Sexual Utopia Review

Sexual Utopia is a fairly standard tradcon/alt-right description of Western society's descent into sexual dysfunction and social collapse which seems to me to be obviously true. There seems to be some kind of hundredth monkey syndrome going on whereby lots of people are wising up to a standard version of the facts at the same time. There is only a little I would add.

One thing is that feminism was founded and funded by the men at the top via intelligence agencies and such, and they have benefited from it at every step. In practice, feminism represents the takeover of women and children by the top ~0.1% of men, with corporations and state agencies directed by them taking the place of husbands and fathers. Probably most corporate/government expenditure in the West goes towards propping up feminism.

The explicitly stated reason given for this is the need to limit birth rates to reduce overpopulation and in this, feminism combined with various means of chemical castration has been very successful. Apparently the West has about half the population in would have if it had been allowed to continue on with its 1945 birth rate, and given that the West currently consumes about half the world's resources, having double the population be a bit problematic, so maybe the sadists at the top have a point.  

Cornfed wrote

I wasn't sure where to post this review of Sexual Utopia, so I'll post it here. It is a fairly standard tradcon/alt-right description of Western society's descent into sexual dysfunction and social collapse which seems to me to be obviously true. There seems to be some kind of hundredth monkey syndrome going on whereby lots of people are wising up to a standard version of the facts at the same time.

I think Devlin deserves credit for having written this in 2006.  So while this might be standard stuff now, Devlin was one of the main sources of these ideas.

One thing is that feminism was founded and funded by the men at the top via intelligence agencies and such, and they have benefited from it at every step. In practice, feminism represents the takeover of women and children by the top ~0.1% of men, with corporations and state agencies directed by them taking the place of husbands and fathers. Probably most corporate/government expenditure in the West goes towards propping up feminism.

If this is the case, then why has something like feminism appeared in almost every declining culture in history?  This is my main argument against conspiracy, that virtually everything that we see in the West today is typical of declining cultures in the past.  This includes feminism, corruption, increasing wealth disparity, and centralization of government and economic power.

Cornfed, I look forward to debating you here.  I welcome opposing views.  There will be no censorship on this forum.  And I will support those for membership who show intelligence and civility, not those who happen to agree with me.

Another point Devlin leaves out is the importance of cheap and legal prostitution in traditional society. This is not only important in giving men sexual release, encouraging wives to step up to the plate sexually in order to compete with the prostitutes and making it unnecessary for men to turn previously marriageable females into worthless sluts in order to get sex. It also makes for better relationships among men, as they don't feel the need to jockey with each other for status to get mating rights. One thing I liked about living in Cambodia 10 years ago was that the existence of cheap hoes meant that male expats tended to get on well with each other and treat female expats like part of the furniture or like dirt, as was right. Alas, Western NGO creeps were working diligently to turn the place into another feminist hellhole and may well have succeeded.

fschmidt wrote

If this is the case, then why has something like feminism appeared in almost every declining culture in history?  This is my main argument against conspiracy, that virtually everything that we see in the West today is typical of declining cultures in the past.  This includes feminism, corruption, increasing wealth disparity, and centralization of government and economic power.

There are a few ways this could be interpreted. Perhaps feminism is the standard mechanism used to take down societies the controllers think are too big for their boots. Perhaps civilizations that reach a certain state of advancement gravitate to a situation of centralized resource distributions and labor redundancy, which then enables the elite to profit at everyone else's expense by bringing in feminism. Perhaps cultural decay weakens the societal immune system, enabling pathologies like feminism, always latent in the background, to take over and kill the society. In any case, there is no doubt that current elites support feminism and that this support preceded the monsterfication/slutification of Western females. In various documents (e.g. the Rockefeller report on population control 1971, UN declaration on population control, Bucharest 1974) they explicitly endorse feminism as a means of population control.

Maybe our views aren't that far apart, the main difference being focus.  I agree that the "elite" are harmful, I just don't see them as being root cause or even the main problem.  So let me ask you this.  Suppose that the top ~0.1% of men were wiped out tomorrow.  Do you think this would make a significant difference?

fschmidt wrote

Maybe our views aren't that far apart, the main difference being focus.  I agree that the "elite" are harmful, I just don't see them as being root cause or even the main problem.  So let me ask you this.  Suppose that the top ~0.1% of men were wiped out tomorrow.  Do you think this would make a significant difference?

Suppose they were publically executed as traitors for supporting pathologies like feminism and then several million of their evil minions followed them to the gallows, as I think should happen. In that case I think there would indeed be change for the better because there would not be the tremendous state, corporate and police support propping up feminism, and it would also allow for monetary and land title reform, further empowering ordinary men. At least that could happen in the short term. Whether society would later succumb to similar diseases under a new set of rulers, or there is a set of controllers above the overt ones who would re-impose them, I'm not really sure.  

Your nomination passed. You now have access to the private forum. Please see the email instruction sent to you.