Amerika

Whether or not human beings have immortal souls, we live as biological entities. As such, we recombine our genes with each other in a process known as sexual reproduction. That is where the easy statements end.

Some believe sex should be no more than a bodily function: a need to be discharged. Others think we should sacralize life, and see sex not as an end, but as a means to an end. This end is the family, it is love, and it is a cornerstone of our civilization.

Without people in love raising healthy families, we quickly become a rabble of emotionally-damaged people who want to one-up each other in an ongoing quest for social supremacy. This centerless society is miserable because no one can tell what sort of behavior is rewarded, leaving them to guess and (statistically most likely) get it wrong, then be punished by bad consequences.

In a centered society, a clear path exists. Once a path exists, you start to judge your actions by “are these on the path, or off the path?” And since decision itself is selective, these societies reward selectivity. Instead of consuming with mass appetites, thinking that more is better, we are forced to acknowledge that better quality in the right context is what we seek.

We’ve chucked that out the window in a modern time, and made sex a bodily function. What’s the result? For starters, many more single women in their 30s and above. The Western world is awash in single women nearing the end of their reproductive age, and most of them have had too many sexual partners to be seen as highly valued, or to value themselves highly. As a result, they keep giving it away, and men treat them like free sample packs at the supermarket.

Now, we know that the peak of a girl’s sexual market value is in her late teens/early twenties. After 25, her value starts declining slowly, and after thirty, it plummets. Not to mention that unless she is a chaste angel, her number of partners is only going to go up. Idle vaginas are the slut’s workshop.

So basically, the conventional wisdom of the dating world mandates that a man has to spend INCREASING amounts of money on a woman as her sexual value DECREASES! The only time this relationship collapses is when the woman in question hits cougar years and her value has gone so low that not even the marriage-industrial complex’s nonstop fusillade of lies can obscure what can be seen with your own eyes.

What this means is if you’re a beta male (the majority of men), in order to gain access to that sacred portal of pleasure every woman has betwixt her thighs, you’re expected to shell out cash for dates. If you want to have an LTR, you’ve got to shell out a whole lot more. And when you finally pop the question, like the good little obedient serf you are, you’ve got to spend three months’ salary on a goddamn ring and four or five figures on the ceremony and related shit. All this so your blushing, mid-to-late twenties bride, who likely spent her salad years hoovering down the jizz of players, bad boys, pickup artists, and other alphas FOR FREE, can brag to her fellow yentas about how she’s snared herself a nest slave husband. – In Mala Fide

The author above uses the term “beta male” differently than we do at this blog. Around here, betas are the wimpy geeks who do not have the vir to create and to think outside of the box. Alphas are the ones that do that. Alphas would not necessarily look good in a movie; it’s a spiritual-intellectual-physical status, not an aesthetic one. In the way Ferdinand Bardamu, author of the above post, uses the term, betas are normal productive people and alphas are movie stars and pro athletes. I think that classification works in the third world, but not in the Northern communities of Asia and Europe, where smart, reliable, competent men are valued and seen as more virile than some screwball with a Camaro.

In another piece, he continues:

The issue that I and other bloggers are confronting here is the sexual impoverishment of beta males in the modern West. Western civilization is uniquely superior to all other societies because it was built by and for betas, harnessing their physical and mental power to create advanced technology, stable systems of governance, and economic prosperity. No other civilization – not the Chinese, not the Africans, not the Arabs, not the Amerindians – has ever managed to reach the heights obtained by European states and their offshoots because of this crucial difference. The reason angry ladybloggers can sit on their dimpled derrieres in air conditioned buildings and write blog posts displaying their painful ignorance to the world is because of the beta males who designed and built all of those things. Without them, as Camille Paglia said, “we would still be living in grass huts.”

To benefit betas and keep them invested in society, checks were placed on the sexual behavior of women and the alpha males whom they lusted after. The configuration of marriage afforded betas a chance to procreate, while protecting the women with whom they entered into holy matrimony. In the past four decades, these checks have been annihilated. Using the power of the state, radical feminists initiated a massive redistribution of wealth from the provider beta class to women. Alimony and child support payments, along with no-fault divorce, have annihilated marriage’s value, while welfare state programs such as WIC (Women, Infants, Children) reward women who become pregnant out of wedlock. Put simply, the socialist state has reduced the value of the provider beta to nothing. If provider betas were a corporation, it would have filed for bankruptcy and had its assets sold to the highest bidder years ago. Without the opportunity to reproduce, betas will give the bird to society and drop out, leaving the world to rot. – In Mala Fide

Many of us drift toward conservatism because we realize just how vast a disaster liberalism has been. In the United States, our parents and grandparents in the 1960s inherited the wealthiest nation on earth, and they’ve turned it into a third-world Kali-Yuga ruin. By third world, I don’t mean the third world, but having the level of dysfunction, kleptocracy, disorganization, bad hygiene and low average IQ that we associate with the third world. The USA’s average IQ is probably heading downward to 98 at this point, coming close to joining Russia and France, who both reduced theirs to 96 by having a People’s Revolution and killing off the smart people, who were blameless for the nation’s failures.

The family is the root of selective behavior. When you choose a mate, it becomes a choice and an empowering one. You have selected this person as important to you, as sacred to you, and by opting for none of the others, you have made them the focus of your world. There is no resentment for past lovers if they do not exist. If they do exist, the resentment becomes understated, but lurks constantly. Fidelity and trust go out the window, and marriage becomes a political and economic contract only, and loses any sacred character. With that goes much of the respect you could have for your spouse.

Obviously, the left- and feminist-inclined will object here. “But what about bad marriages?” What about the fact that despite our sexual liberation and no-fault divorce, people are still living in bad relationships? One explanation is that if you screw up the choice the first time, you’re going to screw it up the second time — and you’re already used goods, a markdown. Subconsciously, we all know someone who has gone through one divorce is more likely to go through a second, which means the reasons for that bad choice and the ensuing bad or illogical behavior are still there in that person. Which is better, one bad marriage — or four? Even worse, how about those two bad marriages and then being single for your declining years, while you increasingly struggle to find sexual partners in an attempt to salve with quantity what you lack in quality?

The issue that I and other bloggers are confronting here is the sexual impoverishment of beta males in the modern West. Western civilization is uniquely superior to all other societies because it was built by and for betas, harnessing their physical and mental power to create advanced technology, stable systems of governance, and economic prosperity. No other civilization – not the Chinese, not the Africans, not the Arabs, not the Amerindians – has ever managed to reach the heights obtained by European states and their offshoots because of this crucial difference. The reason angry ladybloggers can sit on their dimpled derrieres in air conditioned buildings and write blog posts displaying their painful ignorance to the world is because of the beta males who designed and built all of those things. Without them, as Camille Paglia said, “we would still be living in grass huts.”

To benefit betas and keep them invested in society, checks were placed on the sexual behavior of women and the alpha males whom they lusted after. The configuration of marriage afforded betas a chance to procreate, while protecting the women with whom they entered into holy matrimony. In the past four decades, these checks have been annihilated. Using the power of the state, radical feminists initiated a massive redistribution of wealth from the provider beta class to women. Alimony and child support payments, along with no-fault divorce, have annihilated marriage’s value, while welfare state programs such as WIC (Women, Infants, Children) reward women who become pregnant out of wedlock. Put simply, the socialist state has reduced the value of the provider beta to nothing. If provider betas were a corporation, it would have filed for bankruptcy and had its assets sold to the highest bidder years ago. Without the opportunity to reproduce, betas will give the bird to society and drop out, leaving the world to rot. – In Mala Fide

Marriage allows men and women to rest easily, if chastity is also enforced. After the sexual revolution? Not so much, and men lose out because the woman has her slutfun for her early years, then settles for marriage, but she’s not only used goods, but also unlikely to abandon her previous promiscuous behavior entirely. After the sexual revolution, our divorce rate is 50% of all marriages. What does this tell us about its effects on us? Quite simply: it has ruined our ability to commit, and to make discerning choices. Instead, like other areas of modern life, sex and marriage have become subsets of the pursuit of convenience and desire. This is why traditional societies emphasized sexual fidelity not just for women, but for men as well, in order to set that cornerstone firmly and give people an expectation of happiness, love and sacred union, instead of an expectation of bodily functions which decrease one’s worth to potential future spouses.

The truth is that men willing to commit to a woman in this day and age are in short short supply, and your value is high. You can afford to be a little picker than you think. Here’s my list of criteria:

…

4. Positive Family History. Did she have a reasonably intact family home and childhood? If she’s from a divorced family then you will have a higher likelihood of divorce in your marriage to her. Again the purpose of your marriage is not to save a woman, it’s to have a happy productive life with someone. Is the rest of her family basically normal and generally free of mental illness, developmental disabilities, crime, cancer and drama? By all means make allowances for the few black sheep in every family, but a coherent bad pattern is a stumbling block. If meeting her family feels like a social worker visit just bail and start over.

5. She Has A Clue. I don’t care what it is that she does at college, or even if she doesn’t go, but either way she needs some sort of direction and purpose to her life that doesn’t really require you to be attached to her for her to have a life of her own that’s functional and productive. If the whole point of her life is simply to meet a man and be a Stay At Home Mom, that fine as long as she is displaying a top notch SAHM skill set already. I’m talking baked goods, knitting, cooking, child care, cleaning, decorating and social planning skills. Or put another way – would some rich ass family hire her as housekeeper/nanny for $40,000 a year? I want to see some sort of ability to hold a job and responsibilities together as an adult.

6. Virgin. You heard me. The fewer sexual partners a woman has before marriage the higher her marital satisfaction and the sexual satisfaction she has within marriage. You very much want your wife to sexually imprint on sex with you and completely bond to you. The sex is just going to be that much better over the long term. Not to mention no other ex-lovers lurking on Facebook, sexual diseases, bad experiences and regrets to worry about. The harsh truth to the modern hook up girl is that yes indeed every time you sleep with another man, you damage your long term wife potential. Plus the best predicator of future behavior is past behavior and highly promiscuous women before marriage are probably far more likely to cheat on you during marriage. – Athol Kay

Let’s re-read that:

The fewer sexual partners a woman has before marriage the higher her marital satisfaction and the sexual satisfaction she has within marriage.

This isn’t just about men; it’s about men checking out because women have debased themselves, which ends up with both women and men — both part A and part B of the marriage equation — feeling bad about life, or living in constant distrust, or reducing their standards to those of rutting animals. Our conservative politicians have mostly failed us on this front by attacking abortion and gay marriage as symbolic assaults on the family, but the bigger assault is the sexual revolution itself. However, like race and class war, this is a topic that’s “off limits” for corporate/prime time-friendly politicians. Let’s talk about arms sales to Outer Bloviatopia instead.

Not only is the family the cornerstone of society, but the way we approach sex and the family defines how we view all other parts of our lives:

Actions viewed as means to an end often register to us as a loss, or more specifically a psychic sunk cost. And like I’ve mentioned before, human beings are very loss averse. Actions views as ends on the other hand register as a psychic win, even if it’s a goal that to most sane people would consider anything but positive.

…

The means/end paradox occurs in when two people are caught in a dynamic where one person’s viewing his actions as means to an end, thereby accruing losses, or psychic sunk costs, while the person viewing his actions as ends is mentally maximizing wins. Thanks to the principle of loss aversion, the means-motivated person becomes more heavily invested and winds up in a sunk cost trap. And the end-motivated person increasingly feels less invested because he’s only been accruing psychic gains the whole time. As a result, the means-based person will usually have more trouble walking away from the relationship and being more tempted to invest more resources than the end-based person.

Means/end congruence on the other hand is when both parties are on the same page when it comes to motives and sunk costs and therefore feel similarly invested. – The Rawness

With marriage as sacred, there is inherent means/ends congruence and no partner comes out ahead and can spite, scorn or disrespect the other. Even more, it shows us an archetype for life: our bodies rot, our wealth disappears, and even the people who know slowly vanish. What lasts? A sacred experience of life, a union with the process of living and transcendent acceptance of what it is to be alive. Is that the best way to live? If you can do it, yes; not everyone can. But a society that emphasizes this encourages the best of life for the best of its people, and those who cannot participate are just as doomed as they are in any other type of society.

From a traditionalist source:

When the sense of metaphysical reality is lost, the proper place for morality in metaphysical relation is lost as well. This is seen most explicitly in the modern world. Where morality ceases to serve its higher principle, it becomes abstract, loses its positive world-forming function, and has a deleterious effect on the virile functioning of the person. Made individual, morality loses its demonstrable value; there is no longer an effective basis for spreading its fruits. – Gornahoor

If we have party A (a man) and party B (a woman) there is an implicity party C (a goal/a values system). Parties A and B can fight back and forth for dominance, or agree that C is the goal, and fight for that instead of trying to manipulate, control and cheat each other. This is a more enlightened way of life than the progressive, liberal and modern idea of the individual as a nexus of desire and choice finding significance in choices that are essentially indistinguishable from those others make. Yes, you wore a red hat with the maroon boots, so you must be unique — except not. Trivial choices do not define us. Character-building choices, like who to marry, do.

What else has sexual liberation brought us?

An estimated 95% of the rapes that take place in the UK are never reported. Only 6.5% of reported rapes in England and Wales result in a conviction on the charge of rape. – The Guardian

Why so few convictions? Because in a time of sexual liberation, there’s almost no way to prove rape. Unless a dozen people saw the woman screaming “stop rape” after she was assaulted by a random person, there’s no real evidence. Semen or a condom? Also used for consensual sex. Evidence of roughness? Also happens during “normal” sex. He will say she said she wanted to have sex; she’ll say she didn’t. Did she change her mind? Did he misread the signals? It’s not as serious a crime anymore, because with so many women chucking the goods out the door without a second thought, it’s hard to prove they were unlikely to have said yes. No one wants to start another million-dollar court case where the evidence will never be strong enough to satisfy many critical observers.

Men’s response to this neurotic and increasingly unstable situation is to check out. Men love sex, but when sex becomes a risk and a burden, there’s beer and video games, or even just doing something productive. Tragically, this means the people who drop out of the mating/dating game first are those most likely to have a measure of self-control, and thus intelligence. We are downbreeding ourselves into idiots by turning our women into whores, driving away the good men, and alienating anyone left into sexual burnouts.

Another take on the morality angle:

1. How do we restore a virtuous society?

Short Answer–by restoring its women. Which, is why I put so much emphasis on calling women out for their sins and getting them to realize that they have the capacity for great evil, just like men. It may seem common sense, but I do believe a good deal of women live in some sort of bubble where they think they are immune to evil forces. It’s not a fight against women that I engage in, but a fight against sin.I focus more on sin in women, because they hold the key in restoring the society. There is talk that men aren’t doing their part in restoring society because they are refusing to marry ungodly women. One should not marry just the sake of marrying. You first need good stock; good wife material in the culture and that we do not have. Probably only 10% (and that is being generous) or so of women qualify. Women bear the burden of returning themselves to good stock and exhibiting qualities that men will find as an asset. For the 10% who are assets, they end up getting lost amongst all the liabilities. A man finding such a woman is like searching for a needle in a haystack; where the needle is the asset woman and the hay are the women who are liabilities. It’s hard for a man to recognize a needle amongst all the hay. What we need is for all assets to become hay and for the needle to become the liability. The good qualities in the few will not be recognized until the good qualities are in the many. It used to be this way, before feminism spearheaded our cultural decay. In order for men to do their part, women need to first do their part. They can then select a quality women once women en masse make it desirable to do. They will make the waters safe to swim in again. – Laura Grace Robins

Sex is the fundamental archetype for how we view the world. It is an inherently future-looking act, if we continue the means/ends convergence of past times, because it creates the next generation. It also determines how we raise them and thus, what type of people they turn out to be. Our attitude toward sex is our attitude toward society itself, and from that, the values that inform our philosophies.

While an act of male infidelity is as morally wrong as an act of female infidelity, the faithlessness of women is much more destructive on a societal level. It more often leads to the dissolution of marriage in an age of easy divorce. Women, who are the primary initiators of divorce, are more inclined to end a marriage because of their own outside indiscretions than because of the indiscretions of their husbands. This conclusion is confirmed by Michelle Langley’s work and the psychological differences between men and women.

Please note that when I talk about the faithlessness of women, I don’t mean merely their affairs, but also their desire for romantic adventure regardless of whether they have a specific man in mind. For women, marriage is generally meaningless if they are not emotionally involved with their spouse, which in an era of easy divorce and favorable custody laws leads to a great deal of family breakdown. A man is more capable of seeing marriage in terms of an abstract commitment. This is why female adventurism is so much more destructive. A woman wants to leave when her feelings for her spouse are diverted and she is more easily overcome by her feelings to the point of insensitivity toward her children. Also, male infidelities are more likely to be about sexual pleasure, rather than emotional involvement, though of course this is not always true at all.

Women tend to react to their errant sexual desires with more guilt and confusion than men because of the common conviction that women are essentially monogamous. This guilt causes them inner dissonance which often manifests itself as manipulative behavior toward their spouse and leads to the end of a marriage. I have witnessed this a number of times. Many women successfully convince themselves that their decision to leave is caused by the faults of their spouse. There is almost an innocence about their self-deception. They are the creatures of passion. – The Thinking Housewife

When we allow sex to become an end in itself, and not a means toward a sacred end, we destroy female happiness — and, as with other things in the modern time, replace stability with a kind of emptiness and longing. We make ruins of our women and we make men who retreat into oblivion. These ideas then migrate to the rest of society: why have any faithfulness to anyone at all? Be in it all for yourself. Throw that litter on the ground, because these trees aren’t going to pay your electric bill for you. And so on.

If you want to know why conservatives oppose sexual liberation, the sexual revolution and the trivialization of marriage, there you have it: it undoes one of the cornerstones of a society geared not just to lowest common denominator function, but a life where we sacralize existence itself and are able to live better as a result. Beware the snake oil salespeople. When they say “freedom” and talk about fulfilling your desires, remember there is a price to pay, and it may take you a long time to see, and it will be one you will not like at all.