The socialism of sex

When one examines sexuality relative to economics, a comparison immediately becomes apparent; female sexuality is similar to capitalism while male sexuality is akin to communism. Let me explain.

Male sexuality is communist and egalitarian because, "everyone gets a dick." And like communists, men are violent, overly preoccupied with politics, and secretly obsessed with the "unequal distribution of pussy." They like to debate, eagerly use force against one another, are obsessed with the winners who take all, use insults to cut each other down, and ruthlessly steal women (resources) from each other. Like communism, male sexuality cannot produce anything directly, and its whole doctrine is parasitical.

Female sexuality, like capitalism, is seductive, relies on advertising, produces a winner-take-all distribution, has a high payoff, requires work on the part of the customer (men), and inspires a religious devotion in the ones consuming it. It is commodified, it is an asset that can be used to produce income through prostitution or marriage, it is fought over, and it is regarded as a form of wealth to have. Through birth, female sexuality produces more people, and thus, it is both an asset and means of (reproduction).

Because men are drawn to women, men are far more drawn to capitalism than women are. And because women are drawn to men, they are far more drawn to communism than men are. Men and women differ in their politics because they differ in the sexualities. Their politics point in opposite directions because their sexualities point to each other.

The most masculine man is sexually communist, spreading his resources (sperm) to as many women as possible, while the most feminine women is the most capitalist, reserving her eggs only for the most successful male.

Women inflict sexual capitalism on men, producing toxic masculinity directly in proportion to the level of rejection a man faces. The more rejected a man, the more toxic he becomes (relative to his believed entitlement to sex). Men give sexual socialism to women, producing an easy life for the slut. Weirdly, women expect the economy to work like their sex lives, with abundant resources (dick) everywhere. Men expect the economy to work like their sex lives, with a scarcity of both pussy and money. Men are thus better prepared for earning money because their sex lives are harsher than their working lives, and making money is easier than getting laid. Women have easier sex lives than working lives, and are conditioned to hate capitalism as a result.

The economy is capitalist because male sexuality is socialist; if abundance were ever produced the widespread availability of dick would produce so many babies that the population would rise to consume the abundance. The economy is also capitalist because female sexuality is capitalist; the hypergamy of women guarantees the winner-take-all distribution that reinforces the ruthless pursuit of resources by men. As women favor men with wealth, power, and success, so does the economy, and the more feminine the sex lives of a people the more capitalist their economy will be. Last but not least, the economy is capitalist since humans face selection at the individual, rather than the hive, level — we are social animals — not eusocial animals. The economy is also capitalist because ruthless competition out-competes non-competition.

Male sexuality is the basis of government because government is based on the theft and domination of an economy by cooperative parasitism. Government, (with the exception of anarcho capitalism) is always more communistic/collectivist than capitalism. The Y chromosome piggybacks on the X for survival, as the government rides the backs of the people for power.

Capitalism is a system for rationing entropy using certificates (money). The more certificates/money you have the less entropy. Everyone hates capitalism. Misogyny exists because the expression of capitalism in a man's life comes most prominently through the capitalism of female sexuality. Women hate capitalism directly, which is to say that women hate female sexuality indirectly by hating capitalism directly. Since female sexuality is the source of capitalism women intuitively grasp this fact and hate each other.

Misogynists hate female sexuality directly. Capitalism/female sexuality gets blamed for the entropy of nature that it had no part in creating, because it is the surface manifestation of that entropy, and people only see the surface. Eggs are more expensive than sperm, thus eggs are scarce, thus female sexuality delivers the entropy of nature more than male sexuality, thus female sexuality/capitalism gets blamed rather than male sexuality, thus misogyny and communist sentiment.

The sexual dynamic of female sex selection produces an exponential curve where a tiny number of men get a lot of sex. But this effect is inherited from the past, and much of male sexual success in the past was linked to coercion. There are two types of men; those that can get them but not keep them, and those that can keep them but not get them. We call the first type "alphas," and the second type "betas." The first type (alphas) ruthlessly attacks the self-esteem of the second (betas) because the first type has very little to offer women, and is more trouble than it is worth. The second type only has low self-esteem because of the first type. Everyone, women, alphas, and betas, knows alphas are shit, that they are bad for civilization, and that they are impossible for women to live with. But the confidence trick works, and so alphas persist.

Civilization as a process is akin to a conspiracy between women and alphas to gaslight betas into thinking alphas are more desirable, but it isn't really a conspiracy because women don't have enough agency to conspire with anything. The alpha male pulls a con job on the whole civilization; convincing both women and beta males that he is the best, and then offloading single mothers onto beta males. But the betas are still reproductively more successful, since they are objectively better at caring for children, and so they dominate numerically if not psychologically.

The genes for rape are undoubtedly also the genes for male aggression, male violence, and male dominance, and these genes are being shredded by abortion.

One has to understand that there are four categories of preference expressed across two types of people.

Four categories;

Stated sexual preference (who cares?)
Revealed Sexual preference (Chads)
Stated reproductive preference (Chads)
Revealed reproductive preference (Betas)

Two types;

Alphas
Betas

Whereas in the past, a rapist could be reproductively successful, today this is unlikely. As the genes for male dominance are exterminated at the world's clinics we shift to a more equal distribution of sexual resources, to a more "beta" world, to a less violent world, and to less war-like world. Revealed preference is for beta males, even if everyone thinks the reverse, because it is revealed reproductive preference. It is not the children of beta males being flushed out between the stirrups of the OB/GYN chair. The vast majority of alphas males are only sexually successful, but reproductive failures. You can thank abortion, condoms, and birth control for that. As Steven Pinker tells us, the world is less violent than ever. This is one of those nasty little facts that reactionaries need to incorporate into their genetic model. Yes, OK asshole, you get a lot of pussy. We got that. But who is having children? Not your average Chad.

The Corollary to Gresham's Law: bad religion drives out good religion

Conventionally, when one looks at the world he sees only a handful of major religions. But let us expand the definition of "religion" to include any comprehensive system of thought that is not based in scientific evidence, but instead centers around the desire of individuals for meaning, pattern recognition, symbols, and the motivated cognition they engage in to make sense of their world. In this view religion is any comprehensive meaning-based system of viewing the world, and includes secular ideologies such as social justice, Marxism, feminism, environmentalism, etc., and all other forms of faith in transcendental ideals, whether political or god-based, whether a meditative or activist strain. Everything that isn't business, engineering, or hard science is religion.

Now imagine that there are at least one million "religions" of inner peace on Earth, but each of these "religions" usually has only one adherent, so that while there are many ways to develop a sense of tranquility and peace, each person who stumbles upon such a way is usually the only person who has that particular belief system. In fact, in such a vast number of religious/ideological modes of though, a near-infinite diversity is entertained, so that there are as many unique ways to have inner peace as their are individuals, such that each and every one of the "Ideologies of Inner Peace" is completely unique to the individual who has it. There are one million versions, no two are alike, and each has only one believer — the one who invented it.

Furthermore, no individual with an ideology/religion of inner peace will teach you what they know, because why would they? When one has ascended he doesn't care. He has peace. Why would he crusade to change the world? Why would he or she "preach the gospel?" "Educate the masses?" "Stamp out racism?" "Improve the world (tikkun olam)?" or "overcome evil?"

He has inner peace. By definition such a person doesn't need to do much of anything.

If you have inner peace you just don't care. The world is suffering? So what!

But bad religion drives out good religion.

Now let us imagine that there are about 6 or 7 Religions of Pain, and each of them has about a billion or so adherents. All religions of pain are virtually identical since they all follow roughly the same pattern, and that pattern is derived from the properties of how information naturally evolves.

That pattern is there (a), must be something wrong with the world, and (b) we must do something about it, which (c), ever so conveniently involves "spreading the gospel," "educating the masses," "checking White privilege," "serving the disadvantaged," etc. All of these supposed solutions will of course have one thing in common; they require the spread of ideas. Whether it is saving the world, eliminating White privilege, (or for that matter eliminating White people), everything — absolutely every Religion of Pain will require that the action of salvation involves the action of transmission. You know, like disease transmission. The characteristic of every Religion of Pain will be a method of transmission to the brains/minds of other human beings. The virus wants to get out. The ideology will be structured to jump from one mind to the next. It must be structured that way or it never would have spread in the first place.

Structurally, all Religions of Pain will have certain things in common;

There will be something wrong with the world.

The something will require the spread of the ideology.

The ideology will propagate, like a virus.

The ideology will undergo change, in a process analogous to mutation.

The changes that make the ideology more virulent will get it transmitted to more human minds.

The pattern is this;

• There is something wrong with the world, something painful.
• We must do something about it.
• Doing something coincidentally requires spreading the religion, through proselytizing, preaching, or "education."

Now not everyone has enough fervor to educate preach. But some do, and it is enough to make the religion spread, like a virus. The religion undergoes change in its doctrine. Generally speaking, all doctrinal changes make it more virulent, or even more violent.

To a person with a Religion of Pain, all people with inner peace look vile and immoral. Because a person with inner peace doesn't give a shit about virtue, racism, injustice, White privilege, original sin, idolatry, heresy, or whatever. Such a person will be classed as a kafir, shirk, infidel, heretic, atheist, or racist, if the truth ever gets out that they are indifferent. They don't give a shit; they have inner peace. Duh.

Thus, it is the destiny of those who suffer from Religions of Pain to chase down, (really hunt down) every person with a modicum of inner peace on this planet, and even to — get this — consider themselves virtuous for doing so! One wonders if these people are really even human — these demons of virtue. Every righteous person pointing and screaming "racist!" is more or less a meat robot that follows the programming given to them by a kind of mind virus.

The Religion of Pain demands that everyone agree. If even one person is not converted or educated, does not submit to Allah, kneel before Christ, check their privilege, or whatever, then we are all oppressed, enslaved, injured, dinged, offended, victimized, etc.

"If we don't all agree then none of us can be free!" 

"If there is just ONE RACIST in the world then we are ALL OPPRESSED!"

The defining nature of the Religion of Pain is that is can never just leave you alone.

Of course the newer a religion is the worse it it will be. The oldest religions, (Hinduism and Buddhism) are the least virulent and best. The newest religions, (Islam, Communism, Social Justice, Feminism, Environmentalism, and Scientology) are the most virulent and worst. Religion gets progressively worse over time, as selection effects select purely for virulence. On an even playing field, bad religion will get worse, spread everywhere, and dominate. Ideas change just like DNA mutates. Changes that make an idea more virulent stick, while changes that make it less virulent are discarded. This is why communism is the grandchild of Christianity, why the natural outcome of puritan Christianity is social justice, and why the average crusader for social justice, tolerance, or whatever, can legitimately claim that they are more Christian than you, more holy than you, and that Jesus was a socialist. Because they are peddling a more virulent version of your own virus. If Christianity is monkey AIDS, progressive leftism is super-AIDS. If Christianity will make your dick itch, leftism will make it fall off. Leftism is gona-herpa-syphil-AIDS.

Bad religion drives out good religion.

Corollary: anything that can drive out an old religion, is also a religion, and worse than what it drove out. Civilization gets crazier; not saner. "New atheism" is progressive religion repackaged, and is worse than Christianity.

Furthermore, religion is a kind of ecology, so that the nicer religions inhibit the spread of the more virulent ones simply by existing. If social justice is MRSA then Christianity is like a probiotic. It's very existence inhibits the growth of worse organisms.

Corollary: if you cure everyone of religion you will bring about the apocalypse, because virulent religions are not susceptible to the anti-religious equivalent of antibiotics. Trying to abolish religions like Christianity or Buddhism simply clears the field for more virulent religions like Communism, Islam, or Social Justice.

And the average leftist knows this.

As a side note, people only need religion because of the genetic legacy of the ancestral environment. Religion allows for tribal signaling of loyalty to your people. Humans evolved in small bands of hunter-gatherers and behave compulsively like tribal communists, carrying the genetic lacy of those impulses over into modern secular democracies. Every heated debate you have in a coffee shop or bar hearken back to a time when people sitting around a campfire would decide the organization of their entire society through vigorous debate. Debate is not a sign of intellectual superiority but of atavistic tendencies. Capitalism moves humans steadily away from debate and towards systems based in choice. Debate implies that the loser of the argument will be coerced to live under the winners rules, but the choice-based nature of capitalism replaces this with a menu of lifestyles. Thinks like democracy and majoritarian politics are in the past; they are literally a part of our genetic legacy code; a code which is being slowly annihilated by evolution under capitalism. Men — and I do mean males — may enjoy debate, but that is only because they are good at it, and they are only good at it because losing a debate in a tribal society might have gotten one killed.

Now there are various ways to control a mimetic ecology:

1. Official state religion
2. Licencing the ideological teacher
3. Reproductive-ideological licencing
4. Legal liability of ideology teachers

Methods that do not work:

5. Separation of church and state

1 and 2 need no introduction. Let us talk about 3 and 4.

Reproductive-ideological licencing

Is where you licence the ability of people to reproduce based on their conduct. Groups are licenced based on their faith and ethnicity. There are no groups considered without faith. Even atheism is legally a faith. When a group commits a terrorist attack the societal cost is internalized as higher reproductive licencing costs. Say the estimated cost of the 911 terrorist attack was 100 million dollars, and their are 3.3 million Muslims in the US. Then the cost of a reproduction licence for a Muslim would work out to 100 million / 3.3 million, or $30,303 per couple, per child.

Positive behaviors like charity would be calculated to offset some of these costs.

This method has the benefit of selecting against susceptibility to ideological madness over time, so that the species gets genetically saner.

Legal liability

One can simply make the teacher of ideology liable for the cost to society of the actions of his or her student. For example: if you promote transgender ideology and it can be proven that you caused or contributed to x number of mental breakdowns, then you must pay the cost incurred for treating those people. The law in this case is defined statistically. Proof of one particular act of mental harm is not required, only a statistically significant correlation. This method has the benefit of being doable within democracy.

Some thoughts on various subjects

I

White men are in fact the least oppressive group of people on the Earth, and the idea that we oppress others is not just a lie, but a precise inversion of reality. Wherever a typical White man goes he creates a bubble of freedom — a vacuum in the landscape of oppression. Everyone else — women, minorities, etc., tries to flow into that vacuum. That is why;

• Women prefer male bosses (but not in other parts of the world like the Middle East)
• "White flight" is supposed to be bad
• Exit is condemned
• Why immigration is mandatory, but only for us
• Secession is considered racist
• Bitcoin is hated
• White men are indoctrinated to hate themselves
• All-male spaces are attacked
• "There is never enough women and minorities in ____ industry"
• They try to take over White businesses and institutions rather than building their own
• Diversity means chasing down the last White person

Of course, since these other groups cannot create the absence of oppression on their own as soon as they reach a critical mass in any system it collapses. Furthermore, the same mind that is too corrupt to tolerate freedom is too corrupt to recognize that women and minorities — and NOT White men, are the root of oppression. Their envy males them invert reality in their own minds.

II

"They put their values above truth, but so did everyone who gave them their values"

Society is pervasively corrupt because people put morals above truth. The trouble with putting morality first is that it assumes society's morals are not corrupt, but society is composed of people who have always placed morality above truth. Thus, the morals are based on an inaccurate understanding of reality. And since people are dedicated to morals rather than truth, the misunderstanding can widen over time. Truth in this definition only means "the accurate understanding of factual reality," and nothing more. Essentially the problem is recursive; every person is striving to demonstrate how virtuous they are by internalizing society's morals, but the morals themselves were produced by people who cared more about conforming to morality than achieving a factual understanding of the world. Thus, obvious lies like human equality can get programmed into the moral code. The moral code is celebrated above everything else, including the truth, which leads to pervasive corruption. Corruption then actually arises out of society's morals, and not because of their absence.

• The pursuit of morality leads to corruption.
• The pursuit of truth leads to morality.

Society is corrupt because is pursues the former at the expense of the factual understanding of reality.

III

Virulence vs Fecundity

The reproduction rate (fecundity) of a group follows a bell curve, while the virulence of an ideology follows a linear curve. Left-wing groups superficially have high virulence, but their spread is only mimetic, since their birth rates are so low. Thus, they "hack" the part of the human brain that confuses conversion with reproduction. On the other side of things are groups with both low birth rates and low ideological virulence, and in the middle are the groups with medium virulence and high fecundity. These are the groups that stand the test of time. For example: it is easy to envision the Mormons lasting a thousand years, but impossible to imagine that gender theory will still have power in a century. Memes are like parasites; some spread at the expense of their host, (the ones on the far right side of the graph), while others are more symbiotic, (the ones in the middle of the graph). Still others are ineffective, (the ones on the left side of the graph).

It is possible to move the bell curve to the right be combining a highly virulent ideology (designed to be something similar to Scientology) with a prohibition against birth control. A kind of "super-religion" could be produced which is both (a) highly virulent, and (b) highly fecund. The key is to target women's contraceptive access and limit women's education, while controlling women's socialization, and to combine this with a highly virulent ideology.

IV

Democracies always have slavery

In the beginning of the republic you have libertarian government + privately administered slavery, and at the end you have socialist government + publicly administered slavery. One class is always being enslaved for the benefit of another, whether it is Blacks for the benefit of Whites under a private system, or Whites enslaved to everyone else under publicly administered socialism.

V

As a political system consolidates, class warfare moves upward

The more decentralized the political system, the lower the level of class warfare that exists within it, and the more centralized a political system becomes, the more class warfare moves up the ranks. In the beginning there is a class war against Black people by White people. As an oligarchy forms it becomes a class war of the billionaires (globalists) against the common people. Eventually it becomes a class war of the king against the billionaires. At all times there is a state of never ending war, and as society consolidates it moves upward. Fundamentally, there is no difference between a feudal monarchy and a communist dictatorship, except that the monarchy has had time to solidify traditions.

VI

Reality cannot unify people to action; people can only 

form communities around unreal concepts.

People form belief systems on the basis of non-entities like ideology because everything that is real is in play, and therefore is part of the game. Ideologies, religions, etc., are methods of internalizing game rules. The unreal must always serve as the basis of real action because the real is a piece on the Chess board and therefore cannot serve as its rules. Facts cannot serve as a basis of unity because no part of a game can serve as its rules. The rules must be above the game. Therefore ideology.