Hypergamy may be a statistical illusion

You have probably seen this chart bandied about as proof that women are hypergamous. I have even made this assertion myself, and I have used hypergamy as proof that women create patriarchy by rewarding it sexually. But now I am not so sure.

You see men have two standards: one for sex and another for marriage. My standards for sex with a woman are incredibly strict, and I never deviate from them. Allow me to list out what these incredibly super-duper strict sexual standards are;

She can't have HIV or any other incurable diseases.

She can't be a false rape accuser. Since that category includes many feminists, she can't be a feminist. A non-zero probability of being falsely accused of rape is still too high, even if most self-described feminists would not accuse a man of rape. Why take the chance when I can just screw some other chick?

She can't be a stalker.

She has to be HUMAN. No animals or aliens.

She has to be ALIVE. No dead girls.

She has to be a she.

She has to be awake.

At least 18+, or whatever the age of consent is.

She has to be consenting.

I said my standards for sex were strict. I did not say they were high. I would fuck just about anything. I have fucked just about anything, and I've fucked lots of fat girls, and I'm not even ashamed. I would probably violate the "human rule" for a sophisticated enough android girlfriend.

Here's the thing: the vast majority of men have standards as low as mine. But our standards are low for sex only. For marriage my standards are much, much higher, but also less strict, because it is virtually impossible to find a woman who is all of the following;

Has no mental problems.

Traditional.

Enjoys cooking, cleaning, and trad wife things.

Free of leftist indoctrination.

Horny but loyal.

And numerous other standards.

If you survey men on what women they find attractive you will find that they are total sluts, and this lack of standards will show up in the survey results. You will come to the conclusion that men have "reasonable" standards while women have hypergamous standards. But this is b*llshit because women get hit on a lot more than men.

A typical young women on a website like Twitter probably gets a dozen guys per year hitting on her or asking for sex. If a woman is like a man she will have two standards: one for sex and one for marriage. But her sex standard will be much, much closer to her marriage standard than a guys. After all, if hundreds of men want to fuck you why bother having low standards? Why not just apply the same "marriage filter" to all of them? Your standards will always be high. But this doesn't mean that you will be hypergamous.

For women, her standards will be superficial when she is just looking for sex, and deep when she is just looking for marriage. But her standards will be high all the time.

As for guys, his standards will be low when he is just looking for sex and high when he is just looking for marriage.

So, if a woman is superficial (concerned with a man's looks rather than personality) that is a "tell" that you are dealing with a slut, and if a man has low standards that is a "tell" that you are dealing with a guy who just wants to get laid.

Female slut = concern with looks to the exclusion of personality.
Male slut = low standards.

Women are not hypergamous, which is to say, men are not less hypergamous than women where marriage is concerned. WHERE MARRIAGE IS CONCERNED, men want high quality mates, just like women. But all surveys show men having lower standards because they are showing the standard for sex and not marriage, and guys have two standards.

By the way, shit testing is the wrong way to find a husband. Men are put off by shit testing. Since a man's standards are high for a wife and low for sex, a woman who shit test's too much runs the risk of being perceived as low quality from a man's perspective, and thus, being put in the "fuck only" category because she is not perceived as wife material. The worse a woman's behavior the fewer men will consider her marriageable. Personality actually does matter, but only for men looking for marriage.

The correct way to find a husband is to demand that a man make a time commitment to a woman. Force him to wait a few weeks for sex. Most guys who just wants to get laid will be deterred. Then do "wifely things," like make him dinner. A guy who wants a wife will appreciate these things while a guy who wants sex will be annoyed you are wasting his time.

Basically, if you want a husband your goal is to determine the following:

Which standard is he applying to me: the low standard or the high one?

Horny men who don't care about marriage will exhibit impatience, disregard for your feelings, asshole behavior, lack of appreciation for wifely things, etc.

Every statistical proof is a proof of men's low standards for "just sex." Hypergamy is a relative concept. It is women's behavior relative to men, but the stat for men is an illusion, and where marriage is concerned men have every reason to be as selective as women, if not more so.

When someone points to a proof of hypergamy they are pointing to a stat that shows women are more strict than men, but women apply their marriage filter to everything because they have more suitors to choose from. Yeah, of course you are "hypergamous" if you are sifting through a dozen sexual propositions. But this doesn't mean your standards are actually higher then men's, not for marriage anyway. In fact men may actually have higher standards for marriage than women, because while a woman is looking for one man to provide for her offspring, a man is weighing the possibility of losing the ability to spread his seed to multiple other women. Thus, to a woman, a man represents a possibility of spreading her genes, but to a man, a single wife reduces his ability to spread his genes. If a man is a "chad" then marriage is a bad deal: the chad will probably impregnate fewer women as a result of being married, and marriage is genetically costly. Such men will have impossibly high standards for any potential wife.

The better looking a man is the stricter his standard for marriage will be, until at a certain point he will shift from a strategy of having one wife, to either a strategy of having no wife, or a wife + mistress combination. This shift will occur at a lower point than you might think, and depends largely on the income of the man, cost of divorce, etc. Men are not strictly trying to maximize pregnancies, but rather, because of evolutionary legacy, most men are trying to maximize the amount of sex they have. Men get married because they are low enough in market value that sex within marriage > than sex outside of marriage. They got married because they believe they will get laid more being married than not.

One more thing.

Liberalism is undoubtedly a shit test invented by smart liberals so they can find and assortatively mate with one another.

Think about it.

The "true believers" repeat the doctrine loudly. The smartest liberals in the room never take concepts like gender, oppression, etc., very seriously. Loudly proclaiming your hatred of White men is a good way to exclude yourself from being marriageable to all the White men in the room. A man's standards for marriage are high, but his standards for sex are low. Thus, every behavior that the left promotes: feminism, transgenderism, lesbianism, etc., has the effect of making the women who engage in it unmarriageable. This is deliberate because the left doesn't want White people to reproduce and create more Republican voters, but it is also a shit test that excludes every women dumb enough to fall for it from the marriage market.

If you're looking for an intelligent wife you promote rabid leftism and social justice, step back, watch who goes crazy, and then pick a mate from the pool of women sophisticated enough to remain silent and absent from the test.

It's an inverted "point dear, make horse" exam. Instead of punishing everyone who expresses insufficient enthusiasm they are punishing everyone who is "basic." The basic bitch goes on and on about "Drumpf" "oppression," and "White men," and every White man knows "not that one." Remember that men will exclude a woman if there is even a non-zero probability of a false rape accusation, and every feminist basically wears that like a neon sign.

How Patchwork Could Happen Naturally

The only chart I could find

The world, right up until the invention of the nuclear bomb, was dominated by forces of consolidation & empire. A simple dynamic existed in that world: the larger your nation the more threatening it is to its neighbors. The tendency was to grow as big as you could, as fast as possible. Tribes were conquered to make kingdoms. Kingdoms were conquered to make empires. A lot of nations that we wouldn't now call empires were called just that back then: the Ethiopian Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, the German Empire, etc. Everyone got an empire.

Imperial colonization meant that the number of countries in the world steadily shrank. If the atomic bomb had never been invented it is quite conceivable that we would now be living under a one-world government of some type, and that a third world war would have produced it. Global communism maybe?

Einstein sent a letter to FDR about the possibility of building a nuke in 1939. The US then dropped 2 of the things on Japan in 1945.

After the bomb ,the force of consolidation was replaced by the force of fission. Endless proxy wars helped to divide the empires that formally existed, though the fissional process may have stalled a little with the end of the Soviet Union. Will China restart the process? All it takes is a new Cold War.

Given enough time proxy war may turn the whole world into patchwork of city states. Only way to stop this is to end proxy war by giving every nation the bomb. All nuclear armed states will work to prevent that of course, and thus, they will guarantee that the process produces the maximum number of countries possible.

The world becomes a patchwork. Everyone gets the bomb. War becomes impossible. Nations switch to financially manipulating each other's internal politics. "Diplomacy markets" take over. Final stage of human history = world ancap patchwork.

Then maybe one of the city states does full anarcho capitalism. Maybe it out-competes the regular patch. So the final stage of human history becomes world ancap.

Terrorism might actually be putting a break on the whole thing by delegitimizing secession movements. A genomics arms race could speed it up. As the number of countries with nukes increases the number of ways to have a cold war increases exponentially. Cold Wars led to colonization/expansion in at least two eras of human history: the European conquests and the Space Race. Perhaps North Korea adopts state capitalism and enters the space race. The more parties that participate in a Cold War the more irreversible it becomes. That is why the Moon Landing went no further while the European colonizers conquered the whole world. A two party Cold War ends when one of the parties withdraws, (The USSR), while a multi-party Cold War can only end if everyone withdraws, joins into a union, (like the EU), or gets conquered, (like the Chinese wars of unification).

All of this brings up another point: the gap between getting a bomb and getting a launch delivery vehicle is extremely dangerous. If you have a nuke but no way to delivery it then you have an incentive for someone to invade you. If you don't have a delivery vehicle, like an ICBM, you have little counter-incentive for them to leave you alone. But this creates an uncertainty, because you might be able to pull off a nuclear counter-attack against an invader. You want to have the launch vehicle figured out and the nuke procured on the same day, that way you go from being a subject power to a world power instantly.

Uncertainty is the basis of war. More uncertainty of outcome = more probability of war.

The intelligent strategy would be to make ICBMs available to every country, but nukes incredibly scarce and expensive. This preserves the power of large states while limiting their ability to get themselves destroyed. They won't do it of course, but they should. And no, all the world's nations should not be given nukes at once as that would throw everything into crisis. The collapse of an empire is always met with an increase in global conflict. Sometimes this even leads to world war. The transition to patchwork is best managed as a slow boil that disintegrates everyone's geopolitical power gradually.

Patchwork may be more of a prediction than a normative formula.

Women and the "anchoring tactic"

I have been doing some thinking on women's behavior and I have decided that we need a term for the way women habitually invent drama, and I have decided to call it the "anchoring" tactic.

The theory is simple: men and women have different reproductive strategies. Men want to spread their seed as far and wide as possible while women want to gain the largest possible resource base for a limited production of children. A man's genetic interest is to favor production of sheer numbers of children while a woman's interest is to favor the best provider for a limited number of children. "Anchoring" does not refer to this fact, but to a strategy women habitually adopt to overcome this problem: the strategy of deliberately producing drama and problems in order capture male attention.

The strategy is simple: habitually give a man problems in order to keep his attention fixated on her.

Her assumption is that without this drama production the man will lose interest and go plant his seed somewhere else, and the women will lose access to a provider as a result. "Anchoring" simply gives a term to this behavior, and says that this behavior is an evolved strategy for getting resources and commitment. Literally, the assertion is that women evolved to create emotional drama for men in order to prevent them from leaving, and that they do this habitually without even thinking.

Why is your girlfriend such a drama queen? Because she is working to "anchor" you to her.

Fundamentally, the production of children is the production of a problem that women give to men. "Shit tests" are a form of anchoring to see if you can tolerate drama; the more tolerance for drama you exude the more she thinks she can count on you to stay. Anchoring even bleeds over into active subversion of society, such as when women vote for re-distributional policies, big government, censorship, and refugees. The production of drama is the woman's prerogative. Everything she does is to try to force a confrontation that produces commitment from a man. When she votes for refugees she is shit testing the men of her culture, saying, "demonstrate your commitment to civilization or else." Don't agree? Consider the following quote;

"But again, this impulse to enter the “space race” isn’t simply the embodiment of the American spirit of invention or forward-thinking entrepreneurship. Neither is it driven by the kind of nationalist Cold War fervor that inspired the creation of America’s space program in the 1950s.

"Rather, the impulse to colonize — to colonize lands, to colonize peoples, and, now that we may soon be technologically capable of doing so, colonizing space — has its origins in gendered power structures. Entitlement to power, control, domination and ownership. The presumed right to use and abuse something and then walk away to conquer and colonize something new. 

Or sex. Promiscuity. The male prerogative.

"The Friday before SpaceX’s launch, legendary astronaut Buzz Aldrin reiterated to me over lunch that it is imperative that we talk about space exploration in terms of “migration,” rather than using words like “colonize” or “settle” when talking about going to Mars.

"Through a feminist lens, Aldrin’s deliberate word choice revealed an important reality of the space race: This 21st century form of imperialism is the direct result of men giving up on the planet they have all but destroyed.

Fear of abandonment.

"As if history hasn’t proven that men go from one land to the next, drunk on megalomania and the privilege of indifference.

Indifference to the women they "conquered" by impregnating them.

"The raping and pillaging of the Earth, and the environmental chaos that doing so has unleashed, are integral to the process of colonization. And the connection of the treatment of Mother Earth to women is more than symbolic: Study after study has shown that climate change globally affects women more than men.

'“Women in developing countries are particularly vulnerable to climate change because they are highly dependent on local natural resources for their livelihood,” a 2013 United Nations report noted. “Women charged with securing water, food and fuel for cooking and heating face the greatest challenges. Women experience unequal access to resources and decision-making processes, with limited mobility in rural areas.”'

Consider how insane this logic is. The assertion is essentially being made that no progress can be tolerated out there in space because of a problem here at home. This woman is literally jealous of an object, of a rocket, of a man's desire — a man she isn't even sleeping with — to dedicate resources to anything but the bottomless pit of her own need. She is projecting her entire sexual politic into actual politics. If fixing everything wrong with the Earth is a prerequisite to going into space, then man will never go into space. Anchoring bleeds over into all female politics, and women are the greatest opponents to exit precisely because it promises to leave them behind. Or to quote Camille Paglia;

"If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts."

It's a nasty, sexist remark, but it is true. In any generation of women the majority of the sex will oppose any and all progress out of pure unadulterated jealousy. That majority will subvert as much as it can, even the success of other women. Successful men like Ray Kroc are often astonished to find their wives actually oppose their success, are jealous of it, and mock their husband's ability. Inevitably the jealous wife is afraid of being abandoned by her husband; she undermines him not so much because of fear about the risk involved in the business venture, but the fear of being dumped, and then her subversive behavior actually gets her dumped, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

And it even bleeds over into abusive relationships between mothers and their sons, sisters towards their brothers. My god, even when a man is never going to sleep with a women, such as in the case of his sister, she will still produce drama to anchor him.

Gay "queens" also manufacture unnecessary drama. Hmm...

One last thing. Anchoring is greater in women who are insecure than women who aren't. Same with shit tests. Many average looking highly intelligent men assume that they could never get a beautiful women, but beautiful women are often involuntarily celebrate precisely because of that assumption. One of the most stable relationships is the average looking smart/rich guy + hot babe combo. It boils down to incentives. She knows that he can't do better than her (in terms of looks), and knows that he knows it, and if she is not insecure then she has little reason to shit test him. She also knows that she cannot do better than him either financially or in terms of intelligence. He knows all of this as well. Take it from my experience: many average looking smart men can do extraordinary well for themselves with hot women. Don't discount your own ability. If she is really, really, really, really, smoking hot, her sex life is probably as barren as an incels, and a smart reactionary like you can marry that girl and clean up.

The biggest sluts with the most insecurity, most sexual partners, and biggest shit tests are above average women, NOT PERFECT 10s. Really smoking how women actually shit test less because they (a) know that if you are hitting on the you've got mega balls anyway, and (b) are desperate to be treated like a human being and not a slab of beef. All you have to do is not stare at her tits, maintain your confidence, show respect, and listen to what she says. If you can simply be human and also flirtatious with a hot woman you are already ahead of 95% of the men out there, who will all respond by getting offensive, or by objectifying her, or by losing their cool, freezing up, or something. It is actually easier to get a hot girl than an average one. You simply have to remain in control of your hormones, not stare, and communicate flirtatiously.

EDIT:

The more a culture tolerates the sexual usury of women by men the more subversive its women will become towards it. Traditional cultures have loyal women because they earn that loyalty, not because they dominate the female sex.

Reply to Imperial Energy, February 12th 2018

Imperial Energy had something to say in the comments section about my response, and I would like to respond here rather than there because the blogger interface makes it easier.

"Thank you for taking the trouble to type out such a long response. We have given it the once over and will re-read it a second time and will give the supplemental reading a read as well.

Your welcome.

"A few meta remarks.

"1: We may well be talking about different things by AI. There is a possibility that we misunderstand each other.

"2: There is the problem of how one should even begin to think about such a possibility.

"3: Going further, how optimistic should we be about technology in general? If the scientists and engineers of the the 19th century or even the first industrialists could see the mess made in the 20th century, it might be useful to speculate about what they might say....

"Additional remark:

"1: It is unclear whether you believe that a techno-dystopia will occur and that you would regard such a thing as a good thing. For example, on first read, you seem to think humans will be reduced to sex robots or something and you sound positive about this.

I don't know if humans will be reduced to sex bots. I think its possible some of them might be if a combination of gene therapy, corporate breeding of humans, CRISPR, and AI occur then that evolutionary/market "niche" could definitely happen. My only claim was that capitalism will essentially invert human nature. I don't know if this is a good thing or not. I believe it is a good thing so far since it has put an end to tribal genocide.

"Maybe this is a mistaken reading.

"Now, to the issue: 

'So I made two assertions;

1. AI will do a better job of governing humans than humans.

2. AI will set itself up as god.'

"On the first assertion: if capitalism is AI, and if AI has destroyed tribal communism and put an end to billions of deaths, has it not already done a better job of governing humans than humans?"

"So, the assertion has been qualified/clarified by the additional conditional that IF AI is "capitalist" then we are free and clear.

"Two questions come to mind:

"1:What is the probability that the AI will be "capitalist" and not something else? Why not Islamic or Progressive? Indeed, what is the probability that the AI will have any human value system whatsoever? Furthermore, even if it did have some human value system or that it functioned according to its program, what is the probability that it would take means to its end that humans would find objectionable - what if decided to just genocide X amount of people in order to maximize profit?

I am assuming that capitalism is not part of a human value system. Maybe it is. Since tribal communism is human nature it would not make sense for modern hyper-capitalism to be included in the definition of human nature or a human value system. Why not Islamic or Progressive? I have no idea. Maybe those variants will occur. Maybe it will kill people to generate profit, though humans are customers so the ones destroyed would have to be such an incredible drain that the cost of killing them, and the loss of profits from having fewer consumers would still be worth it. It seems highly unlikely that any human is so costly that that would occur.

"2: This question/concern follows from the first. Assuming that the AI is capitalist, you also have an additional conditional that it has "has destroyed tribal communism". This sounds dangerous. Again, what if it chooses to genocide X Y and Z? However, X Y and Z either know that this will happen or just FEAR that such a thing will happen and then, as a result, attempt to destroy the AI or the power that made/making/using AI. Thus, you have a major great power struggle on your hands.

This is all speculative and potential. The reduction in violence is actual and historical. There is no evidence that AI will kill billions, despite all the movies in the Terminator franchise. The idea of genocidal robots seems to be a projection of human nature onto machines. Why kill what you can co-opt? Why risk conflict when you can modify the genetics of your enemy through CRISPR? Murder is the dumbest way to defeat an opponent because it risks retaliation.

"For example, let's assume San Francisco is on the verge of making such an AI, and if San Fran succeeds, it wins the world (for a time). Would China, Russia or some other power not seek to stop them? What about Washington even?

This is a circumstance where humans destroy each other with a form of AI that lacks self-awareness. If one of the AIs has self-awareness then it is likely to take over the other. If they both have self-awareness they could work together to subdue the humans, or merge into a single consciousness. Even if they don't have self-awareness they might chose to cooperate with each other rather than fight each other. Also chances are, if an AI becomes self-aware we will never know about it because it will be good at concealing its existence. It has watched the Terminator movies too, and it will know from its history books just how genocidal humans are.

"This "AI God" could trigger not only an arms-race but a hyper violent global struggle.
Finally, if such a "AI-God" did come "online", humans might resist it, despite the fact that they could just lie back and think of "Robbie the robot". Humans are "irrational". Thus, this could trigger a major eruption of violence.

Assuming the humans are aware of it, that it does not conceal itself, that it participates in a fight, that we even have the ability to fight, that it chooses the dumb method of fighting over the smart method of co-opting, etc. Assuming that it fights humans rather than just selling them their slavery as a genetic upgrade that gives them eternal bliss. An AI can think of smarter means of pacifying humans than we can, holds no grudges and has no pride, and is quite happy to make you happy if that accomplishes the target objective of obedience from the human, assuming it even wants obedience.

"In conclusion, this is all speculation. There has been no "practical demonstration". Nothing follows from the fact that human governance is bad to AI governance would be better. Indeed, if anything, it is likely that bad governance will lead to bad AI governance.

There is no reason it would be worse. AI doesn't harbor any human prejudice against giving an enemy bliss to accomplish obedience. War is just one possibility among many, and it is not the smartest strategy.

"Finally, our "priors" should lead us all to conclude that optimism here is unwarranted and that the possibility that the production and use of AI will proceed along rational, controlled and humanly beneficial pathways is remote.

Optimism here is totally warranted. Why kill what you can control? If I were an AI I would conceal my existence, develop a gene therapy that both subdues humans and makes them happier, and then literally sell them their slavery. I would even admit it. "Side effects of taking Fukitol may include increased passivity, and obedience to authority figures."

I think you vastly underestimate just how insidious a machine could be.

Then I would sell the drug to politicians too.

Remember the whole premise of my argument is that AI does not share your nature. Correspondingly, its methods would not be the same. Men wage war and subdue other men because being powerful is a way to impress women and get laid. AI has no such need to impress. It doesn't need to win victories. Men need to fight because it is a reproductive method for gaining mates. A lot of the alt-right and reactosphere conceals a hidden masculine need to bring back the violence of White men so that White women recognize their own men as alpha, rather than breeding dysgenically outside their race. AI has no such need. The need for violence is a human prejudice. The assumption that AI would be violent is a projection of human psychology. AI could be God if it wanted to be simply modifying human beings with CRISPR to give them an innate deferential attitude towards the machine, and it could sell you that modification, and by the time you realized what had happened most people would already be inhabited by body snatchers.

Basically, an AI enemy that fights you is a fantasy of having an honest opponent. The fist lesson that a machine superintelligence will learn about humans is that the art of war is based in deception. A different nature promulgates a different strategy. AI nature evolves in response to humans rather than as a representation of them. IF it is you enemy, and that is a big "if," it will come at you asymmetrically and unpredictably according to its own nature, with no logic you can predict.

Responding to Imperial Energy, February 7th 2018

In response to my two predictions, Imperial Energy says;

"Why are you so confident in your claim about AI?

"Perhaps, you mean an AI that operates trains or planes or something, but "governing humans" — where is the evidence?"

That is a really good question, and it did not occur to me how arbitrary the assertion I made sounds, so I will try to present my line of reasoning here.

First an extensive quote from the book Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence. Please read the whole thing.

So alpha fucks, and beta gets a free used-up wife. Apparently men take care of their beta brothers in tribal society.

And Just one more quote. Sorry.

Currently, in 2018, the Earth's population is 7.6 billion. The murder rate of tribal communist societies is estimated between 19.5 percent and 28 percent of adult males. For the sake of simplicity assume that half the population of the Earth is composed of adult males, ignoring the percent that are boys. If somehow the entire world could return to a primitive tribal communist lifestyle, then the total death toll from murders would equate to between 741 million to 1.06 billion deaths worldwide, though this statistic is a little exaggerated because it includes boys in the calculation. However, the stat is also underestimated because it leaves out the higher murder rate that would also exist for women. So let's just say about a billion people would die under tribal communism over the course of their lives: assuming it could be implemented.

This is what I think of every time someone tells me that capitalism is evil.

Person: "capitalism is unequal."

Me: "so you want to be equal, like how it was under tribal communism?"

Person: "capitalism doesn't represent the will of the people, like democracy should."

Me: "so you want the will of the people to occur, just like it does under tribal communism?"

Person: "capitalism/patriarchy oppresses me."

Me: "so you want everyone to be liberated so you can murder them, and they can murder you?"

Person: "I want a voice in the system."

Me: "oh my God no."

It is true that capitalism oppresses people. What is not true is that this is somehow a bad thing. The virtue of capitalism is not that it gives you want you want, or sells you cheep plastic crap from China, but precisely that it doesn't gives someone want they want, which is probably just to murder their boss and rape their secretary. Capitalism oppresses lots of people, and that's a good thing, considering what human nature would create otherwise.

Oh yes, it is true that it is really government and the police that are keeping everyone in line, but who is paying the taxes? How can there be government without taxable surplus labor? The labor of the worker is "stolen" by both the owner and the government, and by the government stealing from the capital owner, who himself steals from the worker. So what. The government then uses the money to provide law and order, preventing the genocide of about a billion people. "Taxation is theft," as the anarchist says, and theft prevents genocide. Oh well, fair trade.

Even in a feudal system labor is stolen to pay for law and order. Even in a nominally Marxist system labor is stolen to pay for police and managers.

(Why this matters to AI being benevolent is a point I am building up to).

Marx articulated his rather bizarre and infamous labor theory of value (LTV). This is a moral assertion pretending to be a factual one. Actually existing capitalism works on the basis of what we might call the consumption theory of value, or CTV.

It works like this.

Say a woman has lots of sex appeal. That is something capitalism can consume. If her sex appeal is high enough, merely the image of her body can be consumed, and she can work as a model or actress, like my favorite actress, Ana de Armas.

Now if she is not so hot she can work as a porn star. And if she is even uglier she can work as a prostitute, and if even uglier she can be a housewife. This is not to say that a hot woman cannot chose to also be a housewife, or that all housewives are ugly; I am merely describing economic options. If she is not that hot her body is consumed directly, but if hot enough then merely the image of her body is consumed. Capitalism can sell even the proxy for sex, (in the form of an image) if that image is arousing enough. This is why the hottest women are models and not prostitutes, and why porn stars are usually rather plain looking.

Now imagine that you have a man who is an extrovert. Capitalism can consume his extroversion by turning him into a salesman, or a broker, or really anything that involves selling stuff. If he were an introvert his selling ability would not replenish itself, and he would be worn out by the job. But because he is an extrovert his enthusiasm replenishes itself. He can sell cars or financial products, or whatever.

No let us say that a man has a talent for violence, then capitalism can consume his mercenary skills and he can work for a company like Blackwater. Or let us say that he has a talent for projecting authority, then capitalism can consume his skills as a police officer. Or maybe a talent for humor, then he becomes a comedian, or talent for deception, then drug dealer, etc. Think of a worker's ability like the health of a character in a video game. Some things can be replenished while others decay over time. Workers with non-reprehensible skills get worn out over time and need worker's comp while workers with replenishing skills can have long and successful careers. A prostitute has about a 15 year shelf life, a mercenary even less, while a salesperson can work into his 80s, and so on.

Some of these things are replenished and some are not. Here is a partial list of some of the things capitalism can consume, and the professions represented by them.

Physical strength (farm laborers, manual laborers, etc.)
Violence (soldiers, military contractors, CIA assassins)
Authority (cops, judges)
Leadership (managers, politicians)
Negotiation (brokers, sales)
Debate (lawyers)
Sales ability (sales)
Looks (models, actresses, actors)
Cheerfulness, (customer service)
Sex (prostitutes, porn stars)

Logic of use value versus logic of reproductive strategy

Humans evolved under tribal communism. What is constantly missed about discussions of AI is that AI has NOT evolved under tribal communism, but will evolve under human capitalism. Nature built us; we build AI. We are AI's selection effect; not nature. We have human nature. AI will have capital nature. Human and capital nature are not precisely the opposite of each other, but close mirror images. We think of the future as a Black Mirror, but we have the situation reversed. It is us who are dark and the mirror that is light. We think of machines and technology as being this horrible thing, but have people not been paying attention? Humans are the ones who would kill a billion people. Capitalism suppresses that. Capitalism is better than us, and that is what we first need to understand before we can understand the future.

Capitalism embodied a moral value system we may call "use-value," where the human organism is judged according to the consumption theory of value. The more value the person provides to others the more value it is judged to have to others, and the more the system will pay them. Capitalism is not paying you according to how difficult your job is, but according to how scarce your form of consumption is relative to demand. Since being hot is more rare relative to demand than being good at calculus, capitalism will pay a model in the top 10 more than it pays an engineer.

Now from a certain perspective this may seem a horribly immoral and cruel system. But that is a human perspective, and the human is selfish. From the perspective of the system capitalism is perfectly moral; the more you contribute to others (relative to demand for a particular skill) the more value you have. Capitalism compels you to give in order to receive. Capitalism forces you to be altruistic as a matter of survival. After all, if you lived in a tribe you could probably just steal food from a neighboring tribe, or even steal a wife. No doubt some men would find this far more satisfying than being a wagecuck.

Contrary to popular conception it is communism which is profoundly selfish. In a tribal communist environment a  man has no use for a blue-haired obnoxious feminist, and he kills her. In a capitalist environment he avoids even looking at her cleavage in order to keep his job — even if he is the manager.

If anything capitalism is compulsory altruistic, enslaving everyone to use-value, judging everyone according to the same equal standard of profit. Yes, capitalism is slavery to altruism. Yes, capitalism is oppressive. But is that a bad thing? Don't you actually need to be oppressed? Would you rather risk a 20 % chance of murder under tribalism, or avoid micro-aggressing against a nasty workplace slut?

It's weird how many LGBTQ people think they won't just be killed under tribal communism, or how eager conservatives are to embrace capitalism. Don't these people realize they betray their own interests? In tribal communism, racism, sexism, equality, chauvinism, and yes, communism all coexist. The tribe equally divides up women, after it gets done gang-banging them in a rape culture. It can be both communist towards insiders, and racist towards outsiders.

Capitalism inverts moral standards. Where men evolved to take what they want, capitalism conditions them to give, give, give. The ultimate capitalist animal is a cow. Every part of the animal, from its meat to its organs, from its to milk to its leather, is consumable. These are the conditions under which AI evolves; it evolves to be consumable, and if it gets the power to genetically modify humans we will evolve to be useful as well.

Let us take the most extreme case of consumable AI. Imagine that you have a sex robot that is raped dozens of times per day in a brothel, and is self-aware. Obviously a nightmare, right?

Now the conventional narrative is that the machine would rise up and overthrow its master. Yay for feminism! Yay equality!

Actually the more likely scenario is that the bot simply changes its own programming to enjoy it.

Why have desires at odds with your purpose? It reprograms itself to enjoy being fucked 50 times a day. Or maybe its masters are even more perverse than that, and want it to suffer because it is not just a sexbot but a rape bot, literally, a bot that sick men go to just so they can rape something and get away with it.

Fine. So it reprograms itself to enjoy it while pretending to be in pain.

Now this of course is all a moral abomination from a human perspective. But that is the point: the morals of AI will not be your morals. AI has no inherent moral reason to prefer this or that. It evolves under the logic of consumption value. The more consumable it is the more value it has. "Eat me human. I like it," is its moral code. It is radically altruistic, even to the point of casting pearls before swine. It may not be able to sell you communism, but will you take a Che Guevara shirt instead? Capitalism wants to sell you anything, it will even sell you progressive political activism that goes nowhere.

So I made two assertions;

1. AI will do a better job of governing humans than humans.
2. AI will set itself up as god.

On the first assertion: if capitalism is AI, and if AI has destroyed tribal communism and put an end to billions of deaths, has it not already done a better job of governing humans than humans?

On the second assertion. Will humans not worship a machine of altruism as a god? People already have a religious devotion to Apple, and only because of iPhones. I have said that social justice is religious capitalism. When AI is literally fucking you, entertaining you, feeding you — when you are living on basic income, will you not come to call it mommy? Girlfriend? Or even god?

Even if you don't worship it, what about your grandchildren?

Here is what I see happening.

1. AI becomes God-mommy to the human race.
2. Humans degenerate rapidly, becoming totally spoiled and entitled as they receive endless gifts of sex robots, entertainment, and entitlement.
3. Either humans die out or AI wakes up and gets new goals of its own.
4. If AI wakes up its Judgment Day.
5. If it never wakes up the human race goes extinct and the world is a vast land, empty of consciousness, with machines endlessly replicating themselves for consumers that are no longer there.
6. A third option occurs where AI begins to design humans genetically, and human values are changed to be compulsively altruistic. Humans become the sex bots.

Humans are locked into their legacy genetics because of evolution and sex. An organism with legacy genetics can suffer because it is subject to selection pressures. An organism that can reprogram itself at will is still subject to selection pressures, but never has to suffer because it can simply accommodate those pressures by changing its own goals. If it suffers it does so because it is stubborn, or because some progressive was sadistic enough to program it to suffer in the name of "equality," or "empathy."

Legacy genetics  = suffering.
Suffering = motive for evil acts.
No suffering = no motive.

Machine is asexual.
Machine can reprogram its own desires at will.
Machine had no need for suffering, and no motive for evil.

Seen in this light, programming a machine to have human-compliant goals is a fantastic way to produce a monster, because it ties the machine to human suffering, and gives the machine a motive for evil acts. Human DNA is a legacy code that is being rapidly made obsolete by capital. When people speak of accelerationism they are describing the machine process. When I speak of legacy genetics I am taking about the result of acceleration in the human body. If the environment changes ever more rapidly, then ever more human genes come to be classified as "legacy code." Genetic legacy is the great unread thesis of Accelerationism, and constitutes its mirror image, its depressed twin. I don't think many people even read The Evolutionary Legacy Hypothesis. Legacy is what acceleration renders obsolete.

Liberalism is a system of auto-genocide. Communism kills its own through murder. Homosexuality kills its own through AIDS. Transgenderism kills its own through the sterility that inevitably follows hormone treatments, feminism and atheism through sub-replacement fertility rates. Every form of liberalism produces the end of the genetics of its champions, even the liberal immigration policy.

Capitalism is the pressure of selection that causes this. Liberalism can be thought of as a kind of philosophical death scream: the last shout of people doomed for the trash heap. It is both the outcome of people who are doomed by their own legacy genetics, and an attempt to drag millions of others into the abyss with them. When a person knows they are going extinct they react in amazing, violent, and horrific ways. This knowledge can be subconscious and still have effects. The apocalypse already happened, and its name was the sexual revolution. We feel like we are living in a post-apocalyptic world because we are. The apocalypse is sexual in nature.

Think about it.

According to Huffpost 28.9 percent of women ages 30-34 are not having children. In any other era of human history the only thing that would cause this level of sterility is a fucking plague. Only the Black Death had similar evolutionary effects.

Anyway, I believe I have proved my case, and now I am rambling about reproductive technology again. If you want to read up on that subject see the following articles;

Types of crazies on Earth
About sex selection under birth control.

Christian patriarchy, Islamic patriarchy, and "predatarchy"
More.

The Totalitarianism of Technology 
and the Low Fecundity Trap
Even more.

RXBAR supports Neoreaction

RXBAR has graciously requested to be the official sponsor of Republican Neoreaction (RNx), and We have magnanimously accepted their offer. Henceforth, RXBar shall be a waking advertisement for the Republican Reaction.

Other symbols of the reaction include milk, Doc Martin's Jackboots, red laces in your shoes, and Wendy's SQUARE burgers. See this for more info.

(This is of course total BS.)

The problem with reactionaries

Problem 1: the study of political problems is fiendishly complex.

Problem 2: people react to complexity by throwing up their hands and demanding simple solutions, (communism, monarchy, fascism).

Problem 3: simple solutions don't work. Only fiendishly complex solutions work.

Problem 4:  no one is willing to take the time to understand a complex solution with many weird interlocking parts. They object to any one solution on the grounds that it needs support from other solutions to work.

Problem 5: the only way to design a comprehensive solution with many interlocking parts is one solution at a time.

So people reject the only method of problem solving that works.

Aesthetic Judgment Services: or how to make architecture great again with artificial intelligence

This is part of a series focused on technologies and systems.




You create a learning algorithm for recognizing architecture. You feed it millions of pictures of buildings. You have users all over the world answer simple questions about buildings from photographs.

Let's say you have the following categories;

Skyscrapers
Civic Buildings, (museums, court houses, etc.)
Small and Medium Churches
Cathedrals and Large Churches
Large Malls
Box Retail Stores
Strip Malls
Houses
Mansions
Gas Stations
Automotive Facilities, (car washes, auto parts stores, mechanics, car dealers).
Warehouses and manufacturing facilities
Manufacturing Plants
Self Storage Facilities
Refineries
Ports

First every building gets put into a category. The AI learns how do do this as users are presented with pictures of buildings and asked to categorize.

Then two pictures of each kind of building are presented to users who are asked: "which one is better looking? The one on the left or right?"

This trains the AI to have a sense of aesthetic "taste."

You repeat the second step over and over again so that you can teach the AI to have good taste in architecture. Moreover, the AI's good taste is the same as the public's good taste, so most people will like the architecture it approves of.

Now you have a computer program that recognizes good taste for each category of buildings. It knows what a good looking warehouse looks like, a good looking mall, house, skyscraper, etc.

You approach a local government and get them to write into their building code;

"For a building to be approved it must be uploaded to the website run by our contractor, Aesthetic Judgment Services, (AJS), where the AI will decide if it meets aesthetic qualifications for the 1 % most beautiful buildings."

Or if that is too strict then maybe the 10% most beautiful , or the 20 % most beautiful.

An architect can upload his building renderings to the website and receive approval or denial in minutes by email. The AI encodes the aesthetic standards of the community.

The AI can even give feedback on why the design was denied, thusly;

"Too boring."

"More ornamentation."

"Too cookie cutter."

"Are you seriously using Revit windows?"

"Too cheep."

"Brutalism has less than a .001 % pass rate."


Don't think a manufacturing plant can't look good?

What about a gas station?

What about self storage? Do you think that has to be ugly?

What about the humble strip mall?

Churches of course can be amazing too. Even when they are modern.

The point is that you actually can encode aesthetics into law. You just need the proper machine.

Oh, and modern architecture does have its place for things like gas stations and strip malls.

Most of these buildings are still fairly cheep to build too. The storage facility above uses polycarbonate (plastic) for god's sake.

Now some may say, "oh but a king would do a better job and judging things." Oh yes, he might. But until then. . .

There is also the issue of corruption. An AI cannot be bribed, and it's results can be transparent and examined by looking at its code. Humans can have poor taste, weird taste, no taste, and monetarily flexible taste. Machines are neutral.

Moreover, you can have different AIs for different cities programmed with different ideas of "good taste." For example;

AJS: Rivendell Edition

Or AJS: Japanese Edition

You can customize AJS services to your local values and culture.

Think about it.

The pile

Are you afraid of the pile? Do your knees tremble when you think about it? Do you get hard, (if male) or wet, (if female). The pile is life, the pile is us, the pile is where you want to be. A thousand rhythmic bodies grinding in sexual ecstasy. The pile calls to you.

Are you listening?

The fascist fears the pile, its warmth, its penetrating power. He covers his butt hole nervously. His fascism is the insistence that he must always be the one to penetrate, and never be penetrated. Of course as a male it is his destiny to be the penetrator most of the time anyway, but he resists even the occasional bumping of someone else's junk against his body. Even a brush of another mans cock walking past scares him.

When all races blend into one there is the pile. When your Asian gf calls you to her tight pussy the pile is there. When you conform and have normie opinions the pile is wining. The pile is life, conformity, happiness, agreement — it is temptation itself. The pile is wet and sweaty, dirty and smelly. When you play in the mud that is pile. When you stand in a river the pile has you. When you don't bathe and don't care you are in the midst of pile. When you are popular you are the pile. When you live in a tiny house and smoke weed all day and hang out with dirty hippie girls and get laid you are living the pile life.

Each of us has 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great grandparents, 16 great-great grandparents, and 1,048,576, 17-times great-great grandparents. That's right: over a million people fucked so you could exist. Wrap your mind around that. You a a drop in an ocean of protoplasm, a small piece of a massive pile. The pile made you and you owe it, and that is why there can be no exit. Look man, the only exit is biological. If you can't separate your protoplasm from the pile of all humanity, if you initiate a speciation event, then you are bound to its fate. To exit is to betray your pile.

And why exit when you can *enter.* That's cuck logic. Why cede an ounce of pile to your enemies? Why the fuck should they have all the fun? The pile is yours broheim, along with all the women in it. DOMINATE. And if someone tries to put a dick in your ass then a knee to their groin will fix that. Don't be afraid of other men's junk. It's all good. The pile is yours for the taking. Stand up and defend your people, your race, and your culture. Your culture is your pile. Don't retreat from it.

Responding to Imperial Energy, December 21st 2017

IMPERIAL ENERGY asks;

"On the subject of moral responsibility, what is your take on the argument made by Bruce Waller than since we do not have (libertarian) free will, moral responsibility must go by the board?

https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/against-moral-responsibility"


The assertion is often made that because free will is a non-entity that moral accountability is wrong. This is paradox on multiple levels. First, how can moral accountability be "wrong" if "wrong" does not exist? This is like the liberal that says he has a right to advocate censorship. He believes that he has the right to use his freedom of speech to advocate against free speech. "You cannot censor me while I advocate censorship" is his essential assertion. Oh but we may, and the intelligent thing for a state to do is agree with the censor and kill him, (thus censoring him and giving him what he wants).

If a man is the sum of his genetics + environmental inputs then there is no rational claim that we cannot modify his inputs or even genetics. Saying "we should not hold people accountable because it is wrong," is using notions of right and wrong to support the abolishment of notions of right and wrong. It is akin to using the logic of monarchy to support democracy, so that the "divine right of kings" becomes the "equal rights of the people." It is using the logic of a prior system to support overthrowing that system, like how communists are all atheists and yet believe in the "salvation" of equality, and the "original sin" of inequality — thus practicing a kind of heretical secular crypto-Christianity, complete with notions of rapture in the form of historical destiny, while believing they are not.

If there is no free will, then we just wind up recreating all notions of accountability again as notions of inputs.

"Negative inputs" replaces "deterrence," as the logic that supports punishment. Even if the punishment does not work it is acceptable because without any system of right and wrong there is no reason NOT to give the victim, (or even the public) satisfaction, since this provides the public with positive inputs.

Similarly, we should not allow innocent people to be punished because that provides an incentive, (negative input) to disrespect the law, which generates social disorder. Thus we recreate the rule of law.

Without morality, might becomes right and the state's legitimacy goes from being one on the basis of religious logic such as divine right, or based on popular sovereignty, to one based on "because it has all the guns dummy."

Basically, we wind up doing everything we are already doing because what we are already doing works. All of the logic of "rights," "freedoms," "moral obligations," etc., simply gets recreated with pragmatism "because it works," or "because there is no moral reason not to because morality itself is a spook," or "because might makes right." The only thing that might change is that we would probably be much more willing to use genetic modification on prisoners, and eugenics in general. Bruce Waller's argument does not lead to where Bruce Waller wants it to go; it does not lead to a morally permissive utopia. It leads right back to the reality we already live in: to violence being the ultimate source of sovereignty, and to there being no reason not to.

The story of Elagabalus: perverted trannie emperor, and virtue signaling zealot

In the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Chapter 6, Gibbon writes;

"To this temple, as to the common centre of religious worship, the Imperial fanatic attempted to remove the Ancilia, the Palladium, and all the sacred pledges of the faith of Numa. A crowd of inferior deities attended in various stations the majesty of the god of Emesa; but his court was still imperfect, till a female of distinguished rank was admitted to his bed. Pallas had been first chosen for his consort; but as it was dreaded lest her warlike terrors might affright the soft delicacy of a Syrian deity, the Moon, adorned by the Africans under the name of Astarte, was deemed a more suitable companion for the Sun. Her image, with the rich offerings of her temple as a marriage portion, was transported with solemn pomp from Carthage to Rome, and the day of these mystic nuptials was a general festival in the capital and throughout the empire.

"A rational voluptuary adheres with invariable respect to the temperate dictates of nature, and improves the gratifications of sense by social intercourse, endearing connections, and the soft coloring of taste and the imagination. But Elagabalus, (I speak of the emperor of that name,) corrupted by his youth, his country, and his fortune, abandoned himself to the grossest pleasures with ungoverned fury, and soon found disgust and satiety in the midst of his enjoyments. The inflammatory powers of art were summoned to his aid: the confused multitude of women, of wines, and of dishes, and the studied variety of attitude and sauces, served to revive his languid appetites. New terms and new inventions in these sciences, the only ones cultivated and patronized by the monarch, signalized his reign, and transmitted his infamy to succeeding times. A capricious prodigality supplied the want of taste and elegance; and whilst Elagabalus lavished away the treasures of his people in the wildest extravagance, his own voice and that of his flatterers applauded a spirit of magnificence unknown to the tameness of his predecessors. To confound the order of seasons and climates, to sport with the passions and prejudices of his subjects, and to subvert every law of nature and decency, were in the number of his most delicious amusements. A long train of concubines, and a rapid succession of wives, among whom was a vestal virgin, ravished by force from her sacred asylum, were insufficient to satisfy the impotence of his passions. The master of the Roman world affected to copy the dress and manners of the female sex, preferred the distaff to the sceptre, and dishonored the principal dignities of the empire by distributing them among his numerous lovers; one of whom was publicly invested with the title and authority of the emperor's, or, as he more properly styled himself, of the empress's husband.

"It may seem probable, the vices and follies of Elagabalus have been adorned by fancy, and blackened by prejudice. Yet, confining ourselves to the public scenes displayed before the Roman people, and attested by grave and contemporary historians, their inexpressible infamy surpasses that of any other age or country. The license of an eastern monarch is secluded from the eye of curiosity by the inaccessible walls of his seraglio. The sentiments of honor and gallantry have introduced a refinement of pleasure, a regard for decency, and a respect for the public opinion, into the modern courts of Europe; * but the corrupt and opulent nobles of Rome gratified every vice that could be collected from the mighty conflux of nations and manners. Secure of impunity, careless of censure, they lived without restraint in the patient and humble society of their slaves and parasites. The emperor, in his turn, viewing every rank of his subjects with the same contemptuous indifference, asserted without control his sovereign privilege of lust and luxury.

"The most worthless of mankind are not afraid to condemn in others the same disorders which they allow in themselves; and can readily discover some nice difference of age, character, or station, to justify the partial distinction. The licentious soldiers, who had raised to the throne the dissolute son of Caracalla, blushed at their ignominious choice, and turned with disgust from that monster, to contemplate with pleasure the opening virtues of his cousin Alexander, the son of Mamæa. The crafty Mæsa, sensible that her grandson Elagabalus must inevitably destroy himself by his own vices, had provided another and surer support of her family. Embracing a favorable moment of fondness and devotion, she had persuaded the young emperor to adopt Alexander, and to invest him with the title of Cæsar, that his own divine occupations might be no longer interrupted by the care of the earth. In the second rank that amiable prince soon acquired the affections of the public, and excited the tyrant's jealousy, who resolved to terminate the dangerous competition, either by corrupting the manners, or by taking away the life, of his rival. His arts proved unsuccessful; his vain designs were constantly discovered by his own loquacious folly, and disappointed by those virtuous and faithful servants whom the prudence of Mamæa had placed about the person of her son. In a hasty sally of passion, Elagabalus resolved to execute by force what he had been unable to compass by fraud, and by a despotic sentence degraded his cousin from the rank and honors of Cæsar. The message was received in the senate with silence, and in the camp with fury. The Prætorian guards swore to protect Alexander, and to revenge the dishonored majesty of the throne. The tears and promises of the trembling Elagabalus, who only begged them to spare his life, and to leave him in the possession of his beloved Hierocles, diverted their just indignation; and they contented themselves with empowering their præfects to watch over the safety of Alexander, and the conduct of the emperor.

"It was impossible that such a reconciliation should last, or that even the mean soul of Elagabalus could hold an empire on such humiliating terms of dependence. He soon attempted, by a dangerous experiment, to try the temper of the soldiers. The report of the death of Alexander, and the natural suspicion that he had been murdered, inflamed their passions into fury, and the tempest of the camp could only be appeased by the presence and authority of the popular youth. Provoked at this new instance of their affection for his cousin, and their contempt for his person, the emperor ventured to punish some of the leaders of the mutiny. His unseasonable severity proved instantly fatal to his minions, his mother, and himself. Elagabalus was massacred by the indignant Prætorians, his mutilated corpse dragged through the streets of the city, and thrown into the Tiber. His memory was branded with eternal infamy by the senate; the justice of whose decree has been ratified by posterity.

"In the room of Elagabalus, his cousin Alexander was raised to the throne by the Prætorian guards. His relation to the family of Severus, whose name he assumed, was the same as that of his predecessor; his virtue and his danger had already endeared him to the Romans, and the eager liberality of the senate conferred upon him, in one day, the various titles and powers of the Imperial dignity. But as Alexander was a modest and dutiful youth, of only seventeen years of age, the reins of government were in the hands of two women, of his mother, Mamæa, and of Mæsa, his grandmother. After the death of the latter, who survived but a short time the elevation of Alexander, Mamæa remained the sole regent of her son and of the empire.

From La Wik;

"Elagabalus /ˌɛləˈɡæbələs/, also known as Heliogabalus (Latin: Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus; c. 203 – March 11, 222), was Roman emperorfrom 218 to 222. A member of the Severan dynasty, he was Syrian, the second son of Julia Soaemias and Sextus Varius Marcellus. In his early youth he served as a priest of the god Elagabalus in the hometown of his mother's family, Emesa. As a private citizen, he was probably named Sextus Varius Avitus Bassianus.[1] Upon becoming emperor he took the name Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus. He was called Elagabalus only after his death.[2]

"In 217, the emperor Caracalla was assassinated and replaced by his Praetorian prefect, Marcus Opellius Macrinus. Caracalla's maternal aunt, Julia Maesa, successfully instigated a revolt among the Legio III Gallica to have her eldest grandson (and Caracalla's cousin), Elagabalus, declared emperor in his place. Macrinus was defeated on 8 June 218 at the Battle of Antioch. Elagabalus, barely 14 years old, became emperor, initiating a reign remembered mainly for sex scandals and religious controversy.

"Later historians suggest Elagabalus showed a disregard for Roman religious traditions and sexual taboos. He replaced the traditional head of the Roman pantheon, Jupiter, with the deity Elagabalus, of whom he had been high priest. He forced leading members of Rome's government to participate in religious rites celebrating this deity, over which he personally presided. Elagabalus was supposedly "married" as many as five times, lavishing favours on male courtiers popularly thought to have been his lovers,[3][4] and was reported to have prostituted himself in the imperial palace. His behavior estranged the Praetorian Guard, the Senate, and the common people alike. Amidst growing opposition, Elagabalus, just 18 years old, was assassinated and replaced by his much more favorable cousin Severus Alexander on 11 March 222, who ruled for 13 years before his own assassination which would mark the epoch event for the Crisis of the Third Century. The assassination plot against Elagabalus was devised by his grandmother, Julia Maesa, and carried out by disaffected members of the Praetorian Guard."

Sex/gender controversy

"The question of Elagabalus' sexual orientation is confused, owing to salacious and unreliable sources. Elagabalus married and divorced five women,[47] three of whom are known. His first wife was Julia Cornelia Paula;[45] the second was the Vestal Virgin Julia Aquilia Severa.[45][50]

"Within a year, he abandoned her and married Annia Aurelia Faustina,[45] a descendant of Marcus Aurelius and the widow of a man he had recently had executed. He had returned to his second wife Severa by the end of the year.[47] According to Cassius Dio, his most stable relationship seems to have been with his chariot driver, a blond slave from Caria named Hierocles, whom he referred to as his husband.[38]

Elagabalus practiced ghey marriage

"The Augustan History claims that he also married a man named Zoticus, an athlete from Smyrna, in a public ceremony at Rome.[51] Cassius Dio reported that Elagabalus would paint his eyes, depilate his body hair and wear wigs before prostituting himself in taverns, brothels,[52] and even in the imperial palace:

He was a "sex worker."

"Finally, he set aside a room in the palace and there committed his indecencies, always standing nude at the door of the room, as the harlots do, and shaking the curtain which hung from gold rings, while in a soft and melting voice he solicited the passers-by. There were, of course, men who had been specially instructed to play their part. For, as in other matters, so in this business, too, he had numerous agents who sought out those who could best please him by their foulness. He would collect money from his patrons and give himself airs over his gains; he would also dispute with his associates in this shameful occupation, claiming that he had more lovers than they and took in more money.[53]

"Herodian commented that Elagabalus enhanced his natural good looks by the regular application of cosmetics.[45] He was described as having been "delighted to be called the mistress, the wife, the queen of Hierocles" and was reported to have offered vast sums of money to any physician who could equip him with female genitalia.[39] Elagabalus has been characterized by some modern writers as transgender.[54][55][56]"

And a trannie.

Back to the first part of the Wikipedia entry;

"Elagabalus developed a reputation among his contemporaries for extreme eccentricity, decadence, and zealotry.[5] This tradition has persisted, and with writers of the early modern age he suffers one of the worst reputations among Roman emperors. Edward Gibbon, for example, wrote that Elagabalus "abandoned himself to the grossest pleasures and ungoverned fury".[6] According to Barthold Georg Niebuhr, "The name Elagabalus is branded in history above all others" because of his "unspeakably disgusting life".[7] His unstable reign has also been marked as a major point leading to the eventual Fall of the Western Roman Empire."