Sunday, November 25, 2018

Sex vouchers are feminist, fam

The other day I was standing in line at Starbucks and there were two groups of women in front of me; fat ones and old ugly ones, with not a single MILF in sight. Not one of them probably went to the gym, and I thought, "these are the perfect people to be helped by sex vouchers."

Old ladies need lovin too.

When I first proposed sex vouchers (yes, I literally proposed government vouchers for prostitution), the idea was to help lonely men find girlfriends, and to create a more equitable distribution of sex. But I have since come to realize that there are a lot of women out there with a low sexual market value, and unlike men, who may count on money, charisma, or charm to seduce women, a woman is pretty much solely dependent on her looks to get by in the dating market. Most women would be ashamed to pay for sex, and what most women really want is actually more like companionship or validation than sex in the strictest sense of the word, and that means there is a yuge missed opportunity for meeting feminine needs.

One may imagine that the majority of voucher redemptions would be old ladies contracting gigolos to perform chores around the house; take out the trash, fix the roof, change the oil, help her out of the bathtub, dress her. If one is going to pay for at-home nursing care or a handy man fix-it guy one might as well hire a hot 20 something young man with washboard abs who will provide the extra something at no additional charge. Why hire a male nurse when you can hire a gigolo? Only to supplement the first one when he is not in the house.

The concept was always that one would make a yearly election to be either a voucher redeemer or voucher receiver; it is not sex dependent, and so one may imagine that a certain class of butch lesbians would always elect to play the "male" role and receive vouchers rather than redeem them. One may also imagine a similar fate for some gay men, many fat women, and many people with disabilities. Since one cannot redeem their own vouchers it doesn't matter if you change categories from year to year.

Moreover, by limiting the number of vouchers a single person can redeem a wider distribution of partners can be achieved, and by creating such an obvious and clear signal of who the "givers" and "redeemers" are people are motivated to raise their sexual market value and become redeemers. After all, there is money to be made, and nobody has any ambiguity that some fat screeching blue-haired feminist degenerate is low status. "Brah, do you even redeem?"

Furthermore, it creates a more equitable distribution of partners and their age ranges over the course of one's life. Getting old does not automatically equate to having an older sex partner, and one may imagine a situation where people have a primary partner that they age with and a secondary partner that is brought if for the occasional fling, leading to more fluid relationships.

Next, if formalization is your thing then having sex formalized like this allows it to become an employee benefit, since employers can contribute to voucher accounts, and you can attract high quality corporate talent by fucking it; "girlfriends for programmers," and so forth, and you can offer vouchers as a production bonus for sales teams that meet their quotas.

Also, instead of monkeying around with giving high status to degenerates, aka., "bioleninism," you can just fuck your coalition of voters in exchange for their votes, meaning no more need for immigration to win elections, since you've got your voters by the balls. Literally.

Saturday, November 24, 2018

Of fuck monsters and killbots

The whole reason an organism develops self-awareness is so that it can more effectively deceive other organisms within its species. In fact, self-awareness is never complete or whole in its construction: a person is never aware of their own self-deceptions, or if they are, their attention span avoids focusing on the area where they are lying to themselves. Superficially they may have moments where they say things like, "oh yes, I'm aware that what I really desire is X, even though I say I desire Y," but this never sinks in. It is never felt emotionally. A man may know that he hates women because he hates his abusive mother, but he rarely feels this fact. A woman may know that she is shrill and abusive because her mother was shrill and abusive, but she does not feel the connection.

What I am driving at is that while humans are self-aware animals their self-awareness does not extend to their own self-deception, which they habitually cover up and bury and pretend doesn't exist.

When we look at a puritan we see someone who appears to be very concerned with their own righteous indignation. This is the self-deception part. When we look at history we see that the philosophies spawned by these shrill, hysterical, virtue signaling, moralizing people have a habit of getting everyone killed, burned at the stake, or sent to the gulag. What I want to assert is that this is the whole point. The whole purpose of virtue signaling is genocide and the social justice warrior, puritan, or whatever you want to call it, is practicing a reproductive strategy of getting other people killed.

Nature doesn't care if you have hundreds of children or murder millions of enemies. If the prevalence of your genes in the population is increased then the great god Darwin has been served either way. In other words, the moral obsession of a certain phenotype of white people is actually a genetic conquest strategy in disguise. Kill your political enemies and you clear the field for more of your own genes to spread. This is the true origin of progressive intellectual hysteria, and considering that America is the most violent and dominant world empire to ever exist, and considering that whites have conquered the world many times over, it appears to have worked.

People are constantly putting the moral cart before the horse, and that is the whole point. That is, they are always serving their ideology rather than their genes more directly. Ideological wars are genetic proxy wars in disguise. They serve the idea because the idea serves their (perceived) genetic interest. Of course liberalism does not actually serve the genetic interests of liberals anymore, not unless auto-genocide is a strategy employed to self-select mutants out of the gene pool. Abortion, immigration, communist mass murder, hormone replacement therapy, homosexuality, and atheism all follow the pattern of terminating or reducing the genes of the people who employ them. That might be the point: maybe centuries of Darwinian relaxation have triggered an auto-genocide mechanism in the human species, and maybe white people are afflicted first because they developed medical technology first. Maybe the death drive is there to purge the species of mutations, and maybe what we are witnessing is a large section of our people committing mass suicide, in a kind of mass manifestation of the death drive. "Please replace me with immigrants daddy."

Or maybe a kind of mental obesity has developed where people, being far divorced from murderous threats, are now free to mutate their ideology in ways that are contra-survival.

In a healthy meatbot, the moral logic is the ideology that furthers genetic expansion. Genes only recognize one logic, "more of us and less of them." If every progressive thinks only in terms of zero-sum power games and finds it impossible to realize that economics can be positive-sum, it is only because genetics is always zero-sum, at least from the point of view of the genes. "Let's get rich together" is just interpreted by genes as "this generation I will be defeated because my offspring will be no more numerous than yours." If some libertarian says, "non-aggression principle," the genes simply hear, "this sneaky fucker thinks he can pull one over on me by limiting conflict to a non-violent struggle."

None of this will be rationally understood by anyone. What I am driving at is that surface cognition — that thing we all do when we think and talk to each other, is this self-deceptive proxy for something else that is driving the whole process. The real AI behind the eyes of every human is the gene maximizer AI, and like a demon it is what really runs the show. "Self-awareness" is this sub-module of cognition that serves its master with utter loyalty, while thinking itself independent, and mediates with all these other foreign intelligences to get what the prime AI, the base AI, the "Freudian Id," of the self really desires. The real human is actually the demon, and the surface consciousness is the puppet. The "self" that is experienced as real is really just a puppet self, and a puppet to something other than self. When we become truly self-aware we see that something else is running us from behind the scenes; that we are demonically possessed by a fuck monster, by a killbot, and that what we really desire is to grind our bodies in great piles of sexual ecstasy, and kill our enemies by the millions. Revolution and pussy, babe.

Ideologies are built in waves of larger and larger structure. Large ideological systems are built in order to deal with larger and larger enemies. First one adopts a tribal god. This allows one to survive murderous threats from other tribes. Then one bands together with other tribes and "polytheism" develops. Then develops monotheism, where god is standardized as a single mono entity. Then one sheds god and adopts a secular ideology like communism, and at each stage in this process a bigger and more totalizing idea is being adopted. All of this happens as an inevitable result of war; humans adopt bigger and bigger ideas to survive bigger and bigger threats. But what happens when they get atomic bombs? Then it becomes impossible to conquer many states directly, but the totalizing ideology still remains, and without an external threat to keep it grounded in reality is decays. Since the most high status thing a human being can do is destroy their genetics for the rest of us: "sacrifice themselves," it follows that auto-genocide becomes the norm. That's fine in a society that throws women on the dicks of warriors; new altruistic people come out to replace them. But what about when there's no war? The genes for altruism go crazy and have no way to die for the herd, so now the herd must die. Society fragments, patchwork ensues. Ideology gets divorced from survival and even turns against it. Sociopaths breed out of control. Every man for himself.

Saturday, November 3, 2018

How bout no

Women create patriarchy by fucking alpha males. To allow sexual liberation for women is to exacerbate social inequalities. That is why in the 1950's 30% of men owned 70% of the wealth while today 1% own 99% of the wealth. Female sexuality was heavily constrained by social pressure to marry average men. Since an average man could count of finding a wife men were both more invested in society and society was more equal in every respect except its treatment of women.

Male dominance occurs in every species where the female fucks the alpha male: horses, sea lions, lobsters, cattle, elk, wolves, bison, chimps, and humans to name a few. Women are the progenitors of patriarchy, and their sexuality is fundamentally in conflict with equality. Humans will eventually be liberated by patriarchy with the development of artificial wombs and this will be a cataclysm for the human species, since the sexual incentives that bind men and women together will collapse and the tensions between the sexes will supersede them. Assuming that outright war between the sexes does not occur the happiness of the human species will be greatly reduced. Men will prevail in any war between the sexes because women have selected them to be far more violent than themselves, and men will simply use violence to get what they want.

Technology is the engine of moral, social, and environmental catastrophe and decay. Technology liberates people from consequence, (or so they think), while subjecting them to far more insidious and malevolent consequences in the long run. Technology is the daemon that destroys social technology, (also known as tradition). Tradition is the habits and customs of social technology that humans have developed through trial and error to suppress chaos and bring order to their environment. Consequence enforces discipline of the human species and machine technology destroys both discipline and consequence, while social technology (tradition) works with discipline and the natural order to create happiness. to develop technology is NOT to liberate yourself from natural selection but to simply kick the can down the road and create a whole new set of problems that you then need to solve. Currently we need to develop traditions of recycling and stewardship of the earth to counter act pollution. We need new traditions to bring order to the sex lives of people and suppress promiscuity and pornography. But by the time these traditions are developed they will be destroyed by the next round of technology. Capitalism is NOT the engine of revolution; the Romans had capitalism and never developed technology beyond the level of the arch and dome. The engine of revolution is technology, or more specifically the socialism of intellectual property rights which subsidizes technological change and accelerates it by granting artificial temporary monopolies to tech companies.

It is true that socialism drives change. It is also true that "change" means global warming, the ocean's garbage patches, the destruction of marriage and family, the castration of homosexuals by hormone replacement therapy, the toxification of the earth by plastic, the mass extinction of species; yes, socialism is lots of change.

Many seemingly capitalist problems are actually socialism in disguise: traffic is caused by free roads (car socialism), inflated health care prices are caused by limits on competition in healthcare, (healthcare socialism), war is military socialism, and the low birthrates of the middle class are caused by the need of women to obtain degrees to gain employment because the government had raised both the supply and the cost of college education with subsidies, (education socialism). Real capitalism is feudalism, (a system where the state is private property). Democracy is a soft form of communism and historically was understood by all ancient philosophers as nothing else.

The real catastrophe is not capitalism by capitalism drugged up on socialism.

Technological development can be greatly limited or stopped by abolishing intellectual property rights. Shakespeare's works were developed under a capitalist system where authors were free to plagiarize each other without consequence, and so stories were told and retold and embellished over time to give them greater richness. Socialism of creativity favors the new over the old, the foolish over the wise, the untested over the tested. All of the churn in the arts is created by an environment of subsidies; modern art is the epitome of socialized art. The Renaissance is the epitome of capitalist art. Without socialist limits on plagiarism art is free to copy and re-copy itself and perfect a high form of the same image, sound, composition, symphony, etc. Plagiarism is good since it improves art and Shakespeare was the greatest playwright because he was the greatest plagiarist.

The human species has a sexual division of labor: men build and women populate. This is just the way it is and it does not matter what you think about it. All of the people were put here by women and all of the stuff was generally designed and built by men. Exceptions exist of course: there are female construction workers and male childcare workers, but the freer a people are to choose their occupations the MORE, not less, segregated by gender occupations become. Countries with the highest levels of gender pay equality also have the highest levels of occupational segregation.

People have less sex in a free market of sexual selection. Most men are too ugly to get laid in bars, and most women are too ugly to get commitment from hot men. 8 out of 10 people is in the 80% of people who are two ugly to win at the game of promiscuity. A free market for sex is an 80/20 market where 80% are having 20% of the sex. A society with compulsory monogamy is happier and healthier than one without; men get more sex and women get more reliable support and their are far fewer single mothers and abandoned women. The nation of Qatar for example has outlawed premarital sex. If you go to a hotel in Qatar they ask for ID and you must either have the same last name as the women you are renting a hotel room with or have a marriage certificate to prove you are married. Obviously this is a good thing. Why make men pay child support when you can just force them to stay married? A man will think twice about sticking his dick in if he knows he is stuck with the nag for life, and women will have a greater incentive to be nice since they can't get laid without a husband.

There are only two kinds of society: the kind men build and the kind women destroy. You're not equal, no one is, you will never be equal, and equality is a massive fraud. Fuck you.

Friday, November 2, 2018

My reasoning on my previous post

Writing a blog post on how to deport 30 million people isn't something I take lightly and I hesitated or a long time to publish it. I want to explain why I am talking about this now.

Civilization is built on its bio-capital, that is, on the "quality" of the genetics underlying it. "Quality" doesn't mean superiority since domestication of the human species (by power) does not automatically equate to an improvement in genetic stock. In fact, all the various things governments do, from killing criminals,to (de facto) subsidizing the birth rates of the poor, from encouraging marriage to having state religions, may actually breed lunatics (state religion), reduce human health levels (killing high testosterone violent males), increase IQ at the expense of increasing insanity (mandatory marriage), or decrease IQ while increasing social dysfunction (welfare), or decrease the breeding of healthy middle class people (education inflation), or destroy safety (immigration of criminal elements), or create pathological psychiatric neuroses, (ghettoization and subsequent inbreeding of Jews), or breed violent warriors (Zulu marriage practices), or breed moral hysterics, (Anglo religious practices). . .

The point is "quality" is a mixed bag, and in this context means simply "the quality of being capable of production and paying taxes," and "the absence of sickness and crime that increases the costs of running a government."

Civilization can and will collapse if ever the level of crime and sickness rises above the level of of the ability of the government to pay for it; in other words, if expenses rise higher than assets can generate revenue. Before this happens violent and radical right wing governments will come to power and destroy liberty with fascism, because they have to, because democracy is a luxury system that only a people with high IQ can afford, and if democracy imports millions of new low bio-quality voters to win elections in the short term it guarantees Brazilian-style dictatorship in the long term. People will vote to exterminate criminals if the crime rate gets high enough.

Some ethnic groups are more domesticated than others. This shows up in crime rates and education attainment levels, as well as income levels. The societies with the highest levels of domestication have the lowest crime rates, and vice versa.

My reasoning is "if you are going to deport 30 million people do it with taxes." My reasoning is "well they're going to do it anyway so they might as well do it right." But they are not going to do it right, and something tells me the more extreme elements would prefer cattle cars to financial incentives...

Fundamentally bio-capital is an economics problem. Any society with high bio-capital will be successful and attract immigrants from societies that either have low bio-capital (Latin America), or suppressed potential, (Asia, old Europe). Civilization is built on layers on discrimination, and since civilization is better than not civilization...

Keeping out low bio-capital means creating an economic pressure/river that runs from high bio-capital outward to low bio-capital to counteract the natural attraction that high bio-capital produces. Since governments are unwilling to determine the genomes of the population, discriminatory methods must be employed. Otherwise "equality" would simply be a matter of manufacturing all humans to a common standard, or even just writing a desire for equality out of the genome altogether.