all of these facts together and you have a political strategy for neoreaction;

Men follow any political movement that brings women as a sexual advantage.
Women choose whatever man they think their friends will approve of.
Their friends approve of whatever the culture glamorizes.
Neoreaction will control what the culture glamorizes.

Besides demotism, the difference between fascism and aristocracy is that fascism only achieves true sophistication after ascending to power (a much more difficult and violent path), while aristocracy is fashionable from the beginning. Fascism is simply too proletariat to appeal to hypergamous expectations. The path of our NRx movement is through taste making. Seize the means of glamorization. Control all outlets of humor, satire, irony, fashion, entertainment, literature, and movies. Control a nations taste and you will control its women. After that recruiting men is easy. Imagine a cultural revolution to restore the power of white males that also attracts female support.

Memes are the best way to refine irony. The internet channels that they spread through contain an inborn mechanism for selecting the most virulent satire. Never do forced memes. Get into a position of power in a tastemaking industry and hire your fellow reactionaries into it. Set up a pipe line of recruitment into institutions of power and cultural control. Go work for a liberal foundation. Seriously. Do not challenge its agenda at first. Instead, hire as many of your fellow reactionaries until you have achieved a secret cabal within the organization that is strong enough to purge the remaining progressives. Then turn the foundation into a reactionary cultural force. Practice relentless institutional conquest — from the inside out.

And control of what is considered sexually fashionable is not just about control of female sexuality. That is just a means to an end. It is about the continuation of white civilization. It is about not having to bow to beings that are your moral inferiors. It is about the dignity of white men and the freedom to live without groveling to an affirmative action board of parasites for the right to earn a living to support your family. Indeed, it is about the right of whites to even have families. And it is about women not being pressured to "experiment" with their sexuality as a condition of life in Weimerica. It is about free speech and freedom of association. It is not just about freedom from technologically-induced moral decay, but from the leftists who celebrate it, push it forward, exacerbate its effects, and block the path to going back to traditional values. It's about not having a public school threaten to take away custody of your 11 year old son when you oppose their attempt to castrate him and turn him into a "womyn." In short, it is about freedom in the most basic sense from utter totalitarian slavery.

Yes, we want to use authoritarian methods. But consider that authoritarianism is far less evil than totalitarianism. Order is a precondition for liberty. They are not opposites. It is often said that "he who would give up liberty for security deserves neither," but this is a false dichotomy. Franklin never actually said it this way, and the quote makes no sense. Order is a precondition for liberty. The alternative in anarcho tyranny. Without freedom from the private tyranny and crime of others one cannot be free. Oder is the first precondition of liberty.

The left has violated the Separation of Church and State. That means that we are now less free than before the abolishment of the official church in America. This represents the first shot fired in a civil war that was in recess for over two hundred years. Our taxes are higher than before the revolution. We face more censorship than we did back then. Imagine writing the human biodiversity equivalent of Common Sense today and handing it out on street corners. The mob itself would kill you; if you didn't lose your job first and become permanently unemployable. Moreover, Common Sense made the argument that taxes would go down in a republic! Ha ha.

The modern totalitarian state exerts a level of power over the individual that no central authority could ever have dreamed of. No king would have dared to indoctrinate your children to castrate themselves, practice lesbianism, get abortions, and participate is mob riots. But the current regime does. Differentiating between public and private is spurious. Power is power. That foundations fund indoctrination into sexual perversion, abortion, and riots, has nothing to do with their public or private status. What the state allows the state supports. If a gang or private entity is allowed to terrorize you then the formal government wanted it to.

A King is a feature and not a bug precisely because he suppresses competing power centers. Would King William IV execute George Soros on the scaffold? Of course. And that is a good thing. That's the point.

The only path toward liberty is through authority. Order creates freedom; in human sexuality, in pleasure, in political liberty, in safety. The freedom that true libertarians desire lies naturally on the other side of order. A robbery is still a violation of your rights. A mob is still a threat to ones liberty. All competing power centers must be destroyed for libertarian freedom to prevail. Libertarianism is a thing defined by it's absence; by the total absence of force in violation of the non aggression principle. This is a state of affairs that can only come about when all power vacuums have been filled by sovereignty. It is arrived at through total order, not through total anarchy.

Sovereignty is established through rules and property rights. Period. There may be a variety of systems under exitocracy. But they all impose order and sovereignty if they want to be successful.

In Summary 

Feminism seeks castration and has been driven insane by material conditions. Birth control has had a series of disastrous effects. The effects can only be controlled by rules. Rules liberate human sexuality. One woman's heaven is another woman's hell. Freedom isn't freedom sexually; it is total subservience to technology's totalitarian effects. Only once truly liberated by rules can human sexuality express itself in an uncorrupted and pure form. Only under traditional rules made by human agents can the people truly be free of technological and left-wing totalitarianism. This is not done to suppress human sexuality, oh no. It is our desire to free its expression through monogamous commitment. Rules and ritual engender the predictability needed for trust, mating, and pleasure to occur. When correctly done they reduce to a minimum the personality warping effects of adaptive preference formation. Good rules are designed with psychology in mind to maximize the eudaimonic sexual happiness of people by proscribing ritual that gives performative predictability to their sex lives. Have some rules, gain some trust, and open up the space for sexual enjoyment within conservative and traditional structures. Humans conform, an thus, they conform to the totalitarianism of technology and the degenerate leftists that exacerbate it's effects. Feminism, because it is insane, celebrates its' own enslavement to totalitarian effects.

Female sexual choice is an illusion. Women only chose what is fashionable. This is an exploit for hacking cultural control. The path to rule leads at least partially through fashionability. Reactionaries should engage in institutional conquest with particular attention paid to organs of tastemaking and the federal bureaucracy. Employment pipelines should be set up in secret to recruit on a massive scale members of the reactionary and alt-right communities into these institutions of power.

Authoritarianism is superior to totalitarianism. Private power is even more corrosive than central monarchical power. The elimination of competing private power centers is a feature and not a bug. The only path to liberty is through authority and order. For libertarianism to succeed, all power vacuums must be filled by sovereignty.




AMK




For further reading on the subject of birth control, read 



No comments:

Post a Comment