Friday, May 4, 2018

Sexcare, sexual socialism, (and a backdoor to restoring tradition?)

That Which Nobody Values

No body has an incentive to protect most modern women.

The problem of the modern era is cuckoldry on a massive scale. Men are forced to protect women they are not sleeping with. This incentivizes women to sleep with the worst dregs of society since they are sheltered from most of the consequences, or at least feel they are sheltered from consequences. It destroys male investment in society by creating legions of involuntarily celibate frustrated chumps. It allows male sexual predators to run wild and abuse women. It ruins the will to stand up to hostile foreigners. It creates legions of single mothers who hate men.

The morale of a civilization is built from the possession of women by men. If men feel the women of their own race belong to them they will fight for their society. If not, then they won't. There is a reason interracial relationships always show a Black man sleeping with a white women, or a white man sleeping with an asian women. The target of these portrayals is white men and asian men respectively. The purpose is to use Black men to emasculate white men, and use white men to emasculate asian men. Everyone knows this, especially the liberals who say "we're not your women." Like everything liberals do in pop culture it is designed to ritually humiliate the conservative/racist/white male because he poses a threat, and like it or not, all men of all races feel ownership over the women of their own race.

Making men protect women they are not sleeping with ruins society by forcing men to be cuckolds, and this is deliberate.

A lot of popular desires are actually wise. A living wage would push women out of the workplace as men tend to have higher earning potential than women. If you are forced to pay more then you are disincentivized from hiring anyone who is a waste of money, or who's level of production falls below what their wage costs + a profit margin. In other words, you are incentivized to hire white and asian men over groups, and hire men over women. This is good for both traditional values and reducing immigration. Conservatives, by opposing such measures, stifle a return to the nuclear family without realizing it, and keep women in the workplace. They think only of the primary consequences to the economy, and ignore the secondary and tertiary knock-on effects. Politics isn't just about economics. It is about how politics influences economics, which influences politics, which influences economics, which influences politics. Like Chess, it is about thinking several moves ahead.

If you can't directly create incentives for a traditional society, then how do you create the incentives, that create other incentives, that brings about traditional incentives? How do you change society's circumstances so that it becomes possible to engineer those incentives? Think recursively several moves ahead: what moves will get you to that final level?

A lot of conservatism inadvertently hamstrings a return to traditional values. Opposing a communist revolution has the accidental consequence of inhibiting a return to traditional monarchy, since the inevitable outcome of a revolution is either a monarchy (like North Korea or Cuba) or a fascist regime, (like China, Russia, Vietnam). There is no essential difference between a feudal monarchy and a communist dictatorship. In both systems an all powerful government owns all the land, controls all speech, and dictates all ideology. If Dubai is less oppressive than North Korea it is because it is a capitalist monarchy and not a feudal one.

Nothing is more right-wing than a king, and so the American right wing prevents society from racing around the horseshoe to the other side by inhibiting revolution. The outcome of communist revolution is always fascist government.

The mirror of this is leftists who oppose capitalism even though it is the true revolutionary force acting of society.

Now generally speaking, men want sex, and women want resources (resources = care, protection, money). Let us imagine this situation is a prisoner's dilemma, and there are three basic categories of sexual relationships between men and women;

  • Prostitution
  • Feminism
  • Marriage

Prostitution is a situation where women uphold their end of the bargain — sex — while men defect against them, by refusing to provide fatherly care to their children, love, and protection from other men. A minimum of cash resources is provided, and nothing more.

Feminism is a situation where men uphold their end of the bargain — resources — while women defect against them. It is cuckoldry writ large. Men pay taxes to support other men's children, pay child support, pay alimony, are tone policed in the workplace, and have to provide protection to sluts, female employees, etc.

Marriage (properly constituted) is a situation where both uphold their end of the bargain. Men provide resources, care, and protection while women provide sex and care. Contrary to what feminism asserts, marriage is not prostitution, but a good bargain for both sexes.

Our society is feminist, which means that women are defecting against men. The proper action to take in a tit for tat strategy is to defect against women. The way to do this is prostitution writ large, by turning all women into sex workers, and then use that position of strength to bargain them down to traditional marriage. Let me explain.

You give men "relationship vouchers." If you receive vouchers you cannot redeem them. If you redeem vouchers you cannot receive them. Most men will opt to receive vouchers and most women to redeem them (gays and lesbians being the general exception).

This pays, oh say $150 for a sexual relationship with a women. A woman can collect a maximum of 10 vouchers per month, ($1500). She is expected to provide not just sex but care. If she redeems vouchers from more than one man in a month she has to get regular STD tests because she is a sex worker. If she refuses to provide sex for a man and takes his voucher anyway she loses her right to redeem vouchers for ever. A voucher proves consent. In fact, a voucher has a "I certify under penalty of perjury than I consent to sex with the aforenamed," line on it. Any sex without a voucher is subject to feminist levels of scrutiny about consent. Basically, voucher sex is the only safe way to avoid prison.

This creates a moral climate where prostitution is everywhere and totally normal. Yes, some women might abstain, but every women is surrounded by women collecting vouchers from men. You may be repulsed by the idea of mass prostitution, but a society where all men have a minimum level of financial resources to offer women is a society where people treat each other more fairly. Read the following below to understand why.

The point is to create a more even distribution of sex in society so as to get men invested once more. The point is sexual socialism. The point is to create counter-leverage against feminism so women stop defecting against men, and the point is that once women's status is lowered by turning them all into whores white-knighting will vanish. Last but not least, the point is formalism. Modern women are whores — and vouchers formalize this fact. Beta males tend to worship vajayjay. Once even the ugliest man is getting laid every week his self-esteem will rise. And what could be a more popular campaign promise than "vote for me and I will get you laid!" ?

Indeed, the redistribution of sex is the ultimate culmination of the art of democracy.

If you can get 200 million men pussy you can form an army to overthrow the government. You have just bought yourself a thousand years of regime loyalty.

Bioleninism is the act of forming a political coalition on the basis of low quality genetics. Let us review what bioleninism is according to its inventor, Spandrell, in his orginal Bloody Shovel post. (The underlining here is mine).

"Say what you will about the Soviet Union: the Communist Party was loyal. They got things done. Every crazy and stupid thing that the Politburo approved got done. Yes, it took a while to achieve that result. Stalin had to kill a lot of people. But it wasn’t through sheer terror and cruelty that the Communist Party worked. The Communist Party had a system. Which worked. It still works today in China. You might have noticed how people in the West today talk about China in these same terms. China gets things done, it does them fast and cheap. China got the world’s biggest high-speed rail system in the time that it takes to dig a tunnel in Boston. And for not that much more money. That’s not a coincidence. That’s Leninism at work.

"Any country has a ruling class. What I call “loyalty” you could also call asabiyyah; the coherence of the ruling class as such. Their ability to stick with each other and gang up, keeping the structure of rule stable. Feudalism got that; the nobility was the ruling class, they formed a society very much separate from that of the peasants, and they took much care that their rule was never contested. The destruction of that world by enlightened liberals resulted in a ruling class which was orders of magnitude less cohesive and orderly. You might be a libertarian and think that is a good thing, and you may have a point. But any organization wants to fight entropy and ensure its stability and reproduction. Liberalism historically has shown itself incapable of that. Leninism was the first solution to that problem.

"Leninism is, of course, applied socialism. Socialism was huge before Leninism was even a thing, and that Marxism was and is still popular is not due only to Soviet patronage. Socialism works by hacking the Social Calculus Module that humans have in our brains. Remember, humans care deeply about status. Status is what drives human behavior. Everybody works to achieve more status, and to avoid losing status. Socialism of course sells egalitarianism. It tells people with low status that they can get some more. The Industrial Revolution had forced millions of peasants into the cities, and they all felt they had lost status in the process. Economists will tell you that the standard of living of industrial workers (according to some measures) had actually improved. And that may be so, but the workers didn’t think so, and they were pissed.

"So these socialists come by and tell them they have this plan to make them gain status, big time. That was huge. Yes, sure, Christianity had also started promising the meek that they were morally higher than rich people; they’d all go to heaven unlike those perfid rich guys. But that didn’t translate into actual, real-world status. Socialism was promising actual goods. And so it became huge. It’s still huge. It’s pretty much catnip for humans. It’s instant check-mate.

"Socialism works not only because it promises higher status to a lot of people. Socialism is catnip because it promises status to people who, deep down, know they shouldn’t have it. There is such a thing as natural law, the natural state of any normally functioning human society. Basic biology tells us people are different. Some are more intelligent, more attractive, more crafty and popular. Everybody knows, deep in their lizard brains, how human mating works: women are attracted to the top dogs. Being generous, all human societies default to a Pareto distribution where 20% of people are high-status, and everyone else just has to put up with their inferiority for life. That’s just how it works.

"Socialism though promised to change that, and Marx showed they had a good plan. Lenin then put that plan to work in practice. What did Lenin do? Exterminate the natural aristocracy of Russia, and build a ruling class with a bunch of low-status people. Workers, peasants, Jews, Latvians, Ukrainians. Lenin went out of his way to recruit everyone who had a grudge against Imperial Russian society. And it worked, brilliantly. The Bolsheviks, a small party with little popular support, won the civil war, and became the awesome Soviet Union. The early Soviet Union promoted minorities, women, sexual deviants, atheists, cultists and every kind of weirdo. Everybody but intelligent, conservative Russians of good families. The same happened in China, where e.g. the 5 provinces which formed the southern Mongolian steppe were joined up into “Inner Mongolia autonomous region”, what Sailer calls “consolidate and surrender”.

"In Communist countries pedigree was very important. You couldn’t get far in the party if you had any little kulak, noble or landowner ancestry. Only peasants and workers were trusted. Why? Because only peasants and workers could be trusted to be loyal. Rich people, or people with the inborn traits which lead to being rich, will always have status in any natural society. They will always do alright. That’s why they can’t be trusted; the stakes are never high for them. If anything they’d rather have more freedom to realize their talents. People of peasant stock though, they came from the dregs of society. They know very well that all they have was given to them by the party. And so they will be loyal to the death, because they know it, if the Communist regime falls, their status will fall as fast as a hammer in a well. And the same goes for everyone else, especially those ethnic minorities.

"Ethnics were tricky though, because they always had a gambit which could increase their status even further: independence. Which is why both Russia and China soon after consolidating the regime started to crack down on ethnics. Stalin famously purged Jews from the Politburo, used WW2 to restore most of the Tsar’s territory, and run such a Russia-centered state that to this day people in Kyrgyzstan speak Russian. The same in China, a little known fact of the Cultural Revolution was the huge, bloody purge in Mongolia and the destruction of many temples in Tibet. After that was done with, the Communist party became this strong, stable and smooth machine. The Soviet economy of course worked like shit, and that eventually resulted in the collapse of the system. But as China has shown, central planning is orthogonal to Leninist politics. China, of course, had to know. It had been running a centralized bureaucracy for thousands of years. Leninism was just completing the system.

"So again, the genius of Leninism was in building a ruling class from scratch and making it cohesive by explicitly choosing people from low-status groups, ensuring they would be loyal to the party given they had much to lose. It worked so well it was the marvel of the intellectual classes of the whole world for a hundred years

"Meanwhile, what was the West doing? The West, that diehard enemy of worldwide Communism, led by the United States. What has been the American response to Leninism? Look around you. Read Vox. Put on TV. Ok, that’s enough. Who is high status in the West today? Women. Homosexuals. Transexuals. Muslims. Blacks. There’s even movements propping up disabled and fat people. What Progressivism is running is hyper Leninism. Biological Leninism."

How can we reverse engineer this? How can we create a system of biological conservatism? How can we create a system which commands total loyalty without dysgenics? How can we make it eugenic instead? All anyone care about is status, no? Actually, they care about sex a great deal more, since status is the vehicle humans use in order to get to sex.

Prositutional-traditionalism (not a joke) is the act of forming a political coalition out of average frustrated chumps (AFCs), by using sex as a literal weapon to command the electorate.

Nationwide voucher prostitution gives you leverage, and once you have that you negotiate for mandatory marriage. The system of mass prostitution is redesigned so that having one consistent partner pays more than having 10. A single woman with 10 boys gets like 150 each ($1,500 per month) while a married women gets like $2,500 per month for having sex only with one husband. If this bankrupts the government so what. You wanted to get rid of democracy anyway, right? Moreover you use the feminist greed for money to compel them to accept marriage. No doubt once the program gets started there will be constant attempts to increase the amount it pays. You refuse to pay more unless conditions are attached, (only one partner, child support must be abolished, no more community property, sex required, etc.) Your coalition is counting on you to produce a deal that is good for men. Unlike men in the past who were playing a game of defense, ("please don't take my money!") these men are playing a game of offence, ("we control the cash and will decide what we do with it"). It is the deference between extortion and bribery, between slavery to feminism and employment of prostitutes. You are essentially employing an army of whores to literally ride your voters, and you will damn well decide who get ridden, and why, and how much. You're the Pimpboss, and you call the shots.

And what could ruin respect for democracy more than universal prostitution?

The system begins as a bribe and ends as extortion. First you allow feminists to destroy the taboo surrounding sex work. They demand the legalization of prostitution and you "reluctantly" accommodate them; you make a big show of resisting the degeneracy. Later, you have a "change of heart" — embrace sex work as "empowering for women," and propose to fund it.

Now Spandrell doesn't believe you can build an organization out of white men, because they are not loyal enough. To quote;

"The point again is, that you can’t run a tight, cohesive ruling class with white men. They don’t need to be loyal. They’ll do ok anyway. A much easier way to run an obedient, loyal party is to recruit everyone else. Women. Blacks. Gays. Muslims. Transexuals. Pedophiles. Those people may be very high performers individually, but in a natural society ruled by its core of high performers, i.e. a white patriarchy, they wouldn’t have very high status. So if you promise them high status for being loyal to you; you bet they’re gonna join your team. They have much to gain, little to lose. The Coalition of the Fringes, Sailer calls it. It’s worse than that really. It’s the coalition of everyone who would lose status the better society were run. It’s the coalition of the bad. Literal Kakistocracy."

Unless you only give vouchers to the people who vote for you. You actually can command the loyalties of white men, especially now that they have been marginalized by leftist power. You can command anyone through their loins, and there are literally millions of men out there that are sexually marginalized by feminism, leftism, and the lack of traditional values. Western civilization was built on sexual socialism (mandatory marriage). It is how the kings of Israel inspired their soldiers to fight with passion.. While the Babylonian kings were monopolizing harem's of thousands of women, the Israeli kings were forbidden to look upon another man's wife.

7 Then Nathan said to David, “You are the man! This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. 9 Why did you despise the word of the Lord by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. 10 Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.’
— 2 Samuel 12

The equal distribution of sex is the basis of all other Western traditional values. Complaints about democracy hinge on it being excessively prone to equality, but this equality in in status only, while the sexual marketplace is more unequal than ever. In the 1950's 30 % of men owned 70 % of the wealth, while today .01 % of men own 99.99 % of the wealth. Unsurprisingly, this has coincided with a rise in the sexual power of women.

Now an equal society is one where 50% of the men own 50% of the wealth. It is interesting that the society of today (2018) is farther from perfect equality than the monarchies of Europe were in 1770. (Source). It is also interesting that less time has passed between 1950 and today (68 years) than between 1950 and 1770 (180 years). The substantive event during that time was the sexual revolution.

Do it for the Children

When push comes to shove think of the children. With a little artful branding it can be called "child support vouchers," and be used to replace actual child support. Moreover, it would be discriminatory to limit child support vouchers to only those people with children. Merely wanting to have children should suffice as a prerequisite, unless some "principled conservative" get in the way. The rules are deliberately lax. It is called a child support voucher but it behaves like a relationship voucher; one does not actually need children to qualify to get or redeem them. "For the children" is always the back door to sexual revolution anyway.

Government programs always expand.

Then you ratchet incentives to your destination. . .

No comments:

Post a Comment

All spam will be deleted