Posts Tagged ‘sexual liberation’

Collapse: Modern Sexuality

Friday, March 17th, 2017

The democratization of sex — making it available to all on an individualistic basis, or demand-based economy — has led to unexpected consequences, namely that making something universal makes it worthless, and now people are pulling away. Notice the demystification of sexuality caused by sexual liberation:

The debate was ignited on Mumsnet after one poster revealed how she disagrees with the assumption that everyone wants sex, and she was by no means the only one.

Even those who have previously enjoyed an active and even satisfying sex life agreed that they were perfectly happy never to be intimate with a partner again.

She and others pointed out that believing everyone should want sex is akin to thinking everyone must like cake or cats, and there’s something wrong with anyone who doesn’t.

Now that sex is everywhere, it has low value, sort of like running water. We are learning that sexual liberation means sexual conformity, and because the herd is all doing the same thing, value flees to those who are outsiders and doing something else, like tying sex to family and existential purpose, which makes it more valuable where “liberation” makes it less valuable.

Like all things Leftist, sexual democratization renders worthless something one prized by destroying the best examples of it so that the other examples can feel “equal.” In other words, no one gets what is beautiful; beauty is destroyed so that the average can rule. This is what the fearful and tyrannical human ego does to any segment of experience.

For example, Americans are having less sex because sex is sort of like running water or wi-fi now, i.e. everywhere and without much significance, which cries out for it to be bonded to something larger and more transcendental than what modernity has reduced to a bodily function:

American adults are having less sex than they did a quarter century ago, with married people showing the most dramatic decline of all.

The paper, published in the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior, showed a drop across gender, race, region, education level, and work status. One factor is the higher percentage now of unpartnered people, who tend to have less sex than partnered ones. But a major driver is a steady fall in the rate of sexual activity for people who are married or living with partners, which reduces what had been known as the “marriage advantage.”

…At the same time, Americans overall became less coupled. In 1986, 66 percent of American adults were living with a partner; by 2014 only 59 percent were, according to GSS data. People who are not in couples, including those who have been married in the past, tend to have sex half as frequently as people who are, the study said.

In other words, sex has become a bargaining chip. People trade it for acceptance in a relationship, and once they are in one, there is no need for a further transaction. The liberation of sex has made everyone into slow-motion prostitutes. And as a result, sex has become a chore like any other job, something done in exchange for money or power and therefore, something undesirable.

This is the nature of all things under egalitarianism. Because society is re-oriented toward a minimum, everything which is not mediocre becomes a commodity, and as the herd chases after it, its value falls as it becomes democratized or spread around. In the end, nothing is worth anything, but each prole can claim they are a king… albeit in an entropic wasteland where nothing has value.

Platonic Forms Versus Solipsistic Universal Reason

Saturday, January 21st, 2017

Bruce Charlton and Faith and Heritage lead the Christian Reaction (#CRX) movement, and today Mr. Charlton writes about a sensation of Platonic forms:

What I mean is that if you and I are to be in communication, then when we think of a triangle, a face, the theory of evolution by natural selection or anything else… we must both be able to think exactly the identical thought.

…This, in turn, means that the thought cannot be inside either or both of our minds; but must instead be ‘located’ in some realm to which we both have access. In effect, we could only think exactly the same triangle (and therefore experience communication) if both of us were thinking in some kind of common ‘space’ where this triangle was located.

In other words, structures that exist in more than one mind must have a locus outside of that mind.

Another vision might be this: what makes forms real is that they have a logical reason for existing, such as — using the classic example of a chair — the simplest platform for supporting a seated human requires three to four legs, a seat and a back. Chairs can appear in different minds because of this derivation, not because a universal necessarily exists somewhere.

However, by that same token, there must be a larger causal space which contains the designs which make these logical reasons manifest. This space is a calculating space, working like a big computer to forever refine itself, and it feeds back into physical reality to create tangibility to its results, ending the possibility of infinite loops or other “rabbit hole” calculations.

In this vision, the thoughts themselves are not the Platonic space, but the ideas to which they refer, which are derived not from the physical brain but from the idea in which physical reality exists.

This presents to us a monist view of the universe in which both physical and metaphysical attributes exist within the same set of logical rules, and therefore, that activity in the metaphysical zone — the raw idea — is parallel to that in the physical.

Our thoughts, by referring to objects in reality, can then influence those objects if the thoughts are relevant and accurate enough to be logically related to the forms of those objects. This is the principle discovered by the hermeticists.

Let us see how this would apply to a real world example:

The sexual revolution is therefore not an epiphenomenon of our cultural malaise – it is core: the single most effective and enduring agent of permanent Leftist revolution.

So far as I know, none of the supposedly ‘right wing’ or ‘populist’ movements in the West have yet made clear their collective (as well as personal) repentance of the sexual revolution; and until they do, they will simply remain what they currently are – which is merely a different species of Leftism (just as National Socialism was merely a different species of Socialism).

When the mind is organized toward promiscuity, it has (1) reversed its process of thinking and (2) rejected any sense of enduring aspects of reality. In this way, promiscuity is itself an ideology which supports the Left, which also begins with reversed thinking that excludes long-term analysis. Reversed thinking occurs when people “argue from” physical objects instead of “arguing toward” principles or transcendental goals. This means that their actions are not deliberate, but in response to the options before them, and so are entirely shaped by their environment.

Sexual convenience relies on the availability of sex, and instead of finding the purpose of sex and its context within a goal, it treats the sex as a reason in itself, eliminating any cause-effect or goal/purpose related thinking. This naturally leads to rejection of the idea of long-term or enduring attributes of reality because reversed thinking is entirely ad hoc but then justifies itself as good by appealing to symbolic reasons, such as the socially-driven morality of the herd.

At this point, you have many brains programming the universe with memes of deconstruction because their own thinking is deconstructed as a result of being reversed and therefore, without the ability to have purpose or goal.

An alternative would be to formulate in our minds ideals that are transcendental and geared toward qualitative improvement, at which point we are sending forth radiant signals of intelligence and long-term thinking, which then makes other ideas available to us at the same time it attracts other objects relevant to those attributes.

In contrast, universal reason would hold that thoughts are objects, and not chains of cause-effect relationships forming structures, and therefore that all minds which hold the same thoughts are in fact the manifestation of those ideas. This seems appealing because we are naturally solipsistic, and want to believe the world is a subset of our minds.

In hermetic wisdom, which is an extension of ancient Hindu and Pagan ideals, whatever you idealize you attract, and thinking of what you lack produces purposelessness. The description of a Platonic view of the world above explains how this could work in the type of information science that views that world as a continuous, calculating, aware but unconscious entity.

A Gen X Lament: The Alt Right

Saturday, November 19th, 2016

less_than_zero

Two of the questions that have baffled writers in our time: Why do we not fight back? and Why are we failing to reproduce? The same answer addresses both: our people are existentially miserable.

Existential misery refers to concerns related to existence itself. People who are existentially happy believe they have purpose, that the world is basically good or at least not headed toward failure, and that they will have meaningful lives.

These are the questions of purpose and meaning that disturb our sleep in the middle of the night. Those who feel existentially lost sense that their lives have no greater meaning than material consumption and labor, and tend to self-destruct if they are above a certain level of intelligence.

At the core of an existential question lies the troubling idea of hope. Those who have realistic hope, meaning that things will turn out for the best based on the sanity and stability they see in their civilization, tend to thrive and be productive, happy and connected to the world around them.

On the other hand, those who lack hope tend to destroy themselves by failing to reproduce, self-sabotaging, and other behaviors of unhappy animals. This shows us that the central question regarding European-descended people is Why are we so hopeless?

We have no faith that our lives are good or that the future will be good; in fact, even if we are afraid to articulate this, we believe the contrary. This is made difficult by the fact that on the surface, all is shiny and wealthy, happy and content.

People drive by in new cars. They go to jobs with fascinating titles. They always have new gadgets and objects to discuss, if not the 500+ channels of cable and internet. We have progress. We are good. Or are we?

Despite all outward signs of being good, we — the descendants of those who made this civilization — do not like our society. Its wealth is wonderful, but seems to mostly go to the wrong people. Its technology is great, but always glitches and then breaks down after only five years.

We want to escape it, in fact, which is why everyone dreams of getting rich and bailing out. An entire society is a hamster on a wheel, just for the chance to escape that society!

Our people are miserable is this is why they are dying out. Conservatives shut the door on the world, go back to work, pay their taxes and grumble to let off steam, then do nothing. Leftists find their Utopia empty, and redouble their efforts. No one is happy with the situation, but because they are atomized by social isolation, they engage in “compensatory” behaviors or those which make the individual feel better about the world rather than attempting to change it.

Nowhere has this hit harder than with Generation X. Growing up as “latch-key kids” who were the products of divorce and social breakdown, Generation X realized that they were going to be adults in a world without social order. They could rely on nothing, were targets of predatory business and government, and saw that their society was entirely without future. They retaliated with a dropout culture that matured into total rejection of society and a desire to destroy it.

The result is a nation ready to split in half, with one side belonging to the Left and the rest for the realists. The realists will identify the following as the fatal flaws of liberal democracy that have shaped the lives of Generation X and made them detest society:

  • Diversity. People want to grow up in a society where there is a strong social standard of what is correct behavior, and therefore, they know what to do in order to be rewarded. Leftism favors a social standard which changes all the time but reverts to the same core concept, equality or the individual being safe from the consequences of his actions. With even a tiny amount of diversity, the social standard is eroded by different customs and values, creating a hybrid standard that verges on the generic. Our people now have no idea how to participate in society, so withdraw, and this makes them neurotic and lowers their self-esteem.

  • Sexual Liberation. In theory, sexual liberation sounds like it removes the pressures of sexual selection. In reality, it ensures that no strong bonds form between people for whom each partner is merely another sexual experience. This ruins families by creating faithless marriages, and gives children no hope of the type of eternal, pure love that they crave. To the “liberated” person, marriage is an extended form of dating, and as in dating, the relationship is terminated when it becomes too inconvenient for the individual, ending any hope of strong love or long-term pairing.

  • Equality. When first described to us, equality sounded like pacifism applied to class struggles: everyone is accepted, and all are included. In practice it always means taking from the successful to give to the unsuccessful, which breaks the spirit of those who have achieved anything by watching the fruits of their work drain into the pool for support of those who do nothing and become destructive as a result. It punishes those who rise above, making it inefficient to be anything but mediocre, and then everyone suffers from the resulting wave of ineptitude and lack of comprehension.

  • Political Correctness. In order to accept the Other among us, we require Soviet speech codes in order to prevent the clash of values systems being noticed. Each group has its own self-interest, and that includes dominating the others so its own value system prevails, so political correctness is used as a weapon to silence the majority or even simply realists so that the conflict can continue.

  • Sexual Equality. As a result of egalitarianism, women entered the workforce, effectively doubling it and installing into it people who were masters of endless detail but prone to miss the big point. The result has been that all business initiatives converge on the same laundry-list of important details and miss what makes those products and services distinctive, lowering quality and making jobs mind-numbingly boring, while simultaneous decreasing real salaries and forcing everyone to work later hours to outpace the “class president” women of the Hillary Clinton archetype.

  • Disorder. Without values, social classes and a culture we can share in common, there is no social order outside of Leftist ideology and what police, public shame, lawsuits and fines enforce on us all. This makes people despair of ever being rewarded for doing good, and instead they focus on tangential personal hobbies that do not fulfill them and instead make them more alienated and less likely to relate to one another.

  • Make-Work. Beyond women in the workforce, the onslaught of unions and affirmative action resulted in all jobs being subdivided into detachable parts, like the “cogs” of industrial revolution lore made even more isolated and boring. People attend jobs more than work to an end, and spend most of their time cleaning up after other people, which penalizes the intelligent and makes them angry, vengeful and controlling.

This is the nightmare into which our Leftist regime launched Generation X starting in the 1980s. Back then, the disaster was just beginning to gain momentum, but none of us thought there was any future in this world. This created zombie citizens who wander alone through the world, finding nothing of importance and like a star before becoming a black hole, imploding on themselves.

Generation X is a group born without hope. Their parents, the 1968er “Me Generation” Baby Boomers, climbed up the ladder and then pulled it after them, leaving people stranded without a civilization that gave them any hope. In this hopelessness, they have begun to die off, having known since their early teens that this disordered, insane world offered nothing but death.

Along with millennials, Generation X propelled the Alt Right to prominence because they realized that the collapse was upon us. Society was dead when they were born. We are now just carving up the remnants. The only fix is to radically remove the insanity foisted upon us by tearing it down to its roots, and excising those. Extremity is no longer extreme; it is the bare minimum for survival, and this is why the Alt Right arose among Generation X.

Any solution will begin with peeling back the above policies. Remove affirmative action, sexual equality, diversity, unions and equality from the law, and leave it up to people — not government or ideology — to organize their lives. Only in this way can we back away from the abyss, and then run in another, more constructive direction.

Mr. President, Tear Down This Pathology

Thursday, November 10th, 2016

tearing_down_the_wall

The election of Donald J. Trump reaches to areas beyond politics. It shows a cultural shift against globalism and the farther-Left-than-moderate neoliberalism which drives it. It also shows a population adapting to the diversity agenda of post-WWII by formally adopting identity politics, decoupling self-interest from altruism.

First it makes sense to clarify what the election was not. It was not the election of a radical conservative ideologue. Nor was it a vote of confidence in the conservative parties who first opposed the nomination of Mr. Trump in favor of more moderate, neoconservative candidates. This was a man seizing an opportunity that was undervalued:

But Trump’s win was no fluke. He has been talking about running for president since at least 1988, but never pulled the trigger. This time around, he saw the opportunity and went for it. A shrewd entrepreneur, he saw a vast sea of unhappy voters who wanted fundamental change to the status quo—particularly on trade, immigration, and interminable foreign wars, and he was able to disrupt politics by re-segmenting the political market to serve it.

Over the past thirty years, conservatives have been unwilling to attack the core of Leftism as expressed in its class warfare and diversity programs. Leftists want to create an egalitarian Utopia, and to do this requires mobilizing every person by ideology.

That in turn requires eliminating any competing values systems such as the family, religion, heritage, culture, class and national identity. They are fanatical on this point because Leftism is fundamentally unstable, and so any competing — even non-hostile — belief must be subverted and dominated. Leftism pursues power fanatically because the more Leftism penetrates, the less it can hide the failure of its policies, and needs an army of ideological zombie useful idiots and authoritarian leaders to enforce itself.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, Leftism took a new turn: it decentralized and hid its power so that to an observer, it seemed as if society were sliding inevitably Leftward as a result of Leftist ideas working when in fact they were failing. When Barack Obama said that Angela Merkel was “on the right side of history,” this is the myth he was exploiting.

This Leftward shift occurred invisibly because of the rise of neoliberalism, or the use of market forces to force implementation of Leftist ideas:

Neoliberalism is a kind of statecraft. It means organizing state policies by making them appear as if they are the consequences of depoliticized financial markets. It involves moving power from public institutions to private institutions, and allowing governance to happen through concentrated financial power. Actual open markets for goods and services tend to disappear in neoliberal societies. Financial markets flourish, real markets morph into mass distribution middlemen like Walmart or Amazon.

This definition is my paraphrase of Greta Krippner’s “Capitalizing on Crisis”, a pretty good book about what happened from the 1960s to the 1980s in terms of financial politics. Her thesis is that the liberal democratic system was dismantled because it was too explicit about who was making choices. People would get mad at politicians when they didn’t have, say, mortgage credit, or when the price of milk went up too high. The answer came to be neoliberalism, or creating a veil of financial markets to make all those decisions seem apolitical.

Conservatives were caught unaware by neoliberalism because it seemed as if market forces and social change were driving what were actually changes initiative by government, its NGOs and corporate friends, and supported by the news-entertainment media and its cadre of celebrities who never fail to get out there and echo the narrative.

Neoliberalism began to collapse because of the weakening of media caused by the internet, not so much through greater competition but the loss of revenues from advertising and the tendency for readers to get their news directly through statements from the people involved in an event, posted to social media for the world to see.

This happened simultaneously with a backlash that had been steadily gaining steam since WWII against the erasure of our national cultures by diversity and globalism. As NWO propaganda organ The New York Times tells us, the Trump win was a backlash against multiculturalism and globalization:

The triumph for Mr. Trump, 70, a real estate developer-turned-reality television star with no government experience, was a powerful rejection of the establishment forces that had assembled against him, from the world of business to government, and the consensus they had forged on everything from trade to immigration. The results amounted to a repudiation, not only of Mrs. Clinton, but of President Obama, whose legacy is suddenly imperiled. And it was a decisive demonstration of power by a largely overlooked coalition of mostly blue-collar white and working-class voters who felt that the promise of the United States had slipped their grasp amid decades of globalization and multiculturalism.

Even from this source which is hostile to conservatives, the truth emerges: the Establishment was forcing an agenda of globalization and multiculturalism which was not only not working, but also destroying the lives of ordinary people. Our new elites, who are ideological elites like the Communists, used the markets to deplete the populations of the nations they infested, and used that wealth to put themselves into positions of power.

Mr. Trump did not present an alternative plan to this threat. Instead, he simply proposed that he treat it like any other business question and eliminate that which was not working and replace it with things more likely to work. This provoked an outcry that veered quickly into the absurd and histrionic.

The outcry misses the point: Mr. Trump is not a radical. Even more, he has suggested nothing extreme. What he has said is simply that we should stop stumbling down the path to doom, and his method of doing that is to go back to the type of thinking that a moderate or independent would have found appealing in the 1980s.

People protesting in the streets or wailing about how Trump is “misogynistic,” “racist,” “homophobic” or otherwise evil have missed the point. He is none of these things, but the protesters are so far gone into radical Leftism that they cannot recognize a normal, middle-of-the-road viewpoint when they see it.

This permanently divides our country. On one hand, with have the Historic American Nation (HAN) which generally takes a Trump-style moderate position; on the other, the new Red Guards composed of angry students, alienated single women, ethnic minorities, unsubtle Leftist homosexuals, and other people who totally oppose anything like a normal lifestyle based around the nuclear family, tradition and morality as was the group that built this nation from nothing.

We see the same thing in Europe. Neurotic Leftists and non-natives gather to oppose national culture, religion, identity, history, culture and language. They want to turn every place into the same thing that happens everywhere else: an open air bazaar with no heritage, culture and identity uniting it.

In other words, these are the people of decline. They exist only to further decline. They are incompatible with the natives not because we are bad, or even extreme at all, but because we are not going along with the decline agenda, which is to destroy all normalcy and goodness so that only ideology remains.

The psychology of these people — which, since it occurs without regard for the results it achieves, should instead be called a pathology — is fascinating. They do not feel good about life, and only induce themselves toward feeling good through the sense of power and righteous anger they find in ideology. This is how they bond with one another, all they have in common, and how they feel better about their lives, which are empty not so much through lack of success as lack of any permanent purpose, or bond to life itself. These are rootless, alienated, isolated, lonely, unhappy and ragingly angry people.

When someone pursues power for its own sake, independent of what is right or sensible, and is motivated by an impulse to destroy, this reflects a deep detachment from life. They hate the order of nature and any hierarchy which conflicts with their own desires. This makes them agents of destruction, and by doing so, they serve evil.

Bruce Charlton offers more on the conflict behind the conflict, in which we are battling not just another party but the growth of evil within our civilization:

By this, Trump will be just another mainstream secular Leftist politician – better than his evil, incompetent, warmongering and dementing opponent; but not a positive good.

However, the unleashed forces that brought Trump to power… well they do fill me with both hope and also a dash of optimism!

He expands upon this with a view from the perspective of a member of the Leftist elites/Cathedral in which we can see how their existential despair drives their destructive agenda:

But think of how things are from the perspective of a typical elite Westerner:

You personally regard the universe as a meaningless collection of random events; you regard your own life as a brief interlude between an emergence from chaos and a descent into oblivion.

…How they have rejected marriage and family, how even their best human relationships are little more than temporary and expedient mutual exploitation; how their goals are limited and only possible with self-blinding – how the whole charade is kept going by holidays, treats, drink, drugs, medications, sexual fantasies (and how the reality of these things never remotely matches-up).

How for them life is only about hopes of pleasure and money, fame and status – and an awareness that these never last, and are never enough…And how there is nothing else: this stuff is the whole of life; and the expectation is even worse (unless death and presumed oblivion comes quickly).

The West entered death because of its own success. Its lower orders revolted after its leaders could not stop several unstoppable tragedies whose root really lay in the sudden growth of the West since its superior social order allowed those to survive who otherwise would be unable to.

As in the movie Idiocracy, we see that we get more of what we tolerate. Since we tolerated excessive peasants and fools, we got more of those, and they quickly overwhelmed common sense. In doing so, they created a society which was evil at its core and has been eliminating the good and promoting the bad since.

Events like Viktor Orban in Hungary, Brexit and the election of Donald J. Trump show a gut-level revolt against the steady encroachment of hopelessness in our society. The Crowd is always wrong, and the Crowd desires evil camouflaged in millions of different ways, all aiming at the same result.

This will surprise no one who has spent time among humans. We are self-destructive creatures, prone to spin out of control when our emotions conspire with our tunnel vision oriented perceptions caused by the greater strength of mental impulses about ourselves than knowledge of the world around us. We become solipsistic easily.

Mr. Trump has kicked loose a landslide, as he has created a symbolic barrier to the advancement of the people of destruction, aided by parasitic faux elites who merely want personal profit before they leave to find another place to attack. He represents the West finally working up the courage to confront this evil.

For those of us on the Alt Right, the time has come to refocus. The backlash has become, but most reactions like this peter out when they accept a substitute for total victory. For us, total victory must be achieved, or this evil will eliminate us forever.

With that in mind, the Alt Right needs to look to its roots. Our beliefs are a collection of negations of the building blocks of modernity — equality, sexual liberation, diversity, democracy — but we have never given them the synopsis they truly deserve.

The Alt Right stands against modernity itself.

Modernity is not our technology, which was inevitable since we began making fire, and required only social organization to take hold. Nor is modernity a $current_year range. It is a mentality, and it begins with egalitarianism or the notion of universal inclusion, or that society should be forced to accept the good people along with the bad so that the average individual does not feel threatened by having to live up to a value system, goal, purpose or other restraint on that individual’s whims.

All that we recognize as threats, such as diversity and democracy, are a natural outgrowth of the idea of equality. Equality is the method that evil uses to force acceptance of itself upon our society, and then to take over. Diversity aids equality by abolishing culture, values and standards so that evil is more accepted.

While breaking out the Scotch and cigars over the Trump victory is in order, what we must do now is redouble our efforts and push harder for the end of modernity as a pathology. Our enemies will not rest, so neither can we. Most of humanity wants to tear down what we have built and replace it with disorder, and our only salvation lies in beating them back and then reversing the evil that rots our core.

Below: typical American street scene after Trump election.

The Modern Cycle Of Dependency And Dysfunction

Tuesday, September 27th, 2016

Over at Me In Words, an interesting revelation of the breakdown of human reproduction through our Leftist policies:

me-in-words-1

me-in-words-2

These flowcharts are taken from The Next 100 Years by George Friedman, whose work is mentioned in the article. The point remains: if we do not establish sanity to our civilization, we will die out from lack of reproduction, and then even the conservative tendency to have healthy families will be overwhelmed by the collapse.

Why men love sluts (or think they do)

Thursday, September 24th, 2015

why_men_love_sluts_or_think_they_do

The selective woman presents a challenge to the male ego: she will demand that he win her, then lead in sexual activity, and may not be so welcoming that the sex act is easy. He will have to keep his erection through his own stimulus alone and pay more attention to her.

A slut — a promiscuous woman — on the other hand offers little resistance. She takes little to win, whether a night of feminist theory lectures or a few drinks at a bar, and then is an equal participant in the sexual act. As he is lunging for her, she is lunging at him, like an opposite version of male. If his erection fades, she will be an active participant in stroking it to life.

Conventional analysis (which is usually political or at least panders to popular imagination, and is therefore wrong) holds that sluts present more of a challenge to the man because of their greater experience. The opposite is true: their greater experience means they are less likely to notice differences in a series of experiences that blur together in memory. Having committed themselves to the act, they see only their own gratification, and so will help him along instead of wondering at the mediocrity. Their need, like that of an addict, is great and therefore they work around little lapses because their own satiation depends on it, where a more selective woman is considering the broader context of the event and will find failure to signal a larger disconnect.

The economic analysis of sluts flatters no promiscuous woman. The law of supply and demand states that products and services of greater abundance are worth less than those which are rare, and conversely, that those things facing less demand are valued less. The slut values herself little, but she values her pleasure more, so she is willing to move lower on the demand curve both in terms of attraction to her and her own standards. A slut has in effect said, “I have an over-abundance of this commodity, and will give it away for less,” signaling her own need as greater than her self-esteem.

Men love sluts — or think they do — because the challenges of a low cost venture are lesser than those of a higher cost undertaking which carries with it the need to have greater quality of the act. Slut sex is easy, not just to acquire, but to have. It is expected to be low-investment and low-satisfaction, which is why it is valued lower and more of it is demanded. This is easier on the man, so if he is low self-esteem, it presents itself as a less dangerous undertaking than challenging his rare commodity, which is self-image.

Most pick-up artist lore consists of making sluts feel comfortable making slutty decisions by bestowing on them small tokens of self-esteem. If they are challenged, that is a signal of investment in their value, as if they were actually difficult conquests. The man still controls the token of their self-esteem, which induces a cult-like slave mentality. If they are flattered — which works less — this serves also like a cult thought process to convince them temporarily that sluttiness, while less valuable, is an “empowering” choice because they are in control. This control is also in the control of the man, who must continue the stream of complimentary behavior or risk losing his attachment.

None of these things were unknown to our ancestors. They saw that injured or weak animals were less selective in mates, and instinctively made the metaphorical comparison to human beings. Only arrogance and presumption could make humans assume that we are above the rules of nature, economics and the mathematics underlying it. It has taken a century of flattery and false self-esteem to wear this down, but only in the easily swayed. The people who achieve not just “success” but whole, full lives tend to still play by these rules, because in order to succeed at life common sense — and not excuses, compensation and flattery — is required.

Bernie Sanders’ comments on women are not as bad as reported

Friday, May 29th, 2015

bernard_sanders_-_man_and_woman

As reported by MRC, Socialist candidate for president Bernard “Bernie” Sanders once wrote an article about men and women, and it included three quoted lines that seem questionable out of context.

In the interest of fairness, let us look at the full essay:

Man — and woman, by Bernard Sanders

A man goes home and masturbates his typical fantasy. A woman on her knees, a woman tied up, a woman abused.

A woman enjoys intercourse with her man — as she fantasizes about being raped by 3 men simultaneously.

The man and woman get dressed up on Sunday — and go to Church, or maybe to their “revolutionary” political meeting.

Have you ever looked at the Stag, Man, Nero, Tough magazines on the shelf of your local bookstore? Do you know why the newspapers with the articles like “Girl 12 raped by 14 men” sell so well? To what in us are they appealing?

Women, for their own preservation, are trying to pull themselves together. And it’s necessary for all of humanity that they do. Slavishness on one hand breeds pigness on the other hand. Pigness on one hand breeds slavishness on the other. Men and women — both are losers. Women adapt themselves to fill the needs of men, and men adapt themselves to fill the needs of women. In the beginning there were strong men who killed the animals and brought home the food — and the dependent women who cooked it. No more! Only the roles remain — waiting to be shaken off. There are no “human” oppressors. Oppressors have lost their humanity. On one hand “slavishness,” on the other hand “pigness.” Six of one, half dozen of the other. Who wins?

Many women seem to be walking a tightrope now. Their qualities of love, openness, and gentleness were too deeply enmeshed with qualities of dependency, subservience, and masochism. How do you love — without being dependent? How do you be gentle — without being subservient? How do you maintain a relationship without giving up your identity and without getting strung out? How do you reach out and give your heart to your lover, but maintain the soul which is you?

And Men. Men are in pain too. They are thinking, wondering. What is it they want from a woman? Are they at fault? Are they perpetrating this man-woman situation? Are they oppressors?

The man is bitter.

“You lied to me,” he said. (She did).

“You said that you loved me, that you wanted me, that you needed me. Those are your words.” (They are).

“But in reality,” he said, “if you ever loved me, or wanted me, or needed me (all of which I’m not certain was ever true), you also hated me. You hated me — just as you have hated every man in your entire life, but you didn’t have the guts to tell me that. You hated me before you ever saw me, even though I was not your father, or your teacher, or your sex friend when you were 13 years old, or your husband. You hated me not because of who I am, or what I was to you, but because I am a man. You did not deal with me as a person — as me. You lived a lie with me, used me and played games with me — and that’s a piggy thing to do.”

And she said, “You wanted me not as a woman, or a lover, or a friend, but as a submissive woman, or submissive friend, or submissive lover; and right now where my head is I balk at even the slightest suspicion of that kind of demand.

And he said, “You’re full of ___________.”

And they never again made love together (which they had each liked to do more than anything) or never ever saw each other one more time.

While some in the media would have us jump all over Sanders for the first two paragraphs, it is clear that he is speaking of a specific man and woman, not all men and not all women, with the figurative characters he conjures. You can see the proof of this later on as he reveals a dialogue between the two. The “a man” and “a woman” from the first two paragraphs become the man and woman, which is a sign that he is referring to a specific pair in those comments.

The contrast he illustrates, between submissive Stepford wives and piggish Lena Dunhams, shows the split that sexual liberation has wrought in men and women. Without trust — a function of chastity — between the two, they are both trying to game each other, each trying to make the other submissive and resisting the demands from the other with piggishness.

From the final two paragraphs, it seems Sanders was heading for Kurt Vonnegut or Franz Kafka territory here. Assessing the quality of his attempt is left as an exercise for the reader, but it is clear that he is not writing a polemic about all men through the example of the man in the first paragraph.

I realize that it is tempting to stoop to the level of mainstream leftist media and become slander machines on the right. However, that leads to nothing but a cheapening of discourse. Wise advice:

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look long into the abyss, the abyss also looks into you. — Friedrich W. Nietzsche, Aphorism 146, Beyond Good and Evil

Even though what MRC says — “Sanders shared his thoughts on male and female sexuality in ways that would cause a media firestorm if it had been penned by any current GOP candidate” — is true, the point is not to stoop to that level. Instead, do away with any media that lowers itself to that standard.

In the meantime, an interesting read from Socialist Bernie Sanders. I don’t know about you, but I learn from history, and pushing around stale ideas like Socialism makes me distrust anyone.

Liberalism makes people into whores

Wednesday, January 29th, 2014

peacock

The essence of liberalism is that it makes you entrust your self-esteem to the herd and thus, you are easily controlled. This is why liberalism finds culture, values, heritage and ideals threatening. They usurp its total control.

This entrusting of your self-esteem is a social experience. The liberal herd encourages you to externalize your self-esteem, or make it contingent upon avatar-like events outside of your self. Who likes you, number of tweets, whether you’re trendy, etc.

Its ultimate goal is to break you and make you dependent on liberalism. You think you have a soul, independent opinions? No: we will convince you to, in the name of having more autonomy, surrender your actual thinking to us. Then your life will fall apart. Then you will have nothing but us and our Ideology.

One way they attack you is through sex. First they make it naughty, then they convince you that you’re a loser if you aren’t having it. Then they lure you into doing stupid things for it, sacrificing a positive future for a present pleasure, and of course, for their greater control.

Blogger Matt Forney summarizes it this way:

I’ve been confronted with it in the past, and it’s disturbing, near sociopathic how girls can effortlessly justify their emotional promiscuity. Appealing to morality is a waste of time; you might as well be speaking in a foreign language.

It comes down to this: if you let them, all girls will become sluts.

Not necessarily physical sluts, but emotional sluts, seeking masculine attention like a crackhead financing his addiction by holding up gas stations.

Keep your eye on the really offensive part: if you let them, all girls will become sluts.

You think he’s kidding perhaps?

Try this article from six years ago:

Young women are becoming more promiscuous, with more sexual partners than men, researchers have found.

By the age of 21 they have had sex with an average of nine lovers – two more than their male partner.

And a quarter have slept with more than ten partners in the five years since losing their virginity – compared with a fifth of young men.

This is progress, remember. Now everyone’s slutty. What does this mean? The fewer sexual partners you have, the lower your risk of divorce. The fewer sexual partners you have, the better your chance of marriage. This matters for those years past age 27 when you want to find something to do with your life. It will probably take the form of a calling, even if separate from your tedious day job, and family. Temporary sex cuts you out of that picture.

They’re cutting you out of the good life:

Marriages, at least successful ones, increase longevity, health, and happiness, and, according to this paper (pdf), the effect is not due to selection.

…our reading of the longitudinal evidence, after looking across studies in a variety of literatures, suggests that:
•Marriage makes people far less likely to suffer psychological illness
•Marriage makes people live much longer
•Marriage makes people healthier and happier
•Both men and women benefit, though some investigators have found that men gain more
•These gains are not merely because married people engage in less risky activities
•Marriage quality and prior beliefs can influence the size of the gains.
In the terminology of this research field, there is a genuine protection effect from marriage. The pattern in the data is not a cross-section illusion. Moreover, it is large: for males the longevity effect of marriage may even offset the consequences of smoking.

Marriage is also the only way, in this parasitic world and every society before it, to conserve labor and resources enough to have a financially sound home. It’s also the only way to have a happy home if you’re not a narcissist.

Why are they doing this? It’s a technique, not at all different from the ways narcissistic parents manipulate you, that forces you to put all of your sense of what’s true in the hands of others. Narcissistic parents appoint themselves the ultimate authority and destroy anything you do that is not what they wanted. Narcissistic liberal crowds appoint themselves the source of reality and destroy anything you do that is compatible with actual reality, not liberal Ideology.

The reason it works is that most people, no matter how smart they are, cannot escape the pig-monkey primitive brain that keeps them enslaved to their impulses. Thus when sex is offered, they take it, and only years later start to realize what a bad trade it was.

Conservative values have always been right for people who care enough about life to want to live a good long time and do it all right. Those who do not have that kind of faith in life become upset that others do, and they conspire to destroy them. If you let them, they will do it to you.

The liberal sabotage of the family

Tuesday, January 28th, 2014

julie_gayet

The liberal idea is of reward before performance. The individual is declared equal and thus deserving of reward for being an individual. Naturally this produces an incentive to do nothing controversial, with being effective a distant secondary concern.

Conservatives encourage reward for performance. Our ideal is that good people get good results and bad people get bad results. From a distant glance, it looks a lot like Darwinism, but it is also moral self-determination of the individual. In a conservative view, the only social order comes from individuals being incentivized to do right and discipline their “inner beast” to be more logical and less impulsive.

To this end, conservatives warned long ago about the destruction of the family. In our view, the family is both a contract and a sacred promise. It is the notion that two people make a choice to be together for life, to raise a new generation, and to stay bound to that unit no matter what happens. The idea is that by incentivizing faithfulness, we produce stable and healthy families.

Liberals, who are pathological individualists, see this as confinement. They look to the exceptions where a family finds it hard to get along or faces another barrier, and project themselves into the situation. How would I feel with such limited options? they ask. In their view, the exception should define the rule, so marriage should be if not abolished at least made optional for those who are married.

Never mind that through every generation of humanity people have chosen marriage because it leads to the happiest outcome. Everyone wants the fairytale: the person who loves them for who they are, the happy family in a joyful home, and the gradual fade into old age with a faithful partner. This is why even now the smartest and most together of us strive for this.

In 1968, the liberal ideal won out through a culture war, which was different from the political approach that the left had attempted in the 1930s and before. Like the Apple iPad, radical leftism became a product that signaled wealth and success. It was like Daisy Buchanan in The Great Gatsby, a trope and memes repeated by the elites that was not actually intended to be real:

“You see I think everything’s terrible anyhow,” she went on in a convinced way. “Everybody thinks so — the most advanced people. And I know. I’ve been everywhere and seen everything and done everything.” Her eyes flashed around her in a defiant way, rather like Tom’s, and she laughed with thrilling scorn. “Sophisticated — God, I’m sophisticated!”

The instant her voice broke off, ceasing to compel my attention, my belief, I felt the basic insincerity of what she had said. It made me uneasy, as though the whole evening had been a trick of some sort to exact a contributory emotion from me. I waited, and sure enough, in a moment she looked at me with an absolute smirk on her lovely face, as if she had asserted her membership in a rather distinguished secret society to which she and Tom belonged.

Sophisticated. Like teenagers pose with cigarettes and adult worries when they want to look older, the human monkey postures with “big issues” when it wants to appear more adult, powerful or wise than it is. In other words, people are using knowledge backward, in that instead of perceiving reality and creating an opinion based on that, they use an opinion in order to make themselves seem sophisticated, but still apply that opinion to reality. Like reward before performance, this is verity before testing.

When conservatives talk about how ideology is unnatural, that is only half the story; ideology is a fabricated method of uniting a group through perceived collective interest in an unrealistic but “moral” sense. The real story is that liberalism is pure marketing. It exists to make liberals look smart. But unfortunately for us, it still controls our society.

In the case of the destruction of the family, liberals are often caught unawares by the results of their own ideology. Specifically, they do not seem to believe that it applies to them and thus that its consequences apply to them. In their view, society will remain the same no matter what liberals do, because liberals do not take their own ideology seriously. Thus they are shocked and confused when it turns on them.

Recently Valérie Trierweiler discovered the sting of the liberal approach to the sex, love and the family:

Valérie Trierweiler, the “partner” of the French president François Hollande, has had a nervous breakdown, because the president is cheating on her with the actress Julie Gayet and the media is writing about that….The progressivist terror in France, such as the crackdown on la Manif pour tous, is virtueless and exactly the opposite of impotence — it is political and sexual licence.

One wonders why she is shocked at all. Did she not pay attention to what liberals are saying? Marriage is jail; dating is freedom. There is no obligation in dating to continue dating. Dating is sex and companionship while convenient, and it works on a commercial model. That is, if you get a better offer, you jump ship and that’s just too bad for your now ex-partner.

This is much like how our hominin ancestors in the primordial jungle must have interacted. While it was easy, they stayed together. When it got tough, they bailed out. We can see the same strategy in place among third world populations today, where often multiple fathers are responsible for a mother’s brood and coupling happens on an almost seasonal basis.

Trierweiler presents a sad case because despite being a life-long liberal, she was unable to interpret what liberalism would mean in consequence. This is consistent with her not being able to derive her beliefs from reality, and instead deriving them from social contacts and popular notions. But even if she approached dating from the most basic of metaphors, commerce, she would see how it truly works.

Marriage — if we can super-simplify it — is a contract. Two people say they will give up some autonomy in order to create a family and to that end, they pledge to be together “until death do us part.” This allows both partners to rely on the marriage and trust it for certain basic functions, including sexual exclusivity and mutual aid and comfort. Marriage may be the basis of civilization itself because it reduces instability and provides for happy stable homes with a high degree of investment in the offspring.

With dating, there is no such contract. Thus when François Hollande gets a better offer, he is free to take that offer. After all, he has promised nothing to his mistress; they are together out of temporary mutual convenience. In the same way he left his long-term mistress, Ségolène Royal, and Valérie Trierweiler left her erstwhile husband Denis Trierweiler, he is simply upgrading.

Looking at Julie Gayet, the new “First Girlfriend,” we see a woman who looks a lot like Valérie Trierweiler but a decade younger. Dating is not much different than owning a car in this view. When the car gets old, you trade it in for a newer model, which is what Tom Wolfe in In Our Time refers to as the “New Cookie,” a replacement for the wife that allows the husband to have more fun, sex and pretense of being 18 again.

It is crushing to watch this drama play out from afar. Trierweiler apparently had no idea it could happen. She then fell back on passive aggression and guilt to try to make it stop. But in the liberal world, there is no guilt for self-interest because the self (individual) is all. In the liberal view, the woman who demands that a man stay is trying to enslave him. After all, he has a sexually better offer in the younger woman!

The sad case of Valérie Trierweiler shows why the liberal approach to civilization is an utter failure and always will be. Ideology based on the individual makes us all disposable. Further, ideology based on popular notions and making the individual look sophisticated is dangerous because no one is thinking about its actual effects.

For those with alert minds, the question raised by these lugubrious stories of perceived betrayal is not solely the effect on our sex lives. Every liberal policy follows this pattern of being chosen for popularity, not reality. And it seems that at least the most influential liberals have no idea or do not care about the impact it will have on our lives.

Princess

Friday, July 19th, 2013

your_little_princessI ask all young men to indulge in a thought experiment.

Assume for the sake of argument that your life goes really well. You find a career you totally enjoy, meet a woman who floors you and isn’t a passive aggressive parasite like most people, get a killer house in a perfect subdivision, and find a way to practice your hobby in such a way that makes you world-renowned. You’re set, and living the good life.

I know you have doubts about this happening, but everyone does, especially those that it happens to. So you know it’s possible and despite your negativity, which is really your way of defending your lifestyle against the possibility of something that resembles (yuk, spit) “growing up,” you have to admit this could happen.

Say it’s ten or fifteen years in the future.

Somewhere in there, you and the little lady got busy, and had two perfect children. A girl and a boy, both beautiful and intelligent. You love your kids more than anything, and you never thought you’d say this, but you’d rather see your X-Box, record collection, and stash of rare baseball cards go up in smoke than see something bad happen to either one. Even a little something.

Let’s say your daughter is eleven. She is 1.5 years away from menstruation, if she’s an average girl. She is 5.3 years away from her first sexual experience, on average. But that’s not to say it won’t happen sooner. You’ve got a full life, and sometimes the months and years zoom by. Are you ready to even think about this?

The real question upon you is not whether you can ignore it or not. It’s what steps you’re going to take to make it work out for the best. And that requires another question, and this one is a real doozy:

What type of sexual experience do you want your daughter to have?

And as a corollary, what kind of life experience do you want her to have? And what about your son?

People — especially drunk people at college parties — like to pitch to you the idea that all lifestyles are different and there’s no real order to them. It’s just whatever you want. In the adult world, however, the rankings are clearer. Everybody wants to be somebody. Who is that? The divorced career woman? The sexy swinging single? Or what everyone seems to work for, which is the nuclear family with stability and love?

Everything fits into a new context when it’s your kid. When do you want her to have her first anal gangbang? Your princess, penetrated by many penises. What about her first bukkake? Her first one-night sexual encounter with some guy whose name she forgets by morning? Her first anonymous blowjob at a blindfold party? What about her first three-way, and double penetration?

Your little princess. What kind of future do you want for her?

You can hide beyond, “Whatever she chooses, they’re all equal,” for only so long. At some point you realize there’s a number line between the drunk cocktail waitress aging without grace and taking home whatever man she can grab, and the nuclear family with a loving husband and stability and kindness.

But of course, you don’t get that outcome by sleeping around. In fact, you’re mostly likely to get it by being the 31% of American women who have only one sex partner in their lives. When you haven’t experienced others, you hold nothing over your husband or wife. You give it all to them. There is trust and love uninterrupted by fear and cynicism.

The scary thing is that we all know this underneath our cynical outer selves. Inwardly, we long for the fairy tale. The two people without cynicism who meet each other, fall in love, and have a life-long love affair based on selflessness. The happy family, united in belief in each other and uncritical adoration. The people who escape the negative experiences that some thing make them seem worldly and edgy.

You know what you want for your little princess. You’re afraid to say it because it will break a social taboo. But no, all choices are not equal. And you know what you wouldn’t want her to experience, which in turn implies what you hope will happen to her.

Now look at the women around you. Each one of them is someone’s princess. Unless you’re a sociopath, you don’t want bad things to happen to them either. Does this change how you view women, and perhaps, yourself?