Is OnlyFans starting to ruin prostitution?

Earlier I predicted, more or less, that OnlyFans would ruin dating.  Well, it turns out that it also might be ruining even “pay-for-play” too.  Mind you, I don’t recommend prostitution, but I came across a discussion indicating that it might be doom and gloom for the “Oldest Profession”.  If this continues, OnlyFans and other pics-for-pay services might end up doing more to destroy it than a brigade of Progressive Era social reformers.  The following is excerpted, and somewhat redacted, from a discussion of how flaky “escorts” have become lately.  One guy, who even has had trouble finding a ladyboy, states the following – and get ready to cringe:

There’s an amazingly beautiful, hung TS on my local [escort website]. She says she gets so many game-player messages she asks you to subscribe to her OnlyFans to show you’re serious and a post there gives an alternate text to contact her. So, okay. I’ll drop $16 to show I’m serious. A couple responses to my queries to get together. Then nothing for months now. Sorry, I’m not going to keep paying a monthly fee so she’ll respond. Did it once. Expressed sincere interest in meeting. Clearly she has no intention of meeting people. She just wants OF subscribers. Sitting back, making a few teaser clips now and then, and watching the money trickle in from 100s of guys is easier (and safer) than hooking up for a couple hundred a pop.

All this OF and Snapchat and all the rest has ruined it for guys who want more than a quick visit car BJ from the nearest “a hole is a hole, who cares if they’re an ugly skanky smelly heroin addict” escort. Fakes, flakes and scammers are the majority, not the exception. That’s why it often seems next to impossible to get laid in a whorehouse. It’s not you and me, or our approach, except that we have SOME standards.

You read that right.  He’s found it damn near impossible to find a “Hello Sailor” girl – in this case, who isn’t even a girl – other than dope fiends feeding their addictions.  Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?  So then he got an OnlyFans subscription to “her” account only to find that this ladyboy was scamming him.  He continues:

I had met this one particular woman through [e-THOT website]. She’s pretty cool. Our schedules never meshed well. We got together for dinner a couple times; we have a nice rapport. FINALLY after almost 2 years we do The Deed. Well worth the wait. She even [performed a certain activity]. Now Covid, hard time all around. A few weeks ago she hit me up to buy some explicit video she does for premium Snapchat. Her theory is it’s worth $200 to jerk off to video of someone you actually know and like. Sorry, I’m hands-on only. Plenty of free porn to jerk off to online. If my finances were better I’d pay to actually fuck her again, but she wasn’t cheap (considering her video is $200, just imagine). I paid less for a (different) truly passable hot TS from [escort website]. I feel sorry for her that she’s barely scraping by, but so am I at the moment. Gotta pay my own bills before I help someone pay theirs too.

So he met a different hooker earlier, they apparently carried on a couple years of email game, and finally he got the bang which cost him an arm and a leg.  Then recently, she wanted him to pay two hundred bucks for beat-off material, which costs more than (euwww) banging a ladyboy.

Fortunately, he’s sensible enough to realize that flogging the dolphin is free!  Again, I don’t recommend prostitution, but at least it’s a two-way transaction where the guy gets something out of it!

Is OnlyFans starting to ruin prostitution?

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

Divorce law is a racket for legalized theft

The following arises from a short debate with someone elsewhere.  I’m not going to point out where it is, or even the site on which it originated.  It is not my intent to embarrass or call out the other participant.  I’ll assume – most likely correctly – that she has her heart in the right place about most things, but hasn’t yet come to realize how evil (or how unattractive) typical leading feminists were, especially the Second Wave.

The third and fourth waves aren’t much better, since they haven’t rejected gender antagonism.  Camille Paglia is the only major feminist I can think of who is interesting or personable.  (Naturally, lots of the rest regard her as a heretic.)  As for the others, they are tedious at best, and usually a few French fries short of a Happy Meal.

Basically, even among some Red Pilled folks, there’s still some misinformation out there that needs to be corrected.

Divorce patriarchal style

Let’s flash back to the 1880s for a moment, the “bad old days” of patriarchy.  Divorce was difficult to obtain, since there needed to be proof of significant fault:  abuse, cruelty, neglect, abandonment, addiction, incarceration, infidelity, and so forth.  A marriage was (and still is) a promise “till death do us part”.  Therefore – much unlike now – there had to be something constituting contractual default in order to justify dissolving it.  Moreover, there was cultural and religious pressure not to get divorced.  It made sense to do whatever was necessary to make things work, since a failed marriage was a badge of shame.

Following one of these “at fault” divorces, there was a division of property, almost invariably at the man’s expense.  Moreover, the ex-wife got alimony, which amounts to an allowance “to support her in the lifestyle which she has become accustomed”.  (Being spoiled sounds like a personal problem to me, but yanno…)  This means continued benefits of a relationship that last long after it’s over.  The major assertions supporting all this were the following:

  • If a marriage ends, it’s probably because the husband did something bad
  • Ex-wives are owed retroactive payment for all the housework
  • Women are delicate flowers needing special protection and can’t fend for themselves (remember, this is still the “bad old patriarchy” here)

Even back then, these justifications were pretty dodgy.  Women are capable of doing bad things, just as men are.  For just one item, all those milkman jokes existed for a reason.

For the second assertion, some people even then called BS on it.  (I do recall one of these.  It’s in rather stilted Victorian prose, but I’ll boil it down to the essentials and add some of my own spin.)  If ex-wives are owed back wages because they were doing the cooking and cleaning, what were the ex-husbands doing all throughout?  That’s right; they were buying the groceries and paying for the housing.  If not for them, there wouldn’t have been any food to cook or house to clean.  If it’s legit to claim back wages for light housework, shouldn’t it be legit to counter that with a claim for back rent?  In that case, the equation would go the other way!  If I ordered takeout every day (rather than buying groceries) and hired a maid service for housework (assuming that I couldn’t handle it myself), the extra money I’d pay would be much less than my house note.

Finally, it’s a big feminist lie that women were incapable of getting work.  It’s true that women had great difficulty breaking into high-status professions back then:  doctors, attorneys, business executives, and all that.  Well, guess what?  Most men didn’t get well-paying white collar jobs like that either.  Back then, most of us were farmers, factory workers, miners, sailors, railroad crew, and so forth.  (Welcome to the proletariat!)  As for women, they had their own niches – seamstresses, nannies, teachers, milkmaids, etc.  If that didn’t suit a divorcee with expensive tastes, she could marry for money again.

And on that note

I’ve done both blue collar and white collar work.  In the former, I’ve baked in attics, pushing heat exhaustion day after day.  I’ve been in cramped cabinets fixing plumbing problems, which I consider to be even worse.  I’ve taken electric shocks, been cut, been burnt, fell through a ceiling, suffered some hearing damage, been in a hazmat suit to remove asbestos, got exposed to toxic fumes a couple of times, and let’s not even get started about my radioactive waste story.  As for white collar work, it pays better but the corporate BS, obligatory ass-kissing, snotty customers, and other soul-destroying crap I’ve had to put up with sucks more than construction.

I want to get a Ouija board and summon Betty Friedan back from hell to tell me more about how the kitchen is a patriarchal torture chamber!  Someone like me put it together and made it look pretty, and that wasn’t a walk in the park.  Contrary to what feminists will tell you, being a full-time homemaker rather than a full-time employee is a privilege.

Divorce modern style

So around the 1960s or so, we got “no fault” easy divorce.  “Irreconcilable differences” were enough to break vows of “till death do us part”.  Meanwhile, divorce got destigmatized.  Religion has been disparaged continually, and fewer people take it seriously.  In fact, feminists did quite a bit to encourage YOLO divorces, and so do bottom-feeder “family law” attorneys who make their bread and butter from breaking up families.  Often that leads to a worse outcome for the women over the long term, but let’s not let facts get in the way, shall we?

In the short term, there are cash and prizes for oath-breaking.  (This is the only area of the law in which someone is rewarded for breaking the terms of a contract.)  The property division is still there, by which means ex-wives can acquire half of whatever the husband has ever worked for, property that she did not earn.  This is legalized theft.  Anyone who can look at all the facts and say it’s fair likely has a bad case of Princess Complex.  Alimony is still around, even though feminists tell us that women are strong and independent and don’t need no man.  They can compete with us in any field of work now.  (There are lots of professional organizations and even special laws to facilitate this.)  Why does this “cash and prizes” racket still exist?  What the children go through during all this is even worse, but that’s an entire topic of its own.  Thanks, feminists!

The divorce industry is a “something for nothing” proposition, thanks to our legal system, much like a “slip-n-fall” claim leading to an exorbitant settlement over a minor scrape.  I’m a Fascist, so I don’t cotton to unearned wealth.  The arrangement was somewhat more workable in the 1880s when there were legal and social barriers to divorce, but much has changed since then, and sex roles have been overturned.  The existing law amounts to having one’s cake and eating it.  That’s what feminism is all about lately, despite all the disingenuous rhetoric about equality.

The ultimate effects

Naturally, this is a major disincentive for marriage.  Divorce rates are about 50% now, and they have been ever since “no fault” divorce was implemented.  It’s basically a coin toss.  For a guy, heads means nothing bad happens; tails means he gets taken to the cleaners in court.  Where’s the upside?

This is why marriage rates are half of what they were.  Even Blue Pill guys are well aware of this racket.  Anyone who puts a ring on it is taking a gamble that he will escape the odds; hopefully it works out for the best.  Marriage is still a benefit if there are children involved, or if one is strongly religious.  If not, then it’s a gamble in which the only way to win is by not playing.  If we want to get the social benefits of marriage back, then – no matter how difficult this is – there need to be reforms to make divorce law fair.

This won’t be easy, because feminists will scream like they’re undergoing an exorcism if someone tries to reform it.  Unfair divorce laws are merely one part of the problem, in fact.  Although society has rolled over to feminist demands for the last seventeen decades, they still claim that Western women are oppressed.  The truth is that after this continued dialectic, today’s generation of women is the most coddled one that has walked the planet.  (Would a little gratitude be too much to ask?)  It’s time to start tuning out the feminists.

Divorce law is a racket for legalized theft

Why libertarians and others are wrong about maximally deregulated markets and laissez-faire economics

I do have an admiration for certain facets of libertarianism.  These days, any ideology that doesn’t favor pointless globalist wars, and doesn’t care for the present Orwellian degree of domestic spying, certainly does have something going for it.  However, there are some flawed characteristics about “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” (SLFC) ideologies such as libertarianism, Objectivism, anarcho-capitalism, and neoconservatism.  (The latter is worse than the others because it actually does like spit-in-your-eye wars and domestic spying.)  Their laissez-faire economic position is one of these problems, a sort of free market absolutism emphasized heavily throughout the SLFC spectrum.

This is going to be a wild ride.  I’m afraid that I’m about to piss off some readers royally here.

One problem is the SLFC tendency to use The Market as essentially a barometer of absolute good.  One way it comes out is equating what’s good for the economy with what’s good for everyone.  In conditions where a rising tide lifts all boats, that much is so.  However, it’s kind of worn out now that we’ve experienced half a century of stagnation in real wages while business productivity has been climbing steadily and upper management swims in gravy.  Lately, they’ve been introducing the idea that we’ll have to eat bugs and live in pods.  How precious.  “Let them eat cake” sounded a lot better.

Another way is equating maximum permissiveness (deregulation) for businesses with maximum liberty for the public.  This is implied by the political compass test, a popular recruitment tool for libertarians, where they take the square symbolizing freedom on both axes.  Freedom sounds great, of course, but there’s always the question of “freedom to do what?”  Regulations on businesses are meant to keep them from putting their hands in the cookie jar.

Is what’s good for The Market good for everybody?

First of all, let’s make it clear that The Market is an abstraction.  It’s a reification of the effect of lots of people buying and selling inside a marketplace, which is a domain of exchange, or several of them.  (Is there anything particularly magical about that?)  Still, in SLFC ideologies, The Market is given great emphasis; much like the Word of God is emphasized in theocracies.

The comparison is hardly an exaggeration.  As the theory goes, sooner or later, The Market will take care of any sort of problem that might arise.  That makes those supply and demand curves on a chart into sort of a universal healer.  Not only that, The Market is the force of destiny.  Economic trends are the Prime Mover, and the cosmic law that must be obeyed.  Objectivists usually are atheists, and so are some other SLFCs, but they end up all but worshiping The Market.

I’m familiar with Adam Smith’s theories.  The Market finds its own level, and prices set themselves.  I could go into a long explanation of why this is so – the “invisible hand” effect – but any introduction to supply / demand curves can do that much.  Artificially interfering with the prices will have consequences of one sort or another.  This lends itself to an anarchistic argument for having no limits whatsoever.  That means no regulations – again, the thing that keeps businesses from putting their hands in the cookie jar.  It’s quite true that too much red tape will lead to inefficiency and unnecessary hassle, but that’s not a good argument to do away with all regulation whatsoever.  The critical factor, of course, is a regulatory climate that keeps hands out of cookie jars but isn’t burdensome to legitimate trade.  Still, even that is bad according to laissez-faire doctrine.

The theory goes further than that.  Any impediment to trade is considered an absolute bad thing.  Obviously tariffs are a big no-no, and free trade agreements (in practice, a bipartisan fuckup) were a big priority in globalization.  Borders wouldn’t even exist if globalists got their way, and everyone would use one currency.  (Everyone would look the same too, but all that’s another matter.)  This isn’t so much to do with warm, fuzzy One World internationalism.  It’s so that the big players can make more money that way.  Also, getting as rich as possible isn’t enough; the NWO types expect to call the shots in any future world government.  Imagine there’s no sovereignty, it’s easy if you try, ooh ooh ooh…

Economism

SLFCs are usually economites.  In this context, this means people whose sole gauge of worth is money.  To an economite, anything you can’t put a price tag on has no value.  Therefore, a beautiful, primeval forest isn’t worth a nickel more than what you could get if you sent a logging crew to clear-cut it and then sold it to become a big parking lot.  The fact that all that natural beauty would be destroyed forever matters nothing.  Also, if an endangered species of birds lived there, tough luck for them.  Tough luck for all the other forest creatures too.  Economism ignores factors like these, among many other externalities.  Those are inconvenient details that get in the way of the theory.

If a factory closes so that it can be relocated in a country where the workers are paid peanuts and labor laws are a joke, then this is something considered to be good.  If this wipes out a small town’s economy back home, tough luck for them.  If globalization becomes a trend and devastates entire regions – such as the USA’s “Rust Belt” or Britain’s northeast – tough luck for them too.  (Feel free to imagine greedy management types rubbing their hands together gleefully.)  If The Market says that cities, regions, or even entire countries must be blighted, then so be it.  The government mustn’t try to do anything to stop it, because that would interfere with CEOs trying to squeeze pennies until they bleed.  Moreover, the politicians know which side their bread is buttered on; both parties get payola from the same major donors.

Libertarianism has much to say about individualism.  However, when economism prevails, people are merely economic units; atomized and replaceable cogs in the machine.  Does that maximize freedom for everyone?  I’ll leave that for the reader to decide.  On an odd side note, Marxism – quite different from Libertarianism – is another economite ideology, though they have a different context for the term.

Are corporations always wonderful?

As I wrote about the SLFCs in Deplorable Diatribes:

It’s rather odd how much neocons, Libertarians, and Objectivists idolize corporations. Haven’t any of them ever worked in a cubicle hell resembling Office Space? Anyone who has experienced kiss up / kick down management culture should understand that not every corporate officer is John Galt. Some of the suits are more like James Taggart, occupying themselves with looking important, claiming credit for other people’s work, and otherwise screwing up everything.

Libertarians and anarcho-capitalists especially have a preconceived bias that governments are bad and always screw up everything.  (There’s at least something to that; our present globalist regime certainly has been a mess for a long time.)  Meanwhile, they and other SLFCs often believe that corporations are always good, a position which is perfectly silly.  These ideologies do have a lot to say against collectivism.  Granted, governments are collectives, but what exactly do they think corporations are?  Why haven’t the SLFCs figured this out yet?

Corporations can be (and often are) just as capricious as the government of a banana republic.  Employees often are expected to kiss ass, just as they would be if they were citizens under a petty tyrant.  A company can’t put you in a gulag because they don’t like your opinions.  However, they can deprive an employee of his or her livelihood for nearly any reason, except in places protected by unions or strong labor laws.  Some others have vast powers over society, which I’ll describe in another article.  SLFCs tend to have an odd idea that something bad is wrong only if the government is doing it.  They don’t mind if corporations do the very same thing.

Are regulatory agencies like the EPA necessary?

There is a popular anarcho-capitalist YouTube commentator who certainly is quite intelligent, but really needs to take off the ideological blinders.  (I won’t say who this is, because he’s come a long way so far.  If you guessed who I’m talking about, you’re probably right.)  He said that we don’t need the FDA, because if any company sold bad food or bad medicine, then word would get around and it would hurt the company.  This is a perfect example of the SLFC notion that The Market will fix everything.  In this instance, he was dead wrong.

Once upon a time, hucksters plied a steady trade selling fraudulent snake oil cures and ineffective patent medicines.  Standards in the meat packing industry were pretty atrocious around that time; Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle provides the scoop on that.  These two things were the very reason why we got the FDA in the first place.  When The Market failed to fix these problems, the government had to step in.  I can imagine how it went over back then:

  • “What, I can’t sell my miracle cancer cure salve without actually proving it works?  You’re taking away my freedom as a businessman!”
  • “How dare the government tell me that I can’t sell rotten meat!  What a bunch of Fascists!”

Finally, none of the above is to say that all businesses are bad.  They do have a legitimate place in society, of course (which doesn’t include calling the shots).  The point is that they tend to be flawed to one degree or another.  This is not so different from all other human institutions, including governments.  A sensible regulatory environment is a check against companies misusing their powers, just as Constitutional protections keep enlightened governments from becoming tyrannical.  Finally, we should remember the proverb that money is a good servant but a bad master.

Why libertarians and others are wrong about maximally deregulated markets and laissez-faire economics

The ugly truth about “sugar dating” is proof that Fourth Wave feminism has gone full retard

Feminism has undergone quite a paradigm shift.  The First Wave was the least noxious.  Part of their efforts included various social reforms, such as fighting prostitution.  Were they right to consider it exploitation?  I don’t pay for sex, but I’ve known quite a few who sell it, and I’ll just say that the reality is not too much like Risky Business and a lot more like Requiem for a Dream.  These days, according to Fourth Wave feminism, prostitution is “empowerment”.  Things were moving in that direction among some currents of the Third Wave, but now it’s gone full retard.

I’ve written before about the commodification of the sexual marketplace.  It’s been around for quite a while – often called “the oldest profession” – but Internet technology has given it some new twists.  “Sugar dating” is one of these sexual marketplace hacks.  As the above-referenced article states:

Courtesans have been around for ages. Now there are websites to facilitate this, allowing the “sugar babies” to maximize opportunities far and wide like women already do with online dating. (If only DARPA had known the interesting ways their civil defense communications network would be used!) The sugar daddies should find a real girlfriend instead of these greedy gold diggers.

Before all this, attractive young women already got lots of freebies, and on average, a pretty easy ride in society.  I can’t even blame them for that; utilizing advantages is merely part of human nature.  However, now they’re learning to monetize their goodies like never before, thanks to high technology along with the Current Year’s lack of moral standards.  Today’s feminists even encourage this, calling it “empowerment”.  Unfortunately, things end pretty badly for those who choose to go this route.

All that said, a few days ago, I clued one of my friends into the “sugar baby” phenomenon.  I merely told him he should check out the recent Stefan Molyneux video on the subject:

It looks like that turned out to be a major Red Pill for him.  I’ll add that up until recently, he was a lifelong atheist, but this seems to be one of the features of Clown World that jolted him to the point of reconsidering.  The following is from a couple of emails he sent to his friends, reposted with permission.  He’s not an avid Manosphere reader, and again, I didn’t say too much about the subject.  All of the following is from his own research and conclusions.


10% of coeds are sugar babies

Feminism is supposed to empower women.  Combine that with relative morality of atheism and you end up with millions of young girls in college selling their bodies to middle age men for money.   Actually, the lowest bid ebay style auction kind of money.

This email will be very upsetting.

First up.   Some internet dating history and who has the power.

  1. The ratio for a women in her 20’s on a dating site is about 100 to 1.  That is 100 men try to pursue the 1 medium to very hot women.  Of those men, a few of them are actually marriage material.  The girl gets to figure out which one.   Women have all the power in online dating in their 20s.   The men have no power online.
  2. The ratio for a women in her 40s to find a marriage material man is more like 1 to 10 or 10%.  The men have all the power when the woman is older and less desirable.   This is just reality for a man of high value.   The high value man has many women to choose from and he knows it.

Now, the Sugar Baby “dating” websites turn the tables completely around.  The men bid on the women with their money and the woman goes on a date with the highest bid.

  1. The 20 year old girl gets higher bid prices than the 40 year old who probably gets no bids.   But, the men can bid on multiple women and only actually pay the woman that accepts the lowest prices.   Who has the power on the Sugar daddy website?  The men who are bidding have all the power.  They are usually over age 40 and tend to be profession IT or CEO types.
  2. The 40 year old woman has no chance against the 20 year old woman on the Sugar Baby websites.  The men get to choose whoever they want.

Here is the saddest part.    About 10% of all college girls are selling their bodies for money to men old enough to be their fathers.  Most, don’t have sex, but all of them are being used by much older men.

This rabbit hole goes deeper than you can possibly believe.  And it leads straight to Satan’s will.   Destroy the family by destroying the most valuable thing a young woman has.

Look at the disgust on the audience faces in this one.

Hundreds of thousands of Sugar Babies in Australia.

Here is a Sugar Baby explaining to other girls how to be a Sugar Baby.  If you don’t watch the entire videos, just read the comments.

What Man in his right mind would ever marry a Sugar Baby?   I’m not talking about the “Johns”.    I’m talking about the used up damaged woman that the “Johns” create.  I have a feeling that the fatherless generation has something to do with the rise of Sugar Babies.

Religion was created to teach women to value their chastity as an prize to be gained when a man commits.   For thousands of years, it was a bargain where women gave up her body in exchange for the commitment of the man.   Now, women give up their body  for money and the man has absolutely no reason to ever commit.   The woman’s bargaining tool is gone.

What is left is pure hedonism where the easy life choices are preferred instead of the good life choices that actually make a better life.

Feminism is Cancer.   We are going back to the indigenous days before religion separated humans from the hedonistic animals.

Followup

One thing.   I’m not saying indigenous were animals.   I’m was saying that religion created humans, not that humans created religion.

Religion created humans thru stories of how to live a better life.  Those stories had to come from God because they are so good.  Every successful religion in the world has marriage in it with 1 man to 1 woman.    Islam has to be a rich man to have many wives.

Before religion, it was 1 man to 5 women.   The DNA shows that.  That is the “natural” way humans to live just as the primates do today.

I don’t think that was a better life, because 80% of all the men were INCEL.

My point is that Feminism is returning humans to a life that we hadn’t seen for 10,000 years.  I don’t agree.

The ugly truth about “sugar dating” is proof that Fourth Wave feminism has gone full retard

Payday loan crook gets busted

We’re living in a chaotic and dysfunctional era, whether you call it Clown World, Weimerica, the Kali Yuga, or the End Times.  Still, every now and then there’s some good news.

The following is an item you don’t see every day.  The government busted some richer-than-God crook.  All too often, those types get away with their shenanigans indefinitely – one set of laws for them, another for us.  Well, this time it’s different.  This is the best news since Bernie Madoff got busted for his Ponzi scheme.

The Justice Department reported the following:

Joan Loughnane, the Acting Deputy United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced today that SCOTT TUCKER was sentenced to 200 months in prison for operating a nationwide internet payday lending enterprise that systematically evaded state laws for more than 15 years in order to charge illegal interest rates as high as 1,000 percent on loans.

So he’s getting sixteen years and eight months in the can.  If I’d been the judge, I might’ve been a little harsher.  Still, that’s great work!

TUCKER’s co-defendant, TIMOTHY MUIR, an attorney, was also sentenced, to 84 months in prison, for his participation in the scheme.  In addition to their willful violation of state usury laws across the country, TUCKER and MUIR lied to millions of customers regarding the true cost of their loans to defraud them out of hundreds, and in some cases, thousands of dollars.

Paying interest is a sucker deal, especially if it’s just to get by.  Hopefully, one day Social Credit will be an alternative for mortgages.  However, what he did goes well beyond typical bankster stuff.

The worst kinds of loans are those with an exorbitant interest rate, such as title loans and payday loans.  The people who get them typically are impoverished, desperate, and maybe not very good at math.  Never get suckered into something like that.  Those people already have problems, and end up with worse ones after getting swindled.  Simply put, it’s exploitation.

Further, as part of their multi-year effort to evade law enforcement, the defendants formed sham relationships with Native American tribes and laundered the billions of dollars they took from their customers through nominally tribal bank accounts to hide Tucker’s ownership and control of the business.

Me thinkum paleface deep in buffalo chips.

According to other accounts, he’s not sorry, I guess other than about getting busted.  Furthermore, he has a $3.5 billion fine to pay, so:

The preliminary forfeiture order seeks government possession of several of Tucker’s bank accounts, several Porsche and Ferrari automobiles, high-priced jewelry and two residential properties owned by Tucker — one in Aspen, Colo., and the other in Leawood near the Hallbrook Country Club.

Awwww, the poor exploiter…

Hopefully he goes to Marion or Leavenworth, unlike Madoff who went to Club Fed.  Anyway, I do have a word of advice to him.  DON’T DROP THE SOAP!

Payday loan crook gets busted

Social credit, an element of Third Position economics to get the banksters off of our backs

There are a number of loosely-related economic ideas which offer alternatives to capitalism as it’s currently practiced.  (That’s not the only way to run an economy, or even a market economy.)  These are also alternatives to socialism, which so far has been the chief competitor of capitalism, and not a very successful one.  These Third Position ideas are in their origins vaguely Fascist and even more vaguely Catholic, but this isn’t inherently so and can be implemented by other societies.

I’ve mentioned Distributism before.  Another one is social credit.  Greg Johnson featured this, and some related concepts, in the article Money for Nothing. It’s quite interesting, worth a read in its entirety, but I’ll hit a few highlights.  The evocative opening goes like this:

Everybody knows you need to work for your money. And if somebody just gives you money, that can only be by the expropriation of somebody else’s labor. Money just doesn’t grow on trees, after all.

But is this really true? Just because you work for your money, did the guy who paid you also work for it? What about the guy who paid him? If you follow the money trail long enough, you are going to find someone who did not work for his money. He simply got it for nothing. He did not even have to go to the trouble of picking it off trees. He just created it out of thin air by bookkeeping. We call this man a banker.

It’s a point of Fascist economics that wealth is created when someone does or produces something of value.  (Remember this one; it’s important.)  By contrast, Johnson illustrates that the modern world economy is run on fairy dust.  This probably isn’t much of a surprise to many people, no matter what their political views are.

Fractional reserve banking

Johnson’s essay doesn’t explain the fractional reserve system, but I’ll fill in this detail.  Here’s how it works.  First, depositors put their money into banks.  One reason why is because it’s safer than stuffing cash into a mattress.  (Well, that depends.)  Also, the banks pay interest on deposits, at least for savings accounts.  When I was a kid, it was 5.25%; these days, 1% is a pretty decent rate.  It’s better than nothing, but doesn’t even get you ahead of the inflation rate.

Banks are required to keep a certain percent of deposits on reserve.  However, the rest they can use to make loans.  Naturally, it’s at a higher interest rate.  The vigorish differential is how the banks make their own profits.

It’s rather hard to get around this.  Few people have enough cash on the barrelhead (or even liquid assets) that they can spare to buy a new car, much less a house.  In fact, there are laws against accumulating large amounts of cash.  This was meant as a measure against the drug trade, not that it’s been terribly effective.  Now it’s technically illegal to stuff your mattress with thousands of bucks.

Fractional reserve banking does have a couple of hazards.  The first is if lots of people welch on their loans at once.  The second is if depositors all line up and ask for their money back at once.  These things can happen when the economy is very shaky.  Naturally, a widespread banking crisis makes things worse.  All that is the short version, but I’ll resist temptation to monologue about it.

Some other problems

So the takeaway here with the fractional reserve system is that the banks are using money that doesn’t actually belong to them and making a profit from it.  The loans they make do have to get paid back, of course, with interest.  If this doesn’t happen, they repossess and sell the collateral.  As for business loans, it’s not a profit-sharing method like a corporation that issues stocks.  Instead, the loan has to be paid back whether or not the business does well.  Essentially, when a bank makes a loan, it’s selling time at a markup.

Most of their customers do have productive jobs – building cars, driving fork lifts, unclogging sinks, whatever.  However, the banksters themselves aren’t producing anything.  Instead, they’re continually skimming off a percent of the wealth generated by their customers.  One problem is that this racket eventually causes a relatively small number of individuals and their financial institutions to become insanely wealthy.  The top banksters are a few people engaged in a profitable but non-productive activity, living off of the productive masses.  Might there be a better way?

Also, they’re recirculating back into the economy lots of money that’s technically on deposit.  Easy credit is an inflationary pressure.  It’s just like if the government printed up a bunch of money and dropped it into the economy.  Both activities essentially involve creating money out of thin air.  Much of Johnson’s article is about whether the government could do just that and cut the banksters out of the gravy train.

The Federal Reserve

Anyone who looks closely at a dollar bill and sees the words “Federal Reserve Note” on it might think that this is already happening; business as usual.  Actually, the Federal Reserve is a private banking consortium.  Whenever the US government needs to spend more money than it already has, it turns to those guys.  Note well, this has been every year since day one, except for a brief period beginning with the late 1990s tech boom and ending with the 21st century’s spit-in-your-eye wars.  Congress just doesn’t have a good track record of balancing the budget.  Many of those guys can’t even balance their own checkbooks.

To make up for the shortfall, the Federal Reserve then sells what are basically long-term bonds.  The buyers then get a modest interest rate from them.  Eventually the government pays back the holders of the treasury bills.  However, with the budget perpetually out of balance, it’s a matter of kicking the can down the road.  Anyway, don’t try this at home, kids; counterfeiting is illegal.

Again, interest goes to the holders of the treasury bills.  I’m not sure what the Federal Reserve’s own piece of the action is, but presumably these guys haven’t been doing this since the 1930s for charity.  Note well, I don’t regard them as quite the source of evil that some people do; there are far worse New World Order institutions out there.  Still, these guys are overhead on the US economy as well as unelected officials with a lot of power.

Deficit spending is rather like someone who relies on credit cards for shortfalls in the household budget and keeps sinking deeper.  This doesn’t make sense.  That’s a good way to lose thousands of dollars annually on interest.  Eventually the party is over when the plastic is maxed out.  It’s a little different in Washington, though.  Congress just votes to raise the debt ceiling whenever they hit the limit.

Another hazard is the influence of financiers on government through campaign contributions, which is basically legalized bribery.  Your neighborhood credit union isn’t the problem, but the richer-than-God banksters certainly are.  Since budget deficits are their bread and butter, they love big government and they love expensive wars.  This type of profiteering actually goes pretty far back in history.

Money is fairy dust

As Johnson notes, money is an agreed-upon medium of exchange.  It doesn’t have to be worth anything in itself.  The gold bugs might take us to task for that, of course.  I’ll add that the reason why the gold standard worked was because of the scarcity principle – there’s a limited amount of it.  During the Great Depression, switching to paper money was an expedient means of getting around that problem and borrowing against future prosperity.  Theoretically, dollars were still backed by gold, but the public couldn’t get any.

In 1976, the dollar was decoupled from the price of gold, which probably contributed to the double-digit inflation soon to follow.  During the 1980s, cranking interest rates up fixed that problem, though it created some other turbulence.  So the horse has left the gate long ago.  Going back to the gold standard doesn’t much seem to be in the cards.  Bitcoins are the high-tech equivalent to that.  However, its wild fluctuation in value isn’t particularly encouraging.

One of the proposals is to put an expiration date on money.  This is rather similar to what inflation already does – dollars stuffed into a mattress will lose purchasing power over the years as prices keep rising.   If money clearly expired, it would be an economic stimulus as people would want to spend what they have fairly quickly.  Still, this proposal in particular still seems a little much.  No shopkeeper would want a bill that’s soon to be worthless.  It needs some finesse to make it work right, and I’ll touch on what could be done later.

Hoarding by billionaires can be a problem.  This is especially so if they’ve cashed out of the stock market at the top when they get advance notice of trouble ahead, then wait until they can buy at the bottom a year or two later.  However, savings by private individuals isn’t the problem.  Actually, having a reserve of emergency cash is a pretty good idea.  It’s even better yet to have a few months of “fuck you money” since most people only have their job as a single income stream.

Crashing the economy

Johnson points out the following:

Ideally money should be a self-effacing servant of the real economy, which produces actual goods and services. But money has grown into a jealous tyrant that interferes with the real economy. The simplest example is your average economic crisis. In an economic depression, the land does not suddenly go sterile. The udders of cows do not go dry. Men do not suddenly become stupid and lazy. The sun keeps shining; the crops keep growing; the chickens keep laying; people keep working. Goods pile up in warehouses and stores. And on the demand side, people still need to eat. But silos are bursting and people are starving because, for some mysterious reason, there is suddenly “not enough money.”

That’s rather reminiscent of the quaint Biblical expression, “The money failed”.  Crashing the economy is older than dirt.

People have no money to spend, or they are afraid to part with the money they do have, because of a climate of uncertainty. After all, half way around the world, a massive swindle has been discovered; a bank has collapsed; a speculative bubble has burst. So, naturally, back in Hooterville, stores are filled with sour milk and rotting vegetables and children are going to bed hungry.

Indeed, it gets fairly absurd.  He discusses the last big one and how the government responded.  At the end of his term, Bush the Younger had stimulus checks mailed out to the public.  (Probably most people used them to pay off some pressing bills, easing the desperation for that month.)  It was hoped this would generate new consumer demand and shake some rust out of the economy.  However, it didn’t work any better than when Bush the Elder tried the same thing back on his watch.

Other than that were the bankster bailouts that came later.  Some of the “too big to fail” recipients used all the taxpayer money to buy into the stock market at the lowest point.  Since they did that, did they really need all those billions to keep from going insolvent like they said?  This didn’t really benefit the public.  This massive bailout went to the financiers who had just crashed the economy, helping them turn a very tidy profit after the stock market started going back up.  Sweet!

How gibsmedats could be handed

Johnson proposes just sending citizens a monthly stipend, printed up without banksters in the picture.  It would be a substitute for Social Security and other benefits payments.  Those who want better than subsistence incomes can get a job as usual, of course.  It’s about like the reverse income tax idea which has been floated but turned out to be too liberal even for Congress when the Democrats were the majority.  On the plus side, a single payment (rather than several programs) with no means testing would cut down on the bureaucracy.

To this discussion, I’ll add that if it’s done, the gibsmedats could be issued as a complementary currency that does decline in value slowly.  It’s a compromise from the “money with an expiration date” concept.  That sounds a little odd, but actually has worked.  Still, keeping the money velocity high isn’t much of a concern; people with EBT cards generally spend what they have pretty quickly as it is.

A potential weakness in the argument is that the gibsmedats would still be more costly than what the banksters are skimming off of the economy.  About a third of the US budget goes into social services as it is.  The expense would approximately double if people who work for a living are eligible for monthly payments too.  So the government would have to tax them more, about like crazy European rates, then give some of it back to them every month.  That much seems unnecessary.

Ultimately, it seems that we couldn’t get around taxation to supply the gibsmedats, no matter what the scope would be.  Perhaps I’m not understanding the theoretical model correctly, but if so, I’d like to see it work on a small scale first before rolling it out to a major country.  A large welfare state might well encourage mass laziness, though Johnson does address that.

Sure, some people might choose to spend their time smoking dope and strumming guitars. But one of them might be the next Goethe or Wagner. And surely we would be better off extending the adolescences of a million bohemians than supporting a thousand scheming Wolfowitzes, Madoffs, and Shylocks along with all their warmonger and pornmonger cousins.

That’s a little blunt, but he does have a point.  Anyway, if the choice is whether to benefit slackers or banksters, I’d choose neither.  However, it doesn’t seem to be an essential feature to the overall proposal.

Socializing the production of fairy dust

Rather than banks making loans, the government could be doing that.  This primary element of social credit has been done before, and it worked.  If I recall correctly, it was a brief experiment in Britain.  However, these days we’d have to get better politicians.  Their meddling – forcing banks to write mortgages for subprime borrowers who had no chance of paying them back – contributed to the last economic crisis.  We wouldn’t want to let those guys screw the pooch again.  Before we can get social credit, we need regime change first.

Why should the government allow banks to create money and then loan it, at interest, to the government, when the government can create money itself? The very existence of public debt goes back to the time when money was something of intrinsic value (like gold) that banks might possess and that the government could not just make up.

Bingo!  This is one of the best points.  The government certainly could sell treasury bills itself,whenever they have to borrow money (which is pretty much always) rather than having the banksters do that and get their piece of the action.  The Constitution states clearly that Congress has the authority to coin money, but long ago, FDR farmed that out to the Federal Reserve.  It’s time to retake control.

The peace dividend

I’ll add some other observations.  Cutting the banksters out of the money creation process also would remove some of the behind-the-scenes pressure to get involved in costly spit-in-your-eye wars.   Spreading democracy one bomb at a time hasn’t been as productive as expected.

Another source of pressure comes from the military-industrial complex.  That could be fixed by socializing the arms industry.  It’s been done before.  Even though the Soviet Union had a notoriously lousy economy, they still made pretty decent military hardware.  The Russkies probably weren’t making $800 hammers, either.

The last element of pressure is from foreign lobbies, such as AIPAC, for example.  That won’t get fixed until politicians grow a pair and tell them to go fight their own wars instead of using us as unpaid mercenaries.  American soldiers getting shot up on the other side of the world gets old after a while.  Ezra Pound, who was a pioneer of the social credit idea, wouldn’t have been surprised too much by this, but all that’s another story.

The long-term picture

Later Johnson discusses prospects for the future.  Technology eventually could allow us to reduce working hours, and maybe one day robots will do all the work.  The plutocrats are already salivating about this.  One of their fans gloated that in the future, anyone who doesn’t have a $200,000 salary will be unemployed.  So after over 90% of the country has been put out of work, the billionaires will live like gods on the earth, and most of the public dies of starvation.  I’m sure it’ll be a lot of fun until the public goes French Revolution on them.

If instead we can get the plutocrats off of the gravy train, then all the public benefits from technological advances.  Johnson’s perspective on how the future might work is pretty interesting; again, it’s worth a reading in its entirety.

Social credit, an element of Third Position economics to get the banksters off of our backs

The Biblical Joseph was a crooked politician who stole everything from the people, even their freedom

Earlier I had some irreverent remarks about the founder of my religion.  Surely that one offends any Mormons more devout than I am, and it’s hard to get less pious than Yours Truly.  This time I’m surely going to irritate some garden variety fundamentalist Christians by telling it like it is about a revered figure in the Bible.  Apologies in advance; you’ve been warned.

It turns out that Joseph Smith – “Glass Looker”, writer of mediocre Biblical fan fiction, rookie bankster, bad Egyptologist , horn dog – wasn’t such a big shyster after all, compared to his Old Testament namesake.  In fact, comparing the two would be about like a high school kid who deals nickel bags of weed from his locker versus Pablo Escobar.  Adask’s Law tells about this, worth a read in its entirety.

That one takes a poke at the economist Keynes.  Anyway, I don’t have a gripe with Keynes; it’s the neocon economists who drive me up a wall.  That’s all another rant for another day.   I figured I’d recap the story too with my own spin.

The Biblical Joseph plots to swindle the entire country

There’s lots of stuff in Genesis about Joseph’s long sojourn in Egypt.  There were plenty of ups and downs in that experience.  He eventually became the second in command of the Pharaoh, who fully trusted him and delegated his powers to him.  That’s not bad for a foreigner who started out as a slave and just got sprung from jail, right?  Together, they would begin a monstrous scheme against Egypt’s citizens.

In Genesis 40, Joseph starts to get a reputation as a dream interpreter, a gift from God as he explains.  So then – how does he use this great blessing?  In the next chapter, the Pharaoh has the dream about the seven fat cows and seven lean cows.  After a similar dream, he consults Joseph about it.  This meant that there would be seven great harvests, followed by seven bad harvests.  Maybe you heard about all that in Sunday school, and how – forearmed with the knowledge – Joseph saved the Egyptians from mass starvation.  What a nice guy, huh?  A closer look at the story reveals things in an entirely different light.

And so it came to pass that the dream came true.  Insider information is great to have.  For example, a hedge fund manager could make serious bucks if he’s on buddy-buddy terms or related somehow to a Federal Reserve honcho.  Knowing before anyone else does which way the prime rate will go is worth quite a bundle on Wall Street.  (Insider trading like that is crooked and illegal, but hey…)  Imagine what you could do if you had a hot tip straight from God!

Ancient Egypt gets gypped

So here’s what happened.  As predicted, Egypt had bumper crops for seven years.  During that time, Joseph bought up the surplus, preparing for hard times.  The government surely got a pretty good deal on it; that’s Economics 101.  Having a major buyer would’ve kept the prices from hitting rock bottom, though, so the farmers were making money.  Then things take a turn for the worse in Genesis 47.  The seven years of plenty were finished.

“47:13 – And there was no bread in all the land; for the famine was very sore, so that the land of Egypt and all the land of Canaan fainted by reason of the famine.”

During the lean years, he provided the surplus grain to the people so they had enough food.  That’s what you heard about in Sunday school.  Yay Joseph!

Oh, but wait – did you think he sold back the grain at cost, or at merely a modest markup?  He could’ve if he’d wanted.  For seven years straight, the farmers had profited from a massive surplus.  Presumably they didn’t blow it all in Vegas, though surely they would’ve gotten a kick out of Luxor.  Buying back the grain they’d grown in seven bountiful harvests, they completely ran out of money in under a year.

“47:14 – And Joseph gathered up all the money that was found in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, for the corn which they bought: and Joseph brought the money into Pharaoh’s house.”

Apparently the price gouging was so exorbitant that (if the story is to be believed literally) the Egyptian people were left completely penniless.  The government took the opportunity to squeeze them for every last copper they had.

Economic digression

Now let’s read between the lines here.  After a massive crop failure, of course the price of grain was going to be high; again that’s Economics 101. It’s not like anyone was in a position to sell it cheaper and undercut the government’s price, since the harvest was terrible this time.  If anyone found the price objectionable, the government’s agents simply could shrug their shoulders and say, “Yes, it was much cheaper last year when you were selling it, but that was then.  Hey, it’s the maaaarket.”

That’s what the oil execs say these days whenever they pop a Viagra and jack up the gas prices.  One example of this game is when the Rockefellers artificially limited the refinery capacity and gave us the late 1970s energy crisis.  If you’re an old geezer like me, you’ll remember unprecedented high prices and cars lined up for a couple blocks to get into gas stations.  OPEC gets froggy too on occasion.  Sensibly, they cut it out after a while and dial prices back down, before electric cars (like the 1970s Citicar, the 1990s EV1, or newer models) really get a chance to catch on.

This has far-reaching implications.  All products get brought to stores in trucks.  When the fuel cost goes up, prices go up, that’s one of the things that cause inflation.  When oil prices eventually go back down, it takes a good while longer for gasoline prices to go back down.  Products at stores take much longer to get cheaper again, if they do at all.  Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand” theory states that prices set themselves efficiently because of competition.  However, this certainly doesn’t happen overnight.

Further, running a monopoly or a cartel is an end run around that.  Competition can’t set the prices efficiently, if there’s no competition.  It means the owners can make the price whatever they want, because fuck you.

Joseph’s food monopoly worked great – for him!  All the country’s money went straight into the Pharaoh’s treasury.  The prosperity from seven good years, as well as all the rest of their savings from before – gone!  So now what?

From the Dust Bowl to the Great Depression

“47:15 – And when money failed in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, all the Egyptians came unto Joseph, and said, Give us bread: for why should we die in thy presence? for the money faileth.”

Now check this out.  Parsing this quaint KJV phrase – “money failed” – into modern terms, Egypt’s private sector economy suffered a catastrophic depression.  Of course that was going to happen; after all that price gouging, nobody had any money left to buy more overpriced grain!  Joseph seems to have been a pretty sharp cookie, entrusted with a great nation’s financial affairs, so surely he knew exactly what would happen.  You don’t even have to be Adam Smith to understand that no money means no economy.  Now the public was completely desperate, and begging for relief.

“47:16 – And Joseph said, Give your cattle; and I will give you for your cattle, if money fail.”

“If?”  Like things had any chance of improving?  Good one, Joe!  He reassured those guys, “if money fail” further yet, he’d just trade all their livestock for enough grain to keep them alive a while longer.  No money, no problem; we got you covered!  (Snicker, snicker.)

“47:17 – And they brought their cattle unto Joseph: and Joseph gave them bread in exchange for horses, and for the flocks, and for the cattle of the herds, and for the asses: and he fed them with bread for all their cattle for that year.”

Sure enough, ancient Egypt’s Great Depression didn’t end.  Of course “money failed” still, since all of it remained hoarded in the Pharaoh’s treasury.  They didn’t have tractors back then, so farmers relied on horses, donkeys, and oxen to work the fields – which they had to hand over to the Pharaoh just to survive.

“47:18 – When that year was ended, they came unto him the second year, and said unto him, We will not hide it from my lord, how that our money is spent; my lord also hath our herds of cattle; there is not ought left in the sight of my lord, but our bodies, and our lands:”

Surprise!  In the second year, the peasants were screwed, and not in the fun way.  They knew it and the government knew it.  Well, if you can’t get blood out of a turnip, you can still put the turnip up for sale…

Dependency is the road to slavery

whiteslavery
Slavery LARPing

“47:19 – Wherefore shall we die before thine eyes, both we and our land? buy us and our land for bread, and we and our land will be servants unto Pharaoh: and give us seed, that we may live, and not die, that the land be not desolate.”

So after the next iteration of this, the once-independent farmers gave up their land and freedom to the Pharaoh.  Today, “servant” generally means paid household help, but in earlier times it meant “slave”, from the Latin term “servus”.  The passage is quite clear that they wanted to sell themselves into slavery for bread, along with their land.  They even begged for that.  Societal self-abasement never got any lower than this, at least until cultural Marxism came along thousands of years later.

“47:20 – And Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh; for the Egyptians sold every man his field, because the famine prevailed over them: so the land became Pharaoh’s.”

Now these independent yeoman farmers had lost all their property, and even became property themselves.

“47:21 – And as for the people, he removed them to cities from one end of the borders of Egypt even to the other end thereof.”

The new slaves got crowded into the cities and rode out the crisis on the Pharaoh’s handouts.

“47:22 – Only the land of the priests bought he not; for the priests had a portion assigned them of Pharaoh, and did eat their portion which Pharaoh gave them: wherefore they sold not their lands.”

The Asshole Dictator 101 course teaches that you can’t risk pissing off everyone.  You need to keep your high class citizens, especially those in a position to keep morale from completely collapsing, on your side.  They, and the military, are what keep the peasants from revolting.

The “New Normal”

“47:23 – Then Joseph said unto the people, Behold, I have bought you this day and your land for Pharaoh: lo, here is seed for you, and ye shall sow the land.”

Likely there was a fast forward here for a few years.  After the anticipated famine came to an end, Joseph cut them a deal.  They’d been slaves crammed together in the cities for a while, but he’d let them go back to the fields they used to own, which now belonged to the Pharaoh.  He’d even give them seed grain from the remaining supply so they could get started again.  What an awesome guy!  There were strings attached, though – surprise!

“47:24 – And it shall come to pass in the increase, that ye shall give the fifth part unto Pharaoh, and four parts shall be your own, for seed of the field, and for your food, and for them of your households, and for food for your little ones.”

From now on, all of Egypt’s farmers would be sharecroppers, with the Pharaoh getting a 20% cut every year henceforth.  (If you’re a middle class American, you’re in the 22% tax bracket.  You can play some Negro spirituals next time you’re doing your taxes to get you in the mood.)  Did Joseph decide to upgrade their status slightly, from slaves to serfs, because he felt guilty about screwing them?  No, he knew that the agriculture was about to improve and their grain reserves wouldn’t last forever.  The Pharaoh needed them to grow crops again.  Best of all, he’d get a 20% piece of the action henceforth.

“47:25 – And they said, Thou hast saved our lives: let us find grace in the sight of my lord, and we will be Pharaoh’s servants.”

You might think that after this colossal swindle, the people of Egypt would’ve been ready to lynch their despotic Pharaoh and his crooked right hand man.  If you figured the torches and pitchforks would come out, you’d be wrong.  Those two never even had to use force to cheat the public.  They simply manipulated a crisis to their maximum advantage.  As events unfolded, it’s not too hard to imagine Egypt’s top politicians feigning concern while hiding the details and conspiring to stick it to the public further.

The public’s servility toward the Pharaoh is a textbook case of societal Stockholm Syndrome.  This was the guy who’d approved of the scheme and now owned all their money, livestock, fields, and (since all that wasn’t enough gravy for this greedy shmuck) 20% of their future earnings.  As for Joseph, he was a skillful enough bullshit artist that he got the public to believe he was their savior.  He positioned himself as the way out of their predicament, when in fact his predatory practices caused it.

Holy chutzpah, Batman!  Even now, he’s considered to be this great patriarch, a wise and magnanimous guy who helped out those starving Africans.  This is all despite a colossal profiteering scheme involving price gouging, crashing the economy, and cheating a nation’s citizens out of everything they had.

If the story that the Bible tells is true, Joseph and the Pharaoh were some of the worst kleptocrats of the Bronze Age.  Ancient warfare got pretty bad.  Sometimes foreign conquerors would plunder a defeated country, or shake down the helpless population with a heavy tribute.  (The Mongol Yoke is a classic example of this.)  However, a king oppressing his own citizens that badly is just a little much.  A responsible leader doesn’t exploit the people.  Anyway, all that’s another discussion; stay tuned.

Did this actually happen?

It’s doubtful the story is true, at least in any substantial sense.  Egyptian records (which are pretty thorough) describe nothing like that.  Neither are there any chronicles from abroad corroborating these events, other than the Old Testament itself.  However, there could be a slim chance that the Egyptians finally got wise to that, pronounced damnatio memoriae on the corrupt Pharaoh and the scheming foreigner, and edited this sordid episode out of their history.

Aside from that, the Nile floods every spring, bringing fresh water and runoff from as far away as Uganda.  The Egyptians then got to plant on fields enriched by a new layer of mud.  America’s Midwestern farmers could only dream about this kind of climactic regularity.  It seems a little improbable for there to be a seven year long Dust Bowl on the fertile banks of the Nile.

This seems to have taken place at the beginning of Egypt’s “New Kingdom” era when they got expansionistic and took over the Levant.  Canaan (later Israel / Palestine) is also mentioned suffering from the same problems.  This new province of Egypt was the western part of the Fertile Crescent (considerably more hospitable than now).  They had their own agriculture; that’s the first place farming got started.  It was a separate climactic region with different characteristics than the Nile Valley.  They also had access to neighboring kingdoms – the Hittites, Mitanni, and Babylonians – who could’ve sold them food if needed and undercut exorbitant government prices.

Furthermore, it would’ve taken an unprecedented granary capacity for that scheme to work.  Also, it’s unlikely for grain to stay reasonably fresh for seven years, which is how long the crisis supposedly lasted.  Without advanced technology, it probably would’ve gone bad in half that time, or less.

Lastly – assuming God inspired the correct dream interpretation and it wasn’t just a lucky guess – why did Joseph get away with using the information maliciously?  He could’ve been struck by lightning, turned into an ant, infected with leprosy, or gotten the old-fashioned slow roast.  Some other parts of the Old Testament show people arguing with God, or even trying to pull a fast one on Him.  Sometimes it even works, but I think that Heavenly Father actually is a little smarter than that.  This story wouldn’t have worked in Greek mythology; someone who committed hubris would’ve gotten a can of whup-ass opened up on him in a hurry.

The Book of Genesis is basically right about some parts.  However, I’ll have to conclude that this part of it was either a fable, or substantially embellished.  Perhaps it was made up by someone who knew the rudiments of commodity manipulation, then wrote a yarn about how their great patriarch gypped those Egyptian peasants and they even loved him for it.

If it was partially true, I would suspect there was substantial spin doctoring.  Those types think that they’re wonderful people, oblivious to the resentment generated by their behavior.  Even if they’re aware of the conditions they caused, the public matters nothing to them.  If the people get wise and retaliate, they think they’re being terribly wronged and can’t understand what they possibly did to deserve it.  Well, bless their hearts.

The Biblical Joseph was a crooked politician who stole everything from the people, even their freedom

Are timeshares a scam, or merely a ripoff?

I can’t believe I did this.  I got suckered into another timeshare spiel.  (At least I didn’t get suckered into the timeshare itself!)  After the last spiel, I thought I’d never do that again.  Argh…  I learned my lesson for real this time; I’d prefer to be waterboarded.

My first timeshare experience

One of my girlfriends (the big bodacious one) used to have three timeshares with the same company.  Surely that seems like overdoing it.  The thing is that she got a much better deal on them than you’ll get these days, and was “grandfathered” into a special program.  The way it would’ve worked is that she could’ve stayed at one place for six days, then taken the next day to drive somewhere else, then stayed at another of their facilities, et cetera and ad infinitum.  She figured that it was going to be like a rotating retirement home.  The company quit offering arrangements like that, so you can forget about it if you want a similar deal.

However, she seldom actually used the place.  We stayed there one time, and that’s it.  There were ways you could rent it out to other people.  Since it was near a major convention area that frequently gets accommodations all booked up, that should’ve made the thing pay for itself.  One of our friends actually worked for a company that made those arrangements.  Despite all that, nothing ever came of it.

Anyway, she talked me into attending one of their presentations.  For submitting to a couple hours of that, we’d get free vacation tickets, even if I didn’t buy.  With great reluctance, I went.  So we got the rundown on how it worked, with a video presentation.  Then we got to talk with one of the sales droids.  I got the spiel where we took our current estimated annual vacation expenses, then extrapolated things into the future.

The point was that the deal looked expensive, but I’d save money over time, especially with rising inflation figured in.  I caught them in some fuzzy math, but didn’t call them out for cheating.  I had to feign narcolepsy to get out of the spiel.  I was dead tired anyway, so method acting wasn’t hard.

Then my girlfriend lost her job.  (It’s all a long story.  Her former manager deserves to be stripped naked, covered with barbecue sauce, and tossed into a pen with a dozen junkyard dogs.)  After she no longer could pay the timeshare, I bailed her out a couple times – what a mistake!  The bills kept coming, and unfortunately I never found any pirate treasure buried in my back yard.  So after she couldn’t pay the bills for it, they filed a foreclosure action on her.

Then they went through the motions in court of selling the “property”.  She actually went down to the courthouse to see all that.  Note well, a timeshare is an option to use a room for a limited time every year.  That’s not the property itself, which always belongs to the company, so what’s the deal with going through the hoopla of selling it?  I figured they’d pull a number out of their asses and charge her for it; like I said, they’re skilled at fuzzy math.  However, she’d be a better one to tell the story of that particular dog-and-pony show.

The next timeshare spiel

So we were on vacation at a fashionable tourist destination commonly called Lost Wages.  My finances were already stinging from unexpected vet bills and car repairs.  (The first was a catalytic converter that cost me a king’s ransom to fix so I could pass inspection.  Later, it had a brake malfunction on the freeway.  NOT fun, and we came within inches of splatting into construction barrels.)  Still, the trip was booked, so backing out was not an option.

A friendly droid came up and offered us free comps on shows and other attractions.  Hey, what a deal, right?  I figured she was a hotel rep.  Later, I found out it was going to be a timeshare spiel.  Alarm bells went off, but in a desperate effort to keep further costs down, I figured that I’d let them make their case for two hours, and I’d get some tickets.  We had to put down a $40 deposit for the thing.  Against my better judgment, we ponied up.

After tossing sixty bucks into the slot machine, Lady Luck forsook me.  She wasn’t being kind to my girlfriend either.  Yes, I’m aware that those machines are designed to separate you from your money.  (Heck, that’s the purpose of the Vegas Strip itself.)  Mainly I like the people-watching and the free drinks.  She gets more out of the casino experience, though.  On the way back, I got bit by a foo-foo dog.  I thought that was funny, but perhaps it was a bad omen?  Anyway, we retired to our room and slept off our travel fatigue.

So in the morning, we went to the blessed timeshare presentation.  Much like before, it started with a video explaining the deal.  This plan had a point system, and you could use your X number of yearly points on rooms in different locations that were priced differently in terms of points.  I believe a maximum stay would be seven days in a year.  Maybe that’s in Mule Shoe, Kentucky or something.  In Hawaii, you’d burn through your yearly points in three days.

Then we got assigned to a sales droid.  The guy did put on good rapport, and had decent sales vibing.  Still, there was just something about him that set me on edge.  This will sound strange, but he gave the impression of being a shark in human form.  If he’d turned to someone casually and then bitten off a hunk of raw flesh, it wouldn’t have surprised me much.  Come to think of it, he did look a bit like an alien.  Perhaps he’s one of the disguised Space Lizards I wrote about in Tomorrow the Stars?

We drove to their nearby hotel.  Overall, it did look pretty good.  Actually, the only better one I’ve stayed in is the Plaza in NYC – deep in the heart of the Mothership – and that one’s pretty top-notch.  They even had a couple of swimming pools and a mini-theater.  So yeah, it’s indeed a nice place.  Still, I’m a cheapskate, and I’m fine with anything that’s not a crack motel.

We got back, and the Space Lizard whipped out the paperwork.  I was still a little tired.  (I’m a terrible Mormon, hopelessly hooked on caffeine.)  Despite that, as well as being a dumb blond from Flyover Country, I was able to crunch numbers in my head.  The figures weren’t looking good to me, as I’ll explain shortly.  He tried to haggle.  That didn’t work, so then he laid on a guilt trip.

That didn’t work either.  One of the cool things about being a White Nationalist is that I’m immune to feeling guilty about doing things that aren’t actually wrong, likewise (of course) about bad things I didn’t do personally.  Anther deplorable right-winger benefit includes a free set of high-gain bullshit detectors.  Other than that, I’m a stubborn bastard, and I escaped unscathed.  I would imagine that many other people might’ve buckled under the pressure.

Timeshares by the numbers

So the deal as it was presented to me was that there would be a $25K mortgage on it, payable over ten years.  (That involves interest, which will be an extra cha-ching.)  So that means over two hundred bucks a month for a decade.  However, when I flat out refused, the Space Lizard offered to waive the mortgage entirely.  Generous guy, right?

On top of that is $200/month in maintenance fees.  That’s not for ten years; that continues in perpetuity.  I’m a cheap bastard, and that would eat into my beer budget too much.  (My favorite is Pay Lay Ale.  That’s a Mormon joke, BTW.)  So even though the mortgage turned out to be optional after all, it was still no bueno.

What happens if you want to call off the deal later on?  You can’t get their hand out of your pocketbook.  The best thing you can do is get someone to buy out your obligation.  For this reason, there are hordes of people on EBay trying to sell their timeshares for one measly buck after they’d paid thousands into them.  (If you really want one of those things, why not find one of these woebegone souls and make their wishes come true?)  What happens if you stop paying?  From my girlfriend’s earlier experience, I knew that meant that you’re screwed, and not in the fun way.

This isn’t like an apartment where you simply can move out after your yearly lease is up.  Besides finding someone to sell it to (good luck with that!) or having your credit ruined, the only other way to get out of a timeshare is DEATH.  I’m not sure what the company does to the customer’s heirs, but they’ll have to deal with it; after people end up six feet underground in a pine box, finally it’s no longer their problem.

OK, so they have to build these places and maintain them.  I get that.  Also, what I saw did look pretty snazzy.  However, there are also nice hotels which likewise have to defray construction and upkeep costs, but are cheaper.  You book the room as needed, and aren’t locked into an obligation that lasts until you’re pushing up daisies.

Now let’s have a closer look at the numbers.  So the deal I was presented is to option a stay that’s one week, tops.  For that, you have to pay $2,400 a year in maintenance fees.  You’ll pay over twice that for ten years if you didn’t haggle away the silly “mortgage”.  Now, let’s pro-rate one week’s stay, merely for the annualized maintenance fee.

Again, this must be in a low-demand area to get a whole week, or the point cost means you’re getting fewer days.  This is like paying about $343 a night.  If you got suckered into the “mortgage” too, then you’re looking at more like $700/night for the first ten years.  Think you might be able to find other decent accommodations in Mule Shoe, KY that are a bit cheaper?  Again, if it’s in a popular place like Hawaii, you only get a three day stay, with the pro-rated room rate equivalent to over twice that.

Finally, if you don’t get the chance to use their service that year, then it’s tough luck.  That’s not their problem.  You’re still paying for it that year, even if you get nothing out of it.  (That’s how it rolled for my girlfriend most years.)  Later, we were chatting with some fellow damn Vegas tourists about all that.  Those guys got stuck with a single-facility timeshare in Mexico.  It’s now in a no-go zone because of drug cartel activity, but they still have to pay for the thing.

Anybody – does this still sound like a good deal?  I may be a dumb blond, and surely a real dimwit compared to a Space Lizard, but at least I know better than to get locked into something like that.

Are timeshares a scam, or merely a ripoff?

What is the lumpenproletariat?

The proletariat is a social class containing blue-collar workers.  In historic times, these were the wage slaves who just barely got by.  The owners of the factories, mines, and so forth typically exploited them, endeavoring to pay them as little as possible.  (As for today, well, not too much has changed.)  One of the goals of Socialism is to elevate the proletariat’s status.  The proposed means is via state-owned businesses; the historical track record isn’t too promising, but that’s another matter for now.

“Lumpenproletariat” is a derivative term, prefixed by the German word for “rags”.  That represents a worse-off class, particularly the homeless, criminals, and others at the economic fringe.  They have either very unsteady employment, or none.  Since there are these types even in good times, the problem is one of motivation.  This group generally encompasses drifters, slackers, ne’er-do-wells, etc.  The phrase “no visible means of support” comes to mind.  It’s a subject that appears occasionally in Communist writings.

Marxist approaches to the lumpenproletariat

Once again, going back to the point in the first paragraph, Socialists generally are interested in blue collar guys who punch a clock and perform manual labor every workday – “Workers of the world, unite!” and all that.  Those are the folks who would be interested in trade unionism, which they hoped would be the gateway drug to worldwide proletarian revolution and all that.  However, people who do no constructive labor – or as little as possible to survive – don’t really qualify; they’re not even workers.  Still, there’s actually quite a bit of variation in the Party Line on this point.

One traditional take is that the lumpenproletariat isn’t worth considering, since they’re natural reactionaries.  That one seems to be a bit of a stretch.  Some of those folks might have strong political beliefs, but they’re generally not activists.  Opinions are likely to be all over the place, but there’s no special reason to believe that many of them are fans of Friedrich Hayek, Corneliu Codreanu, Pat Buchanan, Julius Evola, Mencius Moldbug, or some other flavor of “reactionary”.

Another opinion is that lumpenproletariat members are natural anarchists.  That one seems closer to the mark; those guys often do have a problem with authority.  A related notion is that they’re just too unreliable to be useful for Communist activism.  On the right, such types obviously would be an absolute liability.  Being a leftist means never having to worry about optics (more on that subject in a later discussion).  Even so, any cause will need more than just warm bodies; a bunch of screwballs who can’t get their act together will be nothing but trouble.

Finally, there are those who hope to radicalize the lumpenproletariat.  The reasoning goes that since they’re the worst off in society, they’d be the most motivated.  The problem is that being motivated really isn’t in the nature of bums and slackers to begin with.

Then Franz Fanon – best known for writing books lately used to instill White guilt in college students – had a curious redefinition.  He described colonized peoples as the lumpenproletariat, who would go smash the bourgeoisie and all the rest of it.  That’s a pretty screwy formulation.  Someone in an actual colony (and there aren’t many real ones left) making fifty cents a day hacking down sugar cane certainly isn’t a bum.  He’s a manual laborer who happens to have a remarkably shitty tightwad of a boss.

Karl Marx, the big banana himself

Interestingly, Marx was basically a card-carrying lumpenproletariat member, though he certainly didn’t boast of it.  Friedrich Engels owned a factory (silly class enemy!) and repeatedly offered to give Marx a tour to see for himself how one operated.  However, Chuck just wasn’t interested.  Therefore, during all his life, he never stepped inside a factory (much unlike Yours Truly), despite writing about the subject at great length.  Reading up on factories was everything that the champion of the proletariat needed to know, apparently.  This is also much unlike Adam Smith, who wrote a classic case study about one.

Marx himself came from a fairly well-off family:  yes, a bourgeois by birth.  However, he frittered away his inheritance, and then had to survive off of handouts from his buddy Engels.  Laziness and heavy drinking didn’t help, and because of that, his family lived in miserable poverty.  He dabbled with journalism occasionally, but other than that, the champion of the proletariat never worked a day in his life, and certainly not any manual labor.  Being educated, he could’ve gotten a decent job if he wanted.  Even someone who wasn’t educated could’ve been a sailor, worked in a factory, or found some other gainful employment.

What’s the deal with that?  When work in my own chosen profession dried up, I had to do day labor in construction for a little over two years.  (So I took a job away from an illegal alien – now there’s a switch!)  I got heat exhaustion frequently, but that’s what it took to pay the bills.  Filing bankruptcy and then living off of The System was unacceptable to me.  Actually, I still do construction as a side project occasionally.  It’s called being practical.  Karl Marx, however, was an intellectual; therefore, he was too good to work.  He just wanted everything handed to him because he deserved it.

Actually, that explains a lot about his mindset, and that of some of his more naïve followers cranked out by today’s universities.  They don’t understand that production doesn’t happen by magic, or that wealth must be maintained.  Many of those behind decolonization liberation movements found out the hard way too.  The mentality goes that someone else has a pile of treasure, you steal it, and now you’re set up for life.  Zimbabwe is one example of many.

An economic planner from East Germany or Czechoslovakia would’ve known better, of course.  They had to get things done as best they could, within the framework of the system handed to them.  Outside the realm of pure theory, things work a little different when the rubber hits the road.  Anyway, I’m going to start getting trolled by Communists again, this time for insulting the Prophet.  Comrades, the truth hurts.

My Fascist solution

Yes, poverty is a drag, to put it mildly.  This is especially so if it’s a chronic condition in someone’s life.  Fortunately, there’s this thing called social mobility.  A drifter doesn’t have to remain a drifter.  Getting jobs back to this country will be a necessary first step.  That means tuning out all those neocon whiz kids and other free trade worshipers (cough, Krugman, cough) who don’t realize that peasants can’t afford durable goods.

Other than that, society does have a problem with increasing extremes of wealth.  However, Socialism doesn’t have a good track record of fixing things.  If it did, I’d be down for that.  Instead, the answer is Distributism.

What happens with able-bodied slackers who, after adequate opportunity is provided, still refuse to work?  Western welfare states (“Socialism Lite”) have a lot of tolerance for that, engineered to create a dependent voter bloc.  However, true Socialist societies did not.  It’s more realistic that way, actually; society should have less indulgence for slackers.  Handing out checks just perpetuates the problem.  If they feel like being unproductive, ever after opportunities to better themselves are there, they can go nibble grass or something.

What is the lumpenproletariat?