The idea that AI-generated porn will favorably affect dynamics between the sexes is a perfect example of compartmentalized, reductive, mechanical thinking applied to living systems. The prediction is that demand for OnlyFans will decrease since AI can make better, on-demand porn. The jump in saying that lower demand for OnlyFans will lead to women competing again for male attachment is something I completely disagree with. This rationalizing reduces the dynamism of the sexes to a material exchange comparable to a simple economic model.
Spengler’s Law of Gender Parity states, “In every corner of the world and in every epoch of history, the men and women of a culture deserve each other.” This is an extension of the metaphysical principle of the sexes mirroring each other and shifting closer or further from their authentic ideal in tandem, both on the micro and macro scale. Cultures are living entities that grow and change over time. The conditions of maintaining a living being are more than just the input-output of each part. Needing each other for material reasons is not enough to sustain a living culture — differentiated interdependence stems from the health of the culture.
Allopathic medicine treats us like machines. The mechanical view that a symptom needs to be dulled or that disease simply onsets is counter to all traditional models. Health is traditionally understood as balance, and disease results from extended periods of imbalance because, in living systems, imbalances have a cascading effect. Symptoms are indicators of what is wrong, and covering them only confounds the issue while allowing for chronic illness to rise. This same mechanical thinking is used so normatively that it almost becomes a default that people cannot see.
If one sex is imbalanced, the other will be, and eventually, it will reach a point where the entire body can no longer survive. OnlyFans did not start the divide between the sexes, nor did porn, but both are detrimental to any living culture. Championing a passive state in this zeitgeist is an acted-upon state that will never go in the desired direction rationalized. A decade ago, there was no OnlyFans, yet there was a major imbalance in casual sex with a lack of bonds. Making OnlyFans no longer a financial incentive for women will not end this compounding cycle. Let us assume that it will send women back a century or so by basic supply and demand of them needing men more than OnlyFans for money, which is unrealistic.
We are only seeing the effects of porn during puberty in younger generations. Prior to millennials, it was very rare to access for males in development. Men are very visual in sexual drive, and porn is far more addictive to the male mind. Sure, not every man will be affected the same way, but every man that has access to it during his formative years will be affected. It creates a diminishing return which drives the need for increasingly fetishized and unrealistic porn to reach the same level of stimulation. Even worse, this addiction is accessed instantaneously and in private, so it can easily be hidden from the persona they present to the world.
Porn and masturbation lower testosterone, and the habit is being started at increasingly younger ages with greater immediate access to a wider range of content. When men are addicted to this brain narcotic, they have increasingly less drive to attain real women. Younger generations of women also complain the most about the low sex drive of males. We are already seeing that gen z has less sex than any other generation but also fewer relationships, indicating the major effect of porn on men in their formative years. This can easily lead to a dynamic where first-world men with AI porn from puberty are completely disinterested in their female counterparts and generally apathetic. Their complacency will be increased by being able to outlet these natural drives into addictive forms — AI porn, conquering in VR, online personas over real bonds, etc. in a mirror image of the shallowness we see with women on OnlyFans and Instagram.
Phenotype is determined by an exponential relationship between genotype and environment/culture. The greater the genetic potential, the wider the range of phenotype expression. Allowing our male youth to be subjected to such negative stimulation in formative years will result in the lowest expression of phenotype, and we do not live in bubbles. When the men of an ethnos or race are destroyed, there ceases to be a culture — the only way to fix this is to ground people with new foundations. Things getting exponentially worse only spreads the disease and rot, making it more insidious for each generation. Calamity alone does not fix anything; it just ends lines and gets worse. It is only if the calamity pushes people to seed new foundations entirely outside of the zeitgeist that there is any benefit. Championing the calamity alone, especially when it is an addictive and insidious calamity, is shortsighted materialism. No culture exists in isolation of the individual.
By freeing up female “human resources” from OnlyFans but tanking the quality of our men, it makes women ripe for foreign men. Primitive hominids are not raised with the luxury of on-demand porn. The migrant invasion globalists are using against all Europid lands are young men. The quality of females drawn to OnlyFans work are very much the same ones that would be willing to fill that void with men of other races that comparatively seem more virile than porn-addicted young men in the first world. Allowing consumption-led use of technology — especially with AI — is to unleash an anti-culture of addictions replacing bonds and people. Utopianism always leads to dystopias.
A good female reality check! Reminds me of Nicolás Gómez Dávila’s maxim: ‘sexual freedom is the gratuity by which society buys its slaves’ subservience’. Otherwise put: ‘sexual liberation’, whether in outdated OnlyFans form (expensive, limited) or updated AI form (cheap, unlimited), is incompatible with any form of authentic human gender or identity experience – it serves to enslave and dehumanize. But enslavement and dehumanization, eliminating the weak and unworthy, are evolutionary selection mechanisms too – ‘unnatural selection’ is also selection. The men that fall prey to them, are eliminated from Western breeding stock as well as from Western culture. Similarly, the women that ‘fill the void’ with material ‘from elsewhere’ are absorbed into the other. These are not regrettable losses, but rather free choice and self-selective mechanisms. For many, such a choice ‘pays off’ – they feel at ease, restful, absolved from responsibility. For those who chose differently, for us, however, there also is a pay-off: we will shed the superfluous, the losers, the weak and the perverts. At the present speed, after a short while, we will be left with – to stay on topic – our true own ‘hard core’. Let us astonish Darwin – and enjoy the ride!
That is an interesting maxim. Reminds me of an extension of Seneca’s insights on people being slaves to various additions, including lust. I fundamentally disagree with the root cause and prescriptions of the Stoics, even if I find Seneca’s descriptions to be profoundly insightful. The cause of addictive behavior is a void within this decadent form of civilization from a lack of deeper bonds and cultural genesis. The prescriptions of further detachment are even more isolating yet work well to stave off the temptations of the Age, not so well to continue the legacy or change the Age.
You quickly simplify evolutionary selection as always favorable and in isolation of the foundational trends of our species’ rise to apex. Many species completely go extinct, and evolving is not guaranteed. What made us apex in the first place and a huge part of our evolution over similar sub-species was inclusive fitness, also seen in the apex of the ocean. It is not our brute force but our ability to work together from strong bonding mechanisms that made us apex. Also, like orcas, we have culture. Cultural synergism exerts a selective pressure that is highly eugenic, allowing an entire ethnos to evolve in tandem.
You are over-emphasizing pure genotype, disregarding epigenetics and its relationship to cultural selective pressures, but worse of all, presupposing that an anti-culture from the void created by our addictive technics is within the bounds of evolution. The key temptation of transhumanism is that you can skip all steps to lead to a desired outcome, sit back and it will happen. Breaking a living chain of connection to our evolutionary model enslaves us all to the nation of laws that increasingly mechanizes to shape society around isolation and addiction. It is not driven by us or evolution but by consumption – it is consuming and slowly suffocating us.
We are no longer apex because our tools lead us instead of vice versa. Free will is the ability to make choices, but the choices are determined by the meta-zeitgeist unless we try to understand how it affects us instead of rationalizing that it will work for us. We created this form of civilization outside of nature, which is evolving with an inverse relationship to the quality of hominids of those that uphold it. This acted-upon consumptive state has allowed our options to be shaped by the void and increasingly mechanized in a manner that subsists off our life force. Your rationalizing that this “unnatural selection” will go in your desired direction prevents choices to change the meta-zeitgeist folding between zeitgeists in this Age.
You completely negate analysis of how these selective forces work but think they will just take out only bad ones, leaving us all with such great genotypes. I am not saying to try to save everyone lost to the void, but if the unnatural selection isn’t opposed by regaining cultural synergism, it will insidiously trap all of us in isolation of real bonds with shit choices. We are not shedding the perverts, they grow all around us and are unleashed with the full force of anarcho-tyranny behind them. Trauma is part of how this void grows, it strips away bonds that help people overcome meaningful hardships and in place, puts unnatural trauma, negative development, etc. At best, you might survive this line outside of your influence without a real culture, so if it survives long, it can be destroyed by the rot around it even if not fallen to it. Those mixing out only make more functional workers to uphold this suffocating system.
No one is hard-core in isolation, enough actually to build anything. If a collapse even comes in time, there need to be foundations of inclusive fitness in place beforehand to survive it and grow into something again. This idea that your line will survive in isolation until the point of a collapse or some eugenic minority can fight back against the machine itself without having to build is just an excuse not to build. No apex achieved their position from a lack of exerting a will outwards, letting this selective pressure absolve you of responsibility is the mentality of an acted-upon slave. Do you really think there is no will needed in evolution? That you are guaranteed a spot just by not watching the porn that shapes everything around you?
By the way, Darwin is extremely simplistic and rudimentary input-output. There has been a lot of development in theories since, and an integrative holistic approach to understanding evolution is key.
Imagine a fire starting in your kitchen and you don’t put it out but let it spread and consume your house. Maybe your children will evolve on time to breathe smoke and resist heat. What if it jumps houses and it’s not your house it started in but your neighbors… and now your house is on fire and your family blocked off from escaping the chain of events not of your choice… your choices are limited then to running through fire to save them or to get them to jump out the window to you.
Sure surviving something can make a group stronger…. But they will need to act and together, not hope they evolve and relax as the fire spreads.
It is unusual to have any substantial talk online – mostly it’s just bots and trolls that fill the comment sections in the dissident digi-sphere. So, thank you for your time and your thoughts – I will reciprocate by putting some more of mine because the points you make deserve attention. First, by answering your two final question (about the relation of the will to evolution and the immunity of those still standing): We do not live by bright ideas and lofty ideals only: the default (‘non-willed’) settings of human physicality and environmental reality are such (i.e. inertia-gravitation, time-decay, entropy-direction) that they can only be adjusted to flying-instead-of-sinking mode by the (‘willed’) exercise of discipline and force to impose ideas and ideals. Given the current ‘Crisis of the Modern World’ conditions, you are right to point out the increasingly absurd odds stacked against any substantial and successful exercise of such force. In fact, the accelerating shift of the (I would say: ex-)West into fully-fledged dystopian and dysgenic ‘anti-reality’ and the unprecedented depths of multi-generational degeneration and technology-enhanced virtuality are such that the old ‘ride the tiger’ precept may seem to be recipe for disaster. In this sense, the existential meaning of the West’s ‘greatest accomplishment’, i.e. its command of technology, may be seen as something entirely different than what the words ‘progress’ or ‘evolution’ usually cover. In its effect, Western technology is – or rather: has become – the outer mechanism that expresses, accompanies and expedites the West’s inner regress and devolution. In my estimate, this overall ‘devolutionary process’ has already reached its point of return long ago (most optimistically 1980) and it has recently reached its terminal stage (most optimistically 2020).Technology, left in the hands of the ‘sorcerer’s apprentices’ after idiocracy took over, is now literally eliminating the civilization from which it sprang. As you pointed out, AI is thwarting the collectively rewarding project of biological procreation linked to cultural transmission by offering individualistically rewarding antidotes: sexual consumption and virtual reality. Naturally, only a very few individuals (including some religious non-conformist sects) are inclined to resist this carrot – even less are inclined to resist the punishing stick that increasingly accompanies it. But there will be a ‘remnant’: those (probably very few) ‘chosen’ will be all that matters when the great deluge wipes away the subhuman masses – these are the ‘we’ I was addressing. They are what will come through the rapidly approaching ‘evolutionary bottleneck’. Which brings me to the second point in your comments that I wanted to answer here: the question of ‘evolution’ itself and, by extension (because they ideologically linked and weaponized by our enemies), that of ‘progress’ more generally. We should not forget: as the globalist-nihilist elite, its technocrat executioners and its media propagandists – let’s say ‘The Combine’ to do justice to the mechanical inhumanity of its constituent parts – are leading the ex-Western and ex-human masses into dystopia (which cocktail I suppose to have many more parts annihilation than slavery), they have a much better grasp of these masses’ collective (‘id’) drives and (‘karma’) tendencies than the ‘dissident right’ ever had. The key drive is the quest for eternity-eliminating oblivion and the key tendency is a release from the human condition all together – The Combine is working towards these goals in a very smooth fashion: it is shaping ‘evolution’ and it is defining ‘progress’. In this process, AI is merely a tool – an important tool but a tool nevertheless. I never said this evolution and this selection are ‘favourable’ – I merely stated their reality. In fact, in my view, what is commonly and scientifically understood by ‘evolution’ and ‘selection’ are merely material-sphere expressions of – under current ‘Kali Yuga’ conditions: regressive – essentially spiritual developments, either downward from or upward from the temporary (‘test ground’) human condition. This is what I meant by the call ‘to astonish Darwin’ – to turn his theory the other way around and look at the human condition teleologically instead of just biologically (also, the phrase comes from a certain movie about a certain politically-incorrect program but I do not want to spoil the fun). In any case: in Traditionalist perspective, which I think highly superior to the scientist perspective, the human condition is defined in contrast to nature – it is a warrior condition. Our enemies understood this very well and chose to relieve the cowardly and low-living many away from the intrinsic triply physical, psychological and spiritual burden of that condition: they leading the many on the broad road to perdition. But those who chose the other path, through the narrow gate, who have at this juncture to part from that great crowd, elbowed out and pushed away the uncomfortable and dangerous margins, have one great consolation. The spirit was before the body (as DNA info is before the embryo) – the body was created by the spirit (as the designer was before the design). This is true on the collective as well as the individual level. As one spark of spirit is enough to re-create man entirely, so one man is enough to re-create a people entirely. Third and finally, there is another way to look your remark that the burning house threatening the life of its inhabitants: it is to see that we ourselves can be the fire – and that some houses are meant to be burnt down. Devouring Fire.
Very interesting.
Thank you!