OnlyFans is an evil Satanic plot to destroy the world

Since nothing important is happening today, I’ll tell you what I think of OnlyFans.  Okay, I was exaggerating about it being an evil, Satanic plot to destroy the world.  However, it is an evil software platform destroying the tattered remains of the sexual marketplace, and here’s why.

For those of you who didn’t know, OnlyFans is a service where women post erotic photos of themselves available to subscribers who pay a monthly fee for it.  Supposedly there are 100 million accounts; I’m not sure how many are “content creators” and how many are “sponsors”, but I’m afraid to say that the figure does seem credible.  It’s not too different from what certain paid users of Instagram already have been doing.  So what’s the problem with this?

I figure that most objections to what I say will fall under two categories:

  1. Buh- buh- buh- that’s capitalism at its finest!
  2. You can’t tell me what to do!  I can do anything I want!

For item 1, according to Fascist economics, value is created when someone makes or does something of value.  (Pointing a camera at your hoo-hah doesn’t count.)  I’ll spare you a lecture on Socialist labor theory, but pointing a camera at your hoo-hah doesn’t count either.  Therefore, monetizing the hoo-hah is a form of grifting.  If reactionaries and radicalinskis can agree on this, then maybe there’s something to it.  Even if not for that, there are certain market externalities to consider, which I’ll deal with shortly.

For item 2, you are a spoiled brat in a woman’s body sticking out your tongue and then yelling “Fuck you, Dad!”  Grow up and get a real job.

The economic perspective

To get a more complete picture, consider that the definition of “economy” means a method of distribution of scarce resources.  When we think of the economy, we generally think of the monetary system with all its intricacies.  That certainly does qualify as one.  Another economy is social in nature, rather than monetary:  the sexual marketplace, in which men and women form relationships with each other.  Now, it’s time for a digression.

Market externalities are unintended side effects (for better or worse) of economic activity.  Let’s say that the city buys the block next door to your house and turns it into a big flower garden.  That creates a positive externality; it will make your property values go up and fill your air with fragrance.  Suppose instead that a developer buys the block and creates a small strip shopping center which is leased to a rowdy biker bar, a methadone clinic, and an X-rated movie arcade (you know, the little booths with the holes in the walls).  Now your property values have gone down, it’s noisy at night, the crime rate went up, and sometimes you’re cleaning up beer bottles, used condoms, and syringes that went over the fence.  That’s a negative externality.  Either way, whether you got the flower garden or the public nuisances, someone sold property nearby and (for better or worse) it affected your property values and, to a degree, your enjoyment of life.

What happens when inflation rates are unbalanced?  If as a tourist you go to St. Mark’s Plaza in Venice and get a little cup of coffee, you might be surprised that it costs fifteen bucks.  If you go to Mexico and buy a big dinner, it costs what you’d usually pay for lunch.  If you go from Flyover Country to San Francisco, lunch costs what you’d pay for dinner.

What happens when the sexual marketplace is unbalanced?  Back in the barbarian days, you might be able to get a virgin bride by paying her father a dozen goats or something.  There were (and still are) plenty of societies in which the family pays the husband-to-be a dowry.  What a deal!  Note, this isn’t my preferred model for society, and I don’t understand how they make it work, but they do.

So that was an example of when men are valued much more than women.  Today’s society in the USA and many other Western countries features the opposite situation.  This is thanks to decades of radical feminism and the man-bashing that’s accompanied it, unfortunately aided by male feminists.  Women aren’t buying men for a dozen goats, of course, but the following does occur:

  • Ordinary women believing ordinary men aren’t good enough for them
  • Bar flies rejecting men who they don’t deserve in the first place
  • Snotty, stuck-up attitudes
  • Princess Complex
  • Pursuit of exiting men rather than quality men, often leading to turbulent relationships with violent and unstable guys, or getting pumped and dumped by musicians and celebrities
  • Men responding by checking out of the social scene, wasting their time with online porn, or even getting sex changes

Note that this is very time-dependent.  Young women are like kids in a candy store.  When they get older and “hit the wall”, they can’t attract the kind of men they’re used to getting, and might have to settle for someone with a bald spot or pot belly.  By the time that usually happens, it’s almost too late to have children.  I could go a lot further into all this, but this unbalanced valuation causes a lot of misery for everyone.  This has gotten a lot worse in recent times.  Online dating tends to skew this.  As Roosh put it, women can pick up men on Tinder as easily as ordering pizza.  (The difference is that pizza isn’t free.)  However, only about 5% of Tinder’s male user base is getting much action from this; the rest are ignored and might as well be invisible.  It’s easier for a cat lady to find someone than it is for an ordinary young guy.

Why OnlyFans may be the final nail in the coffin for the sexual marketplace

Again, OnlyFans readily enables women to sell erotic pictures to men who have to pay a monthly subscription.  With moral standards at an all-time low, there’s little disincentive for a young woman to monetize her hoo-hah.  However, like other so-called “sex work”, this mixes the economic spheres of the monetary economy and the sexual marketplace.

This is where market externalities come in.  Does it affect the monetary economy?  It does a little, by siphoning productivity away from men.  Also, the e-THOTs seldom pay taxes on their “earnings” while the rest of us who actually work for a living have to give unto Caesar.  (Feel free to report this crime if you know if this happening; the IRS will give you a commission!)  Does it affect the sexual marketplace?  It does to a much greater extent, by inflating the already unsustainable market value of the hoo-hah.  It also further degrades what little is left of society’s moral standards.  There’s a reason why “sex work” has been considered a vice and a public nuisance since at least the Bronze Age.

Unlike prostitution, the men aren’t getting anything out of the e-THOT racket except for a glance!  This won’t satisfy the libido any more than looking at a steak will satisfy a starving man’s hunger.  (Sure, a guy can whack off while looking at the pictures, but that’s like eating dog food while dreaming of steak.)  It’s exploitation of lonely men, plain and simple.  Perhaps some of these lost souls imagine that these greedy girls actually like them.  The truth is that they’re thought of as simps.  Guys, don’t do that – have some self-respect!

OnlyFans is an evil Satanic plot to destroy the world

7 thoughts on “OnlyFans is an evil Satanic plot to destroy the world

  1. Peter says:

    Hi Beau Albrecht, I would like to comment on your article at counter-currents about libertarianism but would like to comment here because I don´t feel that at cc, critical comments are appreciated (the comment might even fit in here at this article because I might want to comment on sexual subjects from a libertarian viewpoint but that´s maybe for another time).
    I would see myself as liberty-oriented; I´m not happy with the “right” re the subject of liberty… could be all the same to me but I´m an ethno-identitarian, and that position is only represented by “right”.

    Granted, many who call themselves libertarians, I don´t agree with. My position differs.
    Re typical criticism of libertarianism (henceforth l.), I have a few arguments that I feel are not considered:
    -racialism is compatible with l. because everybody is free to make his own rules: my rule is that I only have my racial kin in my in-group (and people anyways self-segregate along racial lines… as so often, I as a non-“rightist” have more confidence in biologist constants than “rightists” who claim to be biologists); conversely, I don´t see any reason to have “rightist” positions in order to be an ethno-identitarian
    -economy: the role of the buyer, consumer, is never considered, it answers the questions of free market, monopolies etc. When I don´t buy cheap 3rd-world products, problem solved, when I don´t buy from monopolies, problem solved. For that matter, it solves the problem of the jew: if I don´t buy from jews, problem solved.

    So IMO, these are intelligent answers to frequent questions; while IMO there are these easy solutions, “right” dabbles in authoritarianism to deal with such issues, thereby absolutely missing the really problematic point: the LACK of freedom, not the too-much of freedom: I am NOT allowed to boycott companies, I am NOT allowed to issue an own currency, I am NOT allowed freedom of association, and if you try to build your own companies, all kinds of criminal acts are effected against you: THESE are the points to be critisized, the LACK of freedom, not a too-much of freedom.

    Re societal questions: “right” misses out on the effect of self-regulation: so people will be stinking drunk and root for socialism and trannyism: this is pure BS. Have people be drunk for 5 years, after that, they enjoy a normal life: self-regulated; let people experience socialist authoritarianism: after 5 years, they want self-determination back, have people see trannies and after 5 years they want their normal family back: problem solved by self-regulation. The authoritarian positions of “right” are idiotic and a deterrent to intelligent people.

    So, “right” IMO has very wrong answers. This compromises the chances of ethno-identitarianism, i.e. a White ethno-state. White survival is important? For “right”, to be a spiteful authoritarian and never concede to possibly be wrong is absolutely more important than White survival: much rather go extinct than ever admit that others who are not authoritarian might have a point: WE are right and if it´s the last thing on earth that I do: THAT is “right” to me. Childish spitefulness. Check yourself… I mean the “right” scene: is that the attitude of “rightists”, yes or no?

    So “right” wants to school libertarians: I would like to see constructive discussion between l. and “right”.
    I don´t claim to have all answers; I´m not sure about things like postal and roads. That is why I stand for: empiricism. Trial and error. Find the suitable model, just try and then go on. NO ideology. Not from left, not from right. Real-life concepts, if it works, good, if not, more trials.
    Maybe you can help with enabling constructive discussion.


  2. I’m the one who is in the greatest danger of getting chewed up in the comments section at CC. Still, if you’d prefer to discuss the topic here, that’s OK too. I’ll make the following observations.

    First of all, we’ll have to consider that several groups do indeed think and act collectively. However, whites are strongly discouraged from doing so. For example, non-whites look out for their own people, and I can’t blame them for that, but we’re subject to discrimination lawsuits if we try to do the same thing. Since a double standard is in effect, it’s imperative to overturn that; neutrality isn’t enough. Greg had some similar points here:

    As for the free market, there are things that work in the realm of pure theory, but break down in practice. You’d rather not buy Third World products, and so would I. Long ago, I was looking for a portable CD player, trying to see if there was one made in the USA. The store had lots and lots of choices, but after much searching, I had to settle for a Japanese model; every single other one was made in China. Anyone who doesn’t like that will have to do without.

    The monopoly problem is actually quite pernicious. For example, every single credit card processor has been known to ban people for political reasons. That’s been a huge problem, choking off funding of anyone they think shouldn’t have the right to organize. If YouTube, Twitter, or Facebook doesn’t like your politics, you can’t just find another YouTube, Twitter, or Facebook. Sure, there are some substitutes, but since the vast majority of the public goes straight to the monopoly platforms, you’re in the digital ghetto and comparatively very few will hear what you have to say. Simply put, a few huge corporations have taken over the digital town square and are imposing their Left Coast values over the entire Internet. There are, of course, some far-reaching effects from this.

    As for the use of authoritarianism to deal with such problems under a rightist regime, I can’t say I’d mind that. Contrary to the usual theories, the free market hasn’t sorted everything out all on its own. Under the existing regime, there are indeed adequate antitrust laws to handle this. Unfortunately, Theodore Roosevelt isn’t President these days.

    In general, another important distinction is the difference between virtuous liberty and license. (I’m not saying anything too radical here, since the Founding Fathers certainly were aware of all that.) One problem with license – in other words, letting people do whatever the hell they want – is that it’s notoriously difficult to hold people to the consequences of their own behavior. Drug legalization is a popular idea these days, for example. I oppose it, because I’ve known quite a few crackheads. They’ll lie, steal, cheat, and commit any other crime that might feed their addiction, and this affects society. It would be great if they’d just crash and burn and learn from their mistakes, but the other effects on society are too great for this approach to be feasible. Actually, I brought up the similar concept of externalities in my OnlyFans article above.

    Some people are intelligent enough to self-regulate their behavior sensibly. However, enough of the public is insufficiently wise so that it’s necessary to put reasonable restraints on behavior. That will help keep them from getting their fingers burnt, and ruining it for everyone else while they do so. It’s not a perfect answer, but it’s the best one. I really don’t see how that’s too stifling – every society sets its limits. Where these limits should be is a matter of public debate. I’m not sure what you mean by rightist spitefulness, but if you provide some examples, I can address them.

    As for the last point, I think we may have some common ground. Before any ideological considerations, I’m a pragmatist first. I’ll support what is going to work best.


  3. Peter says:

    Rainbowalbrecht, thanks for your answer.
    I guess my point is just one of principle: “right” is authoritarian so that claims to know things correctly. What if they don´t know it correctly? Is there falsifiability? When absolute truth is claimed, absolute panic creeps in at anybody who is not convinced of the existence of absolute truth. Therefore, the arrogance of absolute truth provokes incredible counter-action. That is why when I hear “right”, I… to speak with Göring… I reach for my gun (he´s supposed to have said, “When I hear “culture”, I reach for my gun” or so). Needless to say that I also reach for my gun when I hear “communism” (or Catholic Church, religion etc.) : someone arrogates absolute truth and absolute power, I reach for my gun.

    That´s why liberty is important: trial and error. Openness to the new, open to have been wrong, open to learn new things. This attitude is oh-so-fricking-NOT associated with “right”, a crying shame, it is associated with “left” !! If it was said of me that I´m not open to the possibility of being wrong, not open to learn something new, I would be all ashamed. That is what the “right” is.

    So we Whites, we people of the truth, we thinkers, we creatives: we have to reach for our gun panicky when there is the “right”. How on earth can “right” represent White Nationalism.

    All the positive qualities have been associated with “left”: openness, progress… ooh yes the bad bad progress which just means openness to the possibility of change which is the basis of all existence, “panta rhei”. Sure enough this is mostly UNJUSTIFIEDLY associated with “left” who are just traitors to these values and make a shame of it, but can “right” capitalize on this NO because “right” thinks it has to oppose these values on principle. “Right” should not spitefully insist on absolute truth, of knowing it right, of imposing itself on people in an authoritarian manner but they should call out “left” for their treason on these values of truth and openness. But “right” can´t do that because…: “right” does not represent these values. It rather represents: authoritarianism. How clever. How…: not-White !

    It is an absurd spectacle when Anglin is now a free-speech advocate… how absurdly non-credible for an authoritarian who regularly and brazenly relishes the idea of, and depicts, throwing people off roof-tops with their hands tied behind their back: relish sadism, mob-violence against helpless THAT is “right”, that is what “right” wants to be as evidenced by the “right” comment sections. “Right” pisses off those who it claims to represent: decent normal Whites.

    So could authoritarianism be justified, as you indicate in examples? Again, a question of principles: you can put liberty first but say that you will put in place measures to deal with consequences. That´s a very different approach than just claiming to know it right and impose authoritarian measures. Self-regulation DOES work when there is a social fabric. Of-course it doesn´t work in some race-mixed hellhole or otherwise torn-apart circumstances. If the argumentation goes that way, there is no claim of absolute truth but just of reasonable measures: a very big difference. Haven´t heard such from “right”, only arrogance to know it right, and, importantly: to know it better and therefore have the right to impose.

    When I responded to Greg Johnson in a cc-comment how come that people scramble for gyms… you don´t have to whip them to take care of their fitness… and they scramble for bio-food etc etc…he just didn´t have an answer.. silence. It is just so satisfactory to force people… please don´t let them do on their own what I want them to do, it deprives me of the pleasure of forcing them, to prove how clever I am and how much better I know what is good for them than they know themselves…

    I want ethno-identitarianism, a White ethnostate, and I´m looking for allies. As you say, many who look to “right”, lean libertarian. But they don´t sympathize with “right”: they are racialists and they are anti-“left”, not pro-“right”, that would describe me. I´m not happy with “right” for the named reasons.

    So you address libertarianism at counter-currents. My idea of how to handle that would be to say: ok guys we “rightists” and you libertarians have differing views but we have a common goal, White racial survival, so obviously one should focus on that and put the other points aside. The advantage of such approach would IMO be that a libertarian would not have to identify as “right”, and vice versa. So rather than to confront the differing viewpoints, concentrate on the common points. That could free up a considerable potential of allies: liberty-oriented people who are anti-“left”, pro-White but certainly not “right”. How about an article of that kind on counter-currents… or maybe a guest-article, a libertarian who might argue such a position (certainly not me but there should be someone out there… someone like Keith Preston but less radical… just a normal White who is socially liberal but racially aware… I guess that would be my idea… couldn´t there be a big number of that kind out there?… ).

    I might want to address other points… later… also I don´t want to use up your time inappropriately… I don´t expect detailed answers…


  4. The thing is that every type of government out there claims a certain degree of authority. The only exception would be no government at all. (Anarchy is an interesting idea, but it’s not stable or workable.) Really, the question then isn’t whether or not there should be any authority, but rather where to draw the line – what things does the government regulate, and how far? There are many different answers to this; every ideology has its own answer.

    Taking this on in theory is a tricky question. One of the better attempts was by John Stuart Mill. The short version is that people should be permitted to do as they please, until their actions start to affect society, after which regulation may be on the table. In practice, these things are decided like any other political question, according to the terms of the governing system. Representative government is what’s in vogue this century; it’s not perfect, but at least the politicians have to remember that they’ll be running for reelection.

    Keeping in mind that this isn’t a perfect world, ultimately we have to decide what kind of authority we’d prefer to support. If you decide to get a sex change, leftists will back you all the way, and insist that everyone else use your preferred pronoun whether they like it or not. On the other hand, they oppose freedom of speech these days, and they’re the ones pushing gun control (or more accurately, peasant control). Rightists will tell you that getting a sex change is a terrible idea, but have no problem letting you argue your point about it.

    As for the left being the ones more open to new ideas, doing your own thing, and all that, this indeed is the popular notion, and it’s been useful propaganda. There was still some truth to that up to the 1960s. These days, much has changed, and I’ll spare you the boring history lecture of why this is so. (I’ll add that neocons are no great shakes either.) What’s worse is that leftists really have gone crazy lately. There’s far too much nihilism, and it’s getting to the point where they’ll wreck our civilization if they get their way.

    Anyway, I hope this clarifies things somewhat.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.