Once Aryan Skynet Goes Live It Doesn't Matter Who Pulled The Switch
“When we survey the modern world, especially of people of European origin and the developed parts of East Asia, there is clearly a problem stemming from certain sexual imbalances,” writes Andrea Ostrov Letania at Paradoxy. “Consider the declining birth rates among white women and the problems of white males in finding worthy partners in marriage.” A specter, it seems, is haunting Europe – the specter of sexual socialism.
A contributor to the Red Pill subreddit celebrates what he terms “The Death of Sexual Socialism”:
It’s a human system (sexual market) the establishment interjected themselves into to become the monopolizers of social order. The Church also did this arm in arm with the prevailing nationalist establishment so as to maintain a permanent monopoly and a means to siphoning the productive powers of men, and or getting money. […] Women were paired with the highest earning beta their parents could arrange even if she hated him and men had to suffer that hell as we know it till their deaths. The social system was rigid, the corruption in these systems absolute and abhorrent to the quality of life of the supra majority because these systems riddled with inefficiencies and big governments which did not represent any economic interest of the people, lacking those basic market principles for a lean, efficient and value driven framework of governance. […]
The termination of this system is without a doubt what enables the current day alpha/beta dynamic as it is playing out in the open. It’s this sexual freedom of the sexes which has increased the quality of life of men drastically because beta men are no longer strapped to the instabilities and economic degeneration of a relationship/marriage. Though the function of this freedom is not from personal life choices but the new social economic system (Feminism) which puts a chunk of men below women economically. In order for those men including some of those in wealth to attain a mate they must actually compete in the sexual marketplace. No longer will men be able to ask for a government hand out on women but in actually compete […]
Mentioned before the new sexual market is exclusionary of men who do not compete […]. For whatever reason these men do not want to invest in such a thing to attain women and a result is their disbarment from the market […]
The realization of TRP [i.e., the red pill] is that there is no longer Sexual Socialism, you won’t get a free pussy ticket from a society which was once formed upon weak socio-economic freedom.
Men have to compete in the market, but this competition destroys and weakens those who contribute no value, men and women, though this in the context of only the sexual marketplace.
Sexual socialism, then, is not the utopian nightmare vision of some perverted Bolshevik, but the de facto order existing in European societies before the sexual revolution of the twentieth century. “Monogamy is sexual socialism,” explains mathematician Nathaniel Hellerstein.
It is well known that monogamy goes against the grain; yet also that it’s needed for civilization. From this I deduce that monogamy is a socialistic intervention into the mating market.
If pure laissez-faire applied in the mating market, then the most likely result would be oligopoly; a few males corner the market and gather large harems, the other males are out of luck. But unattached males without prospects are a danger to themselves and others; this is a political problem; therefore some of the brighter politicians and priests back in the Bronze Age decided to enforce a share-and-share-alike policy. One woman per man, no more nor less; and this rationing is enforced by moral suasion, peer pressure, and failing that, the sword of the Law.
Such a system is called socialism. As usual with socialism, it works approximately as planned, but there are unintended consequences and known systemic failures. Nonetheless, this form of socialism is, all in all, relatively successful.
“In-group altruism,” writes Robert K. Graham in his essay “Devolution by Revolution”, “promoted group survival, and groups which were less inclined to be supportive of their own members competed less effectively against rival populations, and in the long run would be less likely to survive.”
Free love, conceived as an economic model, functions in much the same way that free trade works. The most desirable sexual partners, like the most efficient multinational corporations, will dominate the marketplace, while those who are undesirable for whatever reason will find themselves in the position of the small and undercapitalized business concerns which, unable to compete with their rivals’ efficiencies and economies of scale, are more likely to fail without state intervention. In both free love and free trade, those parties able to game the system (pun intended) are the ones who prevail. Both models, in view of the inequalities given play, will tend to empty the field of all but oligopolies or monopolies. Contrarily, marriage, as Hellerstein indicates, is a form of socialism, and consequently given to “known systemic failures” – infidelity, for instance, which, continuing with the economic analogy, would constitute a species of black market transaction.
The present sexual economy has given rise to what Chateau Heartise, in a classic essay, has termed “The Modern Corporate Harem”: “Seven women per one high status man.” Those inclined to an anarcho-capitalistic or social Darwinist perspective might see monopoly as a good thing – as the ultimate in meritocracy. Indeed, some identitarians have advocated polygamy as a means of boosting the presently sub-replacement levels of procreation among European populations. Proponents of polygamy could make the argument that the amplified sexual productivity of those males sufficiently handsome and successful to attract and support multiple wives would have a eugenic effect on the overall quality of the gene pool by removing males of lower earning potential and aesthetic appeal. Business Insider notes that “the income gap between attractive and unattractive people is comparable to the gap between genders or ethnicities.”
Favoring a hybrid socialist-harem model, the white nationalist blogger Mindweapon, in comments under an odd post titled “Islamic Europe; the Ottoman Empire Meets the Third Reich”, has suggested that “the [disingenuously and strategically converted] European Muslims should get on the dole and practice polygamy with White nationalist females who see the logic of converting in exchange for having large families and getting high tech, Saudi funded White madrassas that teach Koran and aerospace engineering and electronics and computer engineering.”
Not all are so enthusiastic. “If I see one more utter moron babble on about how ‘great’ polygamy would be since he presumes he’d get laid a lot, I may scream,” gripes Disenchanted Scholar. “These people are desert-dwelling disease-ridden low-IQ no-impulse control losers, and you see that as a role model? Fucking r-types, honest to Christ. […] Aside from these, do you have enough wealth to support a single wife now? 2.2 kids? No? STFU [i.e., shut the fuck up].” Janet Factor, in an essay treating “the Sexual Motivation of Religious Extremists”, characterizes polygamy as a system which enjoys ancient and longstanding precedents but is deeply flawed and fraught with socially catastrophic ramifications:
Recent research shows that the global ratio of successful reproduction for the sexes after the advent of agriculture was as much as 17:1 (women:men), and even in more recent times it hovered between four and five to one. It is clear that throughout most of our history only a subset of men managed to reproduce, but almost all women did.
The West can thank the Romans for decisively rejecting this ancestral preference, and codifying a surprisingly modern form of monogamy in their marriage laws. Christianity, which grew up under the Romans, adopted the idea from them; it is not at all Biblical. In fact, a quick perusal of the Old Testament will make it clear why I say the Romans should be thanked. Polygyny may maximize reproductive potential, but it leads to all sorts of social ills. Women are not the only ones who suffer. So do children, and so do many men. So does society at large. And it is all because of those relentless numbers.
Just as a quick and (I must emphasize!) immensely oversimplified demonstration of principle, consider these examples. Because the human population sex ratio is normally 50/50, when one man takes on an extra wife, another man is deprived of the opportunity to have one at all. So if just one man in ten takes a single extra wife, a very modest degree of polygyny, that means fully 10% of men are shut out of the marriage market entirely. This sets off a mad scramble among young men not to end up in that unfortunate bottom 10%. There, the options for obtaining sex (at least with a woman) are reduced to two: subterfuge or rape.
Now, think about the reproductive numbers. Say a woman can be expected to successfully raise ten children in her lifetime. But a man can have that 10 times the number of wives (or concubines) he obtains. What does this mean for parental investment?
Alt-Left darling Robert Lindsay, meanwhile, disapproves of polygamy on these grounds:
Socially disruptive. Polygamy tends to allow high-status males to monopolize females. This limits the chances for lower ranking males to marry and reproduce. I’m not keen on having a society where Donald [Tokowitz, alias] Sterling has twenty wives while a mathematics prof has none.*
Dysgenic effect: Polygamous societies favor men with capital; hence, older men (who have had more time to accrue wealth and power) tend to have the most wives/children. Older men have higher mutational loads in their sperm. Hence, polygamy diminishes human capital in the long term.
* Another thing to bear to bear in mind is the fact that polygamous societies tend to be both highly dysfunctional and highly authoritarian. Cf , for example the polygamous Mormon enclaves, polygamous societies in Black Africa, etc. I’m not keen on emulating them.
“Not only that,” Lindsay adds, “but polygamous societies are also reactionary. Ever heard of a progressive polygamous society? No such thing.” This last piece of reasoning could, of course, probably sway several readers of this site in favor of polygamous groupings.
Dysgenic trends are a key consideration in evaluating the outcomes of the sexual revolution, which, it is important to remember, was not only about varieties and frequencies of intercourse, but increased educational and vocational opportunities for women. More time spent in study programs and in pursuit of professional success has, in addition to increased economic and sexual freedom, resulted in postponed or preempted parenthood – particularly for more intelligent women. A recent Icelandic study found that “groups of genes that predispose people to spend more years in education became a little rarer in the country from 1910 to 1975.” This decrease in the prevalence of genes predisposing people to more years spent in education was, furthermore, more pronounced among women. “Many other studies indicate that the Flynn effect [of increased IQ with successive generations] has ended or gone into reverse across the developed world around the 2000s by the latest,” notes Anatoly Karlin.
“The complex and genetically heterogeneous modern Western societies face another problem,” writes Robert Graham.
Not only have they for generations promoted the reproduction of the less intelligent, who […] under evolutionary selective processes would have been less inclined to leave progeny behind them, but factors discouraging the reproductive activities of the more intelligent have emerged. The “liberation” of women from their traditional role of motherhood and child-rearing has enabled the more intelligent to devote their interests to professional careers, with the result that they marry late, if at all, and have fewer children.
Andrea Ostrov Letania, while not rejecting every aspect of the sexual revolution, does voice her opposition to it on the basis of what she similarly reasons are the dysgenic effects of women’s liberation.
Anyway, returning to the subject of Western liberty and decadence and how they relate to the problems of men and women, we need to consider the true conditions of Western success. Because the rich West has gone through the feminist transformation, many are likely to argue that feminism has been one of the necessary underpinnings of the rise of the West. To the extent that the West provided women of talent the freedom to contribute to the sciences, the arts, and business, this is true enough. After all, there are smart women along with the smart men, and a society that fully utilizes its smart women as well as its smart men will have double the number of smart people in many fields than a society that only allows smart men to contribute while smart women are banned from certain professions. Every society has a limited number of smart people, and smart women are smarter than most men just like smart men are smarter than most women. A social order that favors smart men and less smart men (over smart women) is likely to lag behind one that favors smart men and smart women. But then, in the long run, it could be that the former social arrangement will gain over the latter social order. While the former social order will provide less freedom and choices for its women, the result could be that more smart women will choose to be mothers and give birth to smart children, whereas the latter social arrangement, while utilizing the special talents of smart women in certain fields, will discourage smart women from procreating since their lives are so wrapped up with professional obligations. Whether one likes her or not, Hillary Clinton is a pretty smart woman, but she only had one child. She may have done much in life, but her genetic legacy is only Chelsea. Had she been a cookie-baking mother, she might have left behind five smart kids. So, when smart women are allowed to favor economic production [rather] than biological production, it will lead to [a] short spurt of energy and creativity for a society, but the society may lose out in the long run because many of those smart women will have chosen to have no kids or only one kid. We are seeing this in Europe and advanced parts of East Asia. As the economic door opened up to women, many rose up the ranks in many profession[s], and they added to the economic productivity of society. But as they tend to have few kids or no kids, the future looks bleaker from a HBD and IQ-centric perspective.
At any rate, even though the entry of many more women into all kinds of professions and fields may have contributed to recent advances in science, business, media, and so on, it is also true that the West made tremendous advances long before the project of Modern Feminism got underway. Also, science tells us that men tend to be both smarter and dumber than women, i.e. there is a wider range of IQ differences among men than among women. Also, men, far more than women, tend to have the kind of creative energy and individual spirit necessary for powerful breakthroughs in demanding fields. So, one might well surmise that not much was lost in civilizational achievement due to the suppression of female talent in the past. Also, if more women in the past became mothers and had more children, it means they produced more sons, some of whom were destined to become great individuals. Imagine if Werner Heisenberg’s mother decided not to have children or had only one child. As Werner was the second son, he would never have existed. […] Clearly, in the long run at least, a smart woman having many children is better for society than her devoting her life to a profession and having no kids or just one kid. In concentrating on work she may contribute something to society, but, if she had no kids, her talent would have been useful only for the duration of her existence. She would have left no genetic legacy for future generations.
Individualism, in the western tradition, “isn’t an absolute and only goes so far,” she argues. “It is balanced with socialism in the belief that there are certain matters of communal and collective good that take precedence over ideological purity of individual liberty and personal freedom.”
At any rate, the issue of sexuality is problematic to ideology because biology doesn’t play according to moral or intellectual rules. Liberals welcomed the sexual revolution in the idea that increased sexual freedom will make people love one another more across class lines, ethnic divides, and racial barriers. But sexuality is as discriminatory as it is embracing. Libertine sexuality seeks pleasure through open union with many partners, to be sure. But sexuality is not “inclusive” in a universal or egalitarian manner since it has strong natural likes and natural dislikes. Raw sexuality does not like ugly people, “gross” women, “loser” men, and etc. Sexuality is essentially very insulting, nasty, and exclusionary. So many people face rejections while some gain all the attention. Expecting equality in sexuality is like expecting equality in sports or capitalism. Once that cat is out of the bag, it leads to big winners and big losers.
“This social and quasi-sexual dynamic [of the corporate harem], playing out across corporate hierarchies all over the West, pollutes the minds of women and renders them less able to appreciate the dull ministrations of the less-than-senior-management beta males that buzz about them outside the office,” Heartiste elaborates on the large-scale implications of the corporate harem society.
In the company of beta males, a de facto corporate harem girl is emotionally aloof, cocksure, unfeminine, petulant and entitled. She has felt the presence of a real modern king, a maestro of the symbol manipulation secret society, and now peasant men simply won’t do. So she lashes out at the piss bucket boys with undirected, malevolent spite, for their naive importunings fill her with disgust. Who are these nobody betas, to consult her? She has warmed the cock…les of a king’s heart! No commoner’s girl is she!
What the corporate West is becoming is a soft concubinage of a few alpha males and many attractive female HR [i.e., Human Resources, not Hipster Racist] drones whose job it is to protect the privilege of the transnational globalists by acting as a gatekeeper against infiltration by wrong-thinking elements and potentially powerful competitors. That’s the real story behind the graphic above: the total disenfranchisement of the West’s beta males. If the poor bastards can’t be disappeared the old-fashioned way, drive them out with “anti-discrimination” sophistry.
“In the modern world, women are advantaged over men, and this is why we need a form of sexual socialism to even things out,” Andrea Ostrov Letania concurs, advocating what amounts to a program of reverse affirmative action:
As things stand, it is equally permissible and respectable for a woman to be a full-time wife-and-mother or a full-time worker. Even if a woman decides not to work, no one will look down on her for having chosen wifehood and motherhood. Granted, some feminists might grumble, but most of society will not. Most people will not raise an eyebrow over her decision to devote her time to producing and raising her children. If, on the other hand, she chooses to be a full-time working person and devotes all energies toward her profession, again, her decision will be accepted, even praised, by society. And some women will find ways to balance their personal lives as wife-and-mother and their professional life as careerists. So, such women have the best of both worlds. They can choose the personal life and be respected; they can choose the professional path and be accepted.
But things are different for the men. Though some men choose to opt out of the workforce and be full-time husbands-and-fathers, the choice is not met with admiration or respect by society. And most women have no interest in a man without professional standing in life. Though there has been some effort in certain quarters to make such a choice more acceptable and respectable, it just doesn’t seem right for most people, indeed even those who claim to be okay with that sort of thing. Also, men who find themselves in such a situation feel demoralized and get no respect from their wives. […]
She can choose workplace or home-place. Either way, she is respected/accepted by society. In contrast, men have only one good option. He must choose workplace. If a woman rejects the workplace, she can still find a good husband/mate. If a man rejects the workplace, his chance of finding a woman plummets… unless he’s the type to be satisfied with some black bitchass ho with a fat ass who be leeching off government. So, if a job is open for a man and a woman, it makes more sense to favor the man over the woman because he simply needs it much more than she does. She still has the prospect of a respectable life without a job, whereas he doesn’t. If the woman loses the job, she can still have wifehood and motherhood; she doesn’t lose everything. But if the man loses the job, he loses both; he loses everything. Without a job, he cannot attract women of any quality.
So, taking a purely libertarian-individualist position on this matter would be a huge mistake. If indeed the individual is all that matters, then everyone should be judged according to merit regardless of sex. But if society as a whole taken into consideration, then social policy should favor certain outcomes for the general good. Of course, this would apply to cases where men and women are equal or comparable in their merit/worth. In such cases, men would be favored over women, but women should be chosen in cases where they are obviously more qualified than any man. Obviously, if there’s an opening for a position in the biology department, a woman with advanced knowledge of life sciences should be favored over some guy whose knowledge and experience are considerably inferior. A society would have to be idiotic to choose men over women in every case.
Which system do women prefer? One Red Pill commenter remarks that “women couldn’t be any happier,” to which another replies: “Actually, women are less happy every decade. Because everything they’re told and fed goes against their biological goal.” The latter observation might be supported by “The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness”, a 2009 study by Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, who found:
By many objective measures the lives of women in the United States have improved over the past 35 years, yet we show that measures of subjective well-being indicate that women’s happiness has declined both absolutely and relative to men. The paradox of women’s declining relative well-being is found across various datasets, measures of subjective well-being, and is pervasive across demographic groups and industrialized countries.
Conversely, while today’s women register lower reported levels of personal happiness than those of previous decades, they believe themselves to be happier than their predecessors:
By most objective measures the lives of women in the United States have improved dramatically over the past 35 years. Moreover, women believe that their lives are better; in recent polls asking about changes in the status of women over the past 25 or 50 years, around four in five adults state that the overall status of women in the U.S. has gotten better […] Additionally, the 1999 Virginia Slims Poll found that 72% of women believe that “women having more choices in society today gives women more opportunities to be happy” while only 39% thought that having more choices “makes life more complicated for women.” Finally, women today are more likely than men to believe that their opportunities to succeed exceed those of their parents.
These perceptions would tend to militate against the possibility of the majority of western women dispensing with the sexual anarcho-capitalism to which they have become accustomed – even if it has made them less happy. What matters is that, unhappy though they may be, they perceive themselves to be less so than their unfortunate foremothers were.
What of that “political problem” cited by Hellerstein? Is Daily Stormer’s troll army a threat to the oligarchical establishment’s white genocide agenda? Is the planet about to witness the birth of Alt-Right ISIS? Are these young men a danger to others – or only to themselves? “I have a helpful reminder for the feminists and kingpin ruling elites waving victory signs and placards demanding further concessions from the sexless masses of men who have little left to sacrifice,” Heartiste waxes ominous: “When you lock out 90% of men from productive society, really bad things tend to happen in the wake of your short-sighted selfishness.”
A circumstance peculiar to the civil disorders that rocked Russia during the early years of the twentieth century is that its cities had only recently undergone industrialization, the factories filled with hordes of rootless, unattached young men without domestic obligations or families. “Amid rampant poverty, drunkenness and diseases in the cities’ slums, typical of early phases of the industrialization, legions of industrial labourers became most susceptible to radical indoctrination,” recounts historian Anna Geifman. “Young (and predominantly single) men from impoverished peasant families, who had migrated from the countryside, swarmed the cities as first generation proletarians and performed at least 50 per cent of all SR [i.e., Socialist Revolutionary Party] terrorist acts, with the percentage of worker-terrorists in other radical groups being even higher.”
Does Heartiste’s diagnosis of a mass dispossession of European beta males herald the coming of something on the scale of the Russian Revolution? The testosterone-depleted physical condition of today’s angry and alienated young men, as well as the advent of ubiquitous social media, Netflix, YouTube, and YouPorn as useful distractions from the indignity of their lives, would seem to favor an answer in the negative. If disaffected workers in Petrograd had had the internet in 1905 or 1917, the violent upheavals recorded by history probably never even would have occurred.
Graham, in “Devolution by Revolution”, develops the thesis that groups like the Jacobins and the Bolsheviks effected what amounts to a dysgenic genocide through their programs of political extermination. Was the sexual revolution something on the same order? Have today’s successors to the Bolsheviks – the cultural Marxist oppressor classes officiating under the European and American kakistocracies – perfected the science of dysgenic genocide by rendering it non-violent and therefore apparently non-threatening?
What is to be done?