J. Adams

Women are demanding the unquestioned right to kill their infant children because they are having sex with men they do not respect. This is not a matter of poor moral character, as if all women of a several generations had suddenly been born depraved all at once. It's a matter of instinct. A woman is instinctively programmed not to mate with a man unless she sees him as superior to her. Not just equal. Superior. This ensures she will have the best children she can. A woman is instinctively programmed to conform to the wishes and opinions of her tribe. This ensures that her children will be cared for and survive. A woman is instinctively programmed to crave sex, just as men do. This ensures that she will have children at all. All of these instincts are paleolithic, genetic, hardwired, and immutable. But what happens when these instincts are pitted against each other? What happens when the very social matrix, which she is programmed to obey, insists to each and every woman that no man is her superior, and she can do anything he can do, not only backwards and in heels, but with far better result? She is now programmed to refuse every potential mate. Oh, she won't be celibate, of course. But sex will be social, casual, or downright recreational, and she will want double, triple, and quadruple assurances that she will never become pregnant, or if she does, that pregnancy will never lead to her raising the child of an "unworthy" man. We have socially engineered our entire civilization into a state where all men give women the ick. Every single one. Even the wealthiest, most powerful, and most accomplished men in the world are getting divorces... or, if they are smart enough not to get legally married, they are getting publicly dragged by their baby-mommas in the press. I won't go into how or why this was done, not right here today. It's enough that we all know that it was done, and anyone who says different isn't confused, he's just lying. When a modern day Amelia Earhart is given a five million dollar Lear Jet with fifteen lives aboard to crash and destroy, before she is even old enough to have a beer, just so we can all sprain a shoulder patting ourselves on the back... well, then you all know what the problem is. We all know that matriarchies go extinct because women with political power immediate steer their society into the nearest iceberg. But do we really? Perhaps now we find out that wasn't even the problem, at least not immediately, and possibly far less than we thought. Matriarchies go extinct because they don't breed. If you give women power over men, they start to find men disgusting. How dare they? How dare those men be so weak that women actually be able to influence or hurt them in any way? To a woman's basic, paleolithic mating instincts, this is unforgivable. Men can forgive weakness, but never cruelty. Women can forgive cruelty, but never weakness. But this means we are left with a dilemma, a choice of two unacceptable alternatives we cannot avoid. Either we stop propping up women into a forced social and political equality with men, which is unacceptable because every civilized Westerner, including me, was brought up to think of this as morally imperative... ... or, by doing nothing, we allow society to collapse back into a more desperate state where this will happen automatically. I don't have a third, easy offramp to offer you. Pornographic films can comfort young men who have been shut out of any chance at success, power, and respect by social engineering. And pornographic books can comfort girls who have been rendered unable to feel anything for an any man who isn't an immortal billionaire vampire warlord. But porn can't love anyone, and it can't get married and raise children. We need to stop this nonsense, not because we have gleefully become bigots suddenly and for no reason at all, but because we need to be smart enough to recognize an existential crisis when we spot one. Otherwise, what good is it to even be an intelligent species?

I'm a storyteller. I will tell you a story. Not a thinly veiled allegory or analogy. Not a fable. Not a parody or a satire, or some smug little parable featuring characters "Ronald Grump" and "Alan Tusk". No, this is a true story, and it means what it means, with no hidden symbolism whatsoever. It contains only facts, and general principles to derive from them. It is a story about Rome. We all know what Rome was. It was a republic, then an Empire, then nothing. But every time we ask why, historians wish to tell us it is complicated, and that we desperately need historians, such as themselves, to sort it all out. The decline and fall of the Roman Empire was not complicated. The decline and fall of the Roman Empire can be explained in two words. Cheap labor. The Romans, as you know, had two classes, the patricians and the plebeians. The patricians ruled Rome. But the plebeians were Rome. And the patricians forgot this. Around this point in the story, you may be thinking you understand me already. You may think you have anticipated where I am going with this. You may think that this is going to be some general polemic about the importance of remembering the little people. It is not. I have a very specific meaning, and I always choose my words very, very carefully. Two words. Cheap. Labor. The Romans patricians, like the old and the rich of any society, owned land, and sold goods. To do this, they bought labor. The Roman plebeians, most especially the young, sold labor. So that they could buy goods and land. So, it should go without saying, but often doesn't, that it was in the interest of plebeians that goods and land be cheap, and labor be expensive, and in the interest of patricians that land and goods should be expensive, and labor should be cheap. Now, markets have natural cycles. The price of every thing fluctuates up and down, looking for an equilibrium which is only ever temporary. Sometimes goods and land are cheap, and labor is expensive. Then the plebeians become fat and prosperous, and they marry pretty girls and have lots of healthy children. Sometimes goods and land are expensive, and labor is cheap, and patricians amass vast fortunes and build fine estates and eat honeyed dormice. To every thing, there is a season. But the patricians controlled Rome. Not fully or directly, not in theory, but they had money. And money buys power. Just as power buys money. And the temptation, in the long run, became irresistible. To buy political power, and put the finger of that political power on the scales of the market. To make sure the cheap labor stays cheap forever. In Rome, cheap labor meant slaves. Elsewhere, it has meant other things. In Rome, slaves kept labor cheap not only because slaves don't get paid, and can't quit, but also because every plebeian who sells labor must compete with the slave on price. Little by little, this took away from the plebeians, not only because real wages were depressed, but more importantly because there were no seasons of labor scarcity. No cycles in the market where wages went high. No fat seasons for the plebes, just an ever-increasing drought. And, while the patricians controlled Rome, the plebeians were Rome. It was their blood, shed in the legions, that conquered the world. Their sweat that built the shining city of seven hills. And their patriotism that defined what Rome was. The patricians ruled Rome. But the plebeians were Rome, and when they ceased to bear allegiance to Rome, Rome ceased to exist, because the only thing that Rome ever was, the only thing that any city or nation ever is, is its people. A man who has no work, a man who must compete with slaves, a man who is beaten down to want the hungriest beggar will take, is a man who cannot have a home and a family. Not only because he cannot afford such things. But because no woman will have him. No woman will bear his children. The ultimate expression, after all, of female lust and admiration, is "I want to have his babies". Fewer people seem to realize that the reverse is true. I was told once, by a man who should have known better, that Rome fell because the Romans forgot what it meant to be Roman. Nonsense. Rome fell because Romans knew exactly what it meant to be Roman. Which meant they knew that to be Roman meant to be replaced by slaves. The patricians bore no allegiance to Rome, because it was cheaper to replace the Roman workers with slaves, and the Roman legions with mercenaries. The plebeians bore no allegiance to Rome, because Rome bore no allegiance to them. And so Rome simply ceased to be. The outward forms hung around awhile, until the mercenaries, bearing no true allegiance to Rome, realized they didn't have to wait to be paid. They could just... take. The patricians destroyed Rome because they thought like politicians instead of kings. A politician buys a crown by offering the most to those whose support is most in doubt. A king knows that crowns and thrones are only symbols, and power comes from armies of loyal men, whose loyalty must be bought with loyalty in turn. Not table scraps. The Roman plebeians didn't want, and couldn't survive on, free bread and circuses. They needed work and land and incomes to have families and happy lives. But no Caesar emerged in time. Tick tock, Mr. Vance. Tick tock.

Working at Oculus would have been an utter waste of my time except for one thing. While I was there, I realized what's wrong with leftists. Not that they have been programmed, that's obvious. Not why they have been programmed. For power, that's obvious, too. But how they have been programmed. The exact method that their moral compass has been destroyed works like this: Target a bunch of people with very few deeds and accomplishments, such as young people or incompetent people, or incompetent young people. Create for them an environment where they are rewarded with moral approval, not for what they do, but for believing certain ideas. The ideas don't have to be outrageous, or absurd, or have anything to do with what you actually need them to believe. In fact, it's better to start with something innocuous. Why? Because the goal isn't to install those beliefs at all. The goal is to repeat this process until you create a person who measures his moral worth by what he believes, not what he does. Keep at this until you have created a mass of people who not only reward themselves with a feeling of moral superiority for believing the right things, but who will reward each other for believing orthodox things, and who will compete with each other, not to do the most good, but to have the most orthodox beliefs. Now, change one of the propositions you have programmed them with to a slightly more radical version of itself, and hold this up as a more correct version of the old belief, which has been newly discovered by scholarly investigations into culture and moral philosophy. Sit back, watch, and give them a few weeks to compete with each other to adopt the new belief, and to condemn the "evil" of anyone who believes the old belief, the very thing they believed last month. Repeat this process until they are used to rapidly changing their entire belief system in response to an external cue. Congratulations, you have a population of entirely programmable people whose moral compass is not just broken, but entirely non-existent. They don't care what any person in front of them actually does. Only that he believe the orthodox thing, which they just learned about in last week's memo. They are willing to do anything, so long as it is done in support of their current belief system, which can be replaced whenever it's convenient to do so. They are willing to burn down an entire city with no qualms whatsoever if they are doing it in support of the idea that black lives matter. They are willing to murder a man in front of his children, and it doesn't matter if his actions were entirely peaceful and good, because all that matters to them is whether he believes the correct things or not. And a man who builds cheap spaceflight for the human race, develops viable electric cars to save the environment, restores voices to the voiceless, and plans, for his next trick, to heal the blind... well, all those are deeds, so none of them matter. The only thing that matters is that he told people to vote republican once, which is wrongthink. So what you have a horde of communist zombies, who can be steered to shuffle in any direction and attack the living, eat their brains, and turn them into more zombies. Once someone becomes one of the zombies, you can't cure him, because a moral compass can only be repaired by understanding the consequences of actions in a new way... and they don't care about actions or consequences. They only care about beliefs, and not about consequences at all. Their moral compasses aren't just broken. They are absent. There's nothing to repair. You have to understand that the zombies are zombies now.