Posts Tagged ‘sexuality’

Sex As Control

Tuesday, May 30th, 2017

Control is a psychological state, a method of wielding power, and a philosophy. It can be used in any context and most commonly is intangible, meaning that you cannot point to a specific thing and say it is control. There is evidence of it like ripples on the surface indicating fish below or a healed wound hurting before the rain, but no one will ever lay hands on it.

You can recognize control because it manifests as a need to manipulate others directly for self-referential reasons. The person in control is not leading a group to accomplish an objective, but master of closed-circuit power, which means enforcing obedience upon a group by making them embark on actions whose only goal is the perpetuation of control.

A need to manage others directly and to have them do exactly what is told, as opposed to a decentralized or brachiated system of leadership, forms the basis of control. Instead of giving individuals a goal and having them collaborate toward it, control hijacks the goal and makes itself the goal like a parasitic organism would, and so each person must do exactly what it is told.

Without control, people set objectives and then work individually toward them with what they have, and are rewarded unequally for their differing abilities to achieve those objectives. When people panic at this state of inequality, they inexorably demand “equality” instead, or having everyone serve basically the same role. Control always arises from democracy, mob rule, cult behavior or gang mentalities.

People find control comforting: everyone is accepted so long as they do one thing, and they are accountable to control and not to reality, so they do not even need to be successful in their aims, only obedient. Everyone is accepted equally under control except those who defy orders, and those give the mob a reason to unite for a lynch mob witch hunt. Life as a herd is psychologically easier than struggling to survive.

Control requires an equal group doing the same things with any internal status variations being symbolic. With control, all that matters is the uniform obedience by method, not by goal. Everyone must think alike. This is how control maintains its power, and since its real goal is perpetuating itself, all other actions are pretexts.

For example, in a control state, war happens frequently not because the foreign objectives are important, but because wartime terrifies people and motivates them to contribute labor and obey authority. Some actions are made criminal so that anyone can be guilty at any time, causing people to turn on one another to get into the good graces of those in authority.

Most significantly, control regulates appearance. People must be able to look up from their tasks and see others obeying and none dissenting. They must witness, on a regular basis, the human sacrifice of those who failed to uphold the pretexts of control. This keeps them constantly incentivized to obey, and thinking that it is their own idea to do so. This makes them feel free while enslaved.

Control accelerates because it benefits from human failings. When people make small mistakes, they can be destroyed, which means they must either immediately beg for forgiveness in exchange for some other act, such as informing on others, or face oblivion. Control also uses human lusts, desires, emotional reactions, passivity and confusion against them by luring them onward with false promises and real threats.

For example, consider the use of sex in the Soviet Union as a control mechanism:

The official line is that promiscuity is bad, but exceptions are made for whatever advances control. This binds the individual to control both by granting a forbidden pleasure, and making it a shared secret that puts that person at the mercy of control, lest the rules be enforced against him.

Our society has — during its Leftist descent — encouraged open sexuality but also an increase in penalties for rape, as well as a loosening of standards for what is considered rape. It would not be surprising if this violent sexuality were encouraged among those in the inner circles, in whatever breadth of depravity can be summoned.

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.

Sex, Sublimation and Dissipation

Friday, July 29th, 2016


If you make a mild error and have to backtrack a wee bit to set it right, we tend to say “Whoops, Oh well.” It’s a minor thing, time to be a minor king. When you totally mess it up and make the type of existential error you will still suffer from fifteen years later, you just have to admit that you “f*cked it up.” Savor that etiology. When you really do it wrong, you “f*ck it up.” I don’t find the turn of phrase accidental.

The guys who think with the wrong head make the wrong decisions. A life centered around the acquisition of belt notches is a life spent pursuing short term, low-payoff aspirations. A life spent grousing over a lack of sexual gratification has a non-zero probability of turning someone into a serial killer. Yoga practitioners espouse the belief that sex-drive comes from a lower chakra called the Swadhishtana. This is described below.

This energy is the center for creating relationships of all kinds. It is where we develop an inward sense of self and an outward awareness of others, ego, sexuality, and family and defined as we work with this energy. The feelings of other people are directly perceived through mastery of this chakra’s energy.

Not so bad so far, but what happens when that becomes the predominant center of your humanity. Here’s what happens to you if you over-indulge. You develop the following traits.

Excessive: manipulative, controlling, lustful, addictive

Here’s what happens if you over-obsess over not getting none.

Deficient: co-dependent, martyr, submissive, doesn’t feel anything, shut down

The point of this being that bad things happen when you get taken hostage by the more basic needs on Maslov’s Hierarchy. When you focus on the sex-type thing instead of more important matters, bad things happen. Psychologists refer to this as dissipation. Webster’s Dictionary offers the following definition.

2. (n.) A dissolute course of life, in which health, money, etc., are squandered in pursuit of pleasure; profuseness in vicious indulgence, as late hours, riotous living, etc.; dissoluteness.

In the Gospel of Luke we learn that the dissipate man is not prepared when he meets opportunity. Luke speaks of spiritual opportunity, but adventures, careers, and other forms of enrichment could be pissed away as well if we think first, foremost and only about satisfying lustful desires. In other words, Luke is warning you not to f*ck it up.

And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares.

So does the perfect Neo-Reactionary human being completely swear off sex and lock up the jewels in an iron-clad chastity belt? — Nope. At least not if he’s going to be a wank about it and let it dominate his mind and energy. The point is really about focusing on other things. You get so many hours of life. If you spend it obsessed on sex; you spend it not advancing anything that you care about. If worst comes to worst, just gratify yourself and get on with things. Find a balance, put it in its proper place, get on with the rest of your life.

This is called sublimation. To sublimate is to channel energy otherwise wasted on some form of sexual obsession on more enlightened forms of self-betterment. This doesn’t even mean you need to drop game. It just means you play a more intelligent game to win more intelligent prizes. The whole reason I even offer this up is that the first step in effective neo-reaction is a personal one: be worthy. You are worthy when you achieve equipoise. Equipoise is balance. Balance is what saves you from having life knock you on your butt. Other, you’ll probably end up as just another f*ck-up.

The liberal sabotage of the family

Tuesday, January 28th, 2014


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.

Recommended Reading