The Parables of The Sower
Who Killed Marriage?
Published 07/04/23 by Whisper [0 Comments]

WARNING: THIS POST IS PURE THEORY AND CONTAINS NO ACTIONABLE ADVICE OTHER THAN "Don't get married, dumbass". Read only if you are curious.

So, you already know you need to avoid getting married in any modern western society, no matter how good the woman is. And you know why. If you don't, you have some reading to do. But, having established all that, and knowing what to do, and why, some questions still remain.

Most importantly, how did we get this way? Who broke marriage?

It wasn't feminists. It wasn't feminism. In fact, far from being the cause of the destruction of marriage-based society, feminism may very well be an effect of that collapse.

After all, you don't think that after hundreds upon thousands of generations of women being women, we suddenly got blue-haired hippos with cat glasses spontaneously and for no reason at all, do you? Suddenly decided to start hating men?

No. The fundamental change that broke marriage is something else. And when there is a sudden, sweeping, permanent, and global change in human society, there's only possible culprit... because only one human process runs in one direction only, never fails or falters, and spreads everywhere given time.

Some of you are already nodding your heads. It's technology. Science. Good old clever-monkey know-how.

Why? There are several pieces.

Western Lifelong Bilaterally Monogamous Marriage 1.0 (which is what we are focusing on here) is sexual communism. Both parties sacrifice their optimal strategy in return for a safety net, and a stable society

  • Men must sacrifice their urge to mate with every available female who is a 5.1 or greater, but they are guaranteed to be allowed to mate with one woman who isn't much lower than them on the desirability scale.
  • Women must sacrifice the chance to fuck Chad, be supported by Brad, and keep Thad in the dark about the whole business, but they get lifelong commitment, guaranteed.
  • Unlike economic communism, sexual communism is not inherently bad and unworkable. This is because the enterprise and initiative that economic communism sacrifices is a public good that flows to everyone, but the sexual success that sexual communism sacrifices is a private good which only benefits Chad, and Stacy(AFBB).
  • However, like economic communism, sexual communism can only survive when it's the only game in town. Communism only works when everyone is a good communist.
  • In any economic communist system, the majority of those who produce more value than they receive in an equal share will opt out if given the chance, and keep that value for themselves. This slowly destroys the system unless the top is unable to escape.
  • In a sexually communist system, a similar dynamic will happen with Chad and Stacy. The highly competitive players will always tend to move to the game that most rewards winning. Winners don't like low ceilings, and communism imposes a low ceiling in order to create a high floor.
  • The Tradcons were right about "destroying marriage". **Marriage can only survive when it is enforced as an institution by society, never as one of a list of options.** Gay marriage destroys marriage. Promiscuity destroys marriage. Single motherhood destroys marriage. Fornication destroys marriage. Because everything that isn't marriage destroys marriage.

But society did enforce marriage as an institution. It was held up as the sole outlet for sexual release. Anything else was frowned upon and ostracized when it wasn't outright punishable by law. Even if you did it, you had to hide it.

Why? The second piece:

Economics controls the age at which people become independent adults.

  • There are several "adulthoods" that happen at different ages: The age of *sexual maturity*, the age of *legal sexual consent*, the age of *legal adulthood*, the age of *economic independence*, and the age of *economic surplus*... by which I mean the age at which one can afford a home and children.
  • The first age, sexual maturity, is firmly fixed by biological processes we have no control over. It is 12-13. It is when sexual desire emerges in a clear, unambiguous, and irrepressible way.
  • The second two ages, legal consent, and legal majority are consciously set by people, either with laws or social mores where laws are absent. They are often set as a response to the other ages, consciously or unconsciously. They are less important for this discussion.
  • The age of economic independence is the age at which the average working adult, with typical skills, and no rare talents, can support themselves financially.
  • The age of economic surplus is the age at which that same adult can afford to have a home, and support dependents.
  • The age of sexual maturity is when most people start wanting sex. But the *age of economic surplus is when people can afford to get married.

And the third:

Technology produces information economies.

  • An information and service economy requires longer to train for than an industrial economy, which requires longer than an agrarian economy, which requires longer than hunting and gathering.
  • The more sophisticated the skillset required for economic productivity, the longer the delay before a new adult can be economically productive.
  • Technology stretches the gap between sexual maturity and marriage.

And the fourth, and final piece:
The sexual urge can only be delayed briefly, never denied.

  • Once the average person hits sexual maturity, the clock is ticking. The further from that point in time you look, the greater percentage of them will have had sexual intercourse.
  • If marriage can occurs at 15-16, most people can wait. This can happen when you live in a small farming village, land is close to free, and your neighbors get together to help you build your house.
  • If marriage occurs at 26-30, almost no one can wait. Virgin brides become a thing of the past.
  • A thing becomes socially acceptable when a lot of people do it. If a lot of people are having sex outside marriage, then **sex outside marriage becomes socially acceptable**.

So now we put it together:

  • Western Lifelong Bilaterally Monogamous Marriage 1.0 can only survive if non-marital sex is socially unacceptable.
  • People can't afford to get married early in a modern technological economy.
  • If people can't get married early, non-marital sex will become socially acceptable, because hormones don't give a shit about the real estate market.
  • When this happens, marriage begins to crumble, very, very slowly, but very, very inevitably, as alternatives become more widespread.

Conclusion: Marriage 1.0 was doomed by technological advancement, long before feminism came along.

The only thing feminism did to Marriage 1.0 was perform an unholy ritual to turn its corpse into Marriage 2.0, a vile zombie nightmare that shambles about looking like its former self, but only existing to devour those it once loved.

Whisper's Three Step Plan for Not Being a Retard
Published 05/14/23 by Whisper [1 Comments]

I got asked a while ago "what I would do" about "Saddam Hussein".

When I get asked how I would arrange the world, I like to take a day or two to chew it over. Because usually, it's not just a matter of answering, it's a matter of first correcting the question.

Questions people ask carry their assumptions, and those assumptions tend to limit their thinking.

For example, if you're arguing with someone who is trying to learn to fly by gluing feathers to his arms and flapping them real hard, at some point, you're gonna get asked "Well, okay, smart guy, what would you do if you jumped out a plane and didn't have a parachute?"

If you answer the question as it's asked, you can say "spread my arms and legs and hope". And he'll say "Ah-hah! You admit that mine is the best idea!"

Or you can say "there's nothing to do in that situation". And he'll say "Ah-hah! You criticize my idea, but you have no ideas at all!"

But what you do is you don't answer any question that carries hidden assumptions. Instead, you point out the assumptions and correct the question.

In this case, you say, "I wouldn't jump out of a plane without a parachute."

And he'll say, "But what if you did?"

Just keep saying "I wouldn't."

So, how would I "deal with" Saddam Hussein?

Simple. I wouldn't. I wouldn't put myself in that position in the first place. If you don't have a parachute, don't jump, genius. Why the fuck would I put myself in a position to care what happens in Kuwait?

"But they're an ally!"

What the fuck does even mean, when you're talking about a country the size of a postage stamp with no army to speak of? How the fuck is that an ally? There's no mutuality in that mutual defense. Who the fuck decided to "ally" with them?

This is just using a previous bad decision to justify the bad decision of doubling down on the bad decision.

"But we need to be allied with Kuwait because we are dependent on foreign oil!"

Well, there's another shit decision. So now we're justifying our bad decisions in terms of our previous bad decision which was in turn justified by another bad decision we made even earlier?

Stop running around the world looking for oil like a stoner in a weed drought. Build fast breeder reactors.

"But the idea of corium scares me!"

Okay, so your shit decision that prompted your shit decision that prompted your shit decision was based on yet another shit decision... the decision to base policy on your feels rather than data.

You wanna buy into FUD instead of asking yourself how many Three Mile Islands it takes to equal one Deepwater Horizon. (Hint: 71 if you're counting dollars. Infinite if you're counting lives.)

That's the problem with talking public policy with most people. Their shit decisions are based on an infinite recursion of shit decisions, stretching back to a point in history that they identify as "that's just the way the world is".

In the spirit of this realization, I would like to introduce Whisper's Three Step Plan for Not Being a Retard.

1. Don't make stupid choices.
2. If you have already made a stupid choice, don't double down on it.
3. If you inherit a stupid choice someone else made before you were here, cut your losses and change direction.

Yes, the first one is difficult, and the second two are painful. But you can either suffer the pain of admitting error, or suffer the pain of not admitting error.

One of the most important things I learned in twenty five years of engineering is that the earlier a problem is detected, the cheaper and easier it is to fix. The same bug that cost you five dollars when it's caught by a unit test suite or code analysis tool will cost you five hundred dollars when it's caught by the QA team, or five million dollars if it's caught by users.

But it's not enough to just detect a problem. Before you can solve it, cheaply or not, you also have to admit that it is a problem. If you try to save your face, or your ego, or your budget, by pretending it was a good decision all along, then you're just going to have to fix it later, when it's worse. Or you're going to wait until it's so bad that you cannot fix it, and it kills everything you tried to build.

But that's not the worst part about not facing your previous bad decisions. The worst part about it is that the longer you avoid that self-awareness, the greater the cost of that moment, and the more you're going to want to put it off and hide your head in the sand. Which in turn makes things even worse in a self-perpetuating cycle.

There are a lot of dudes out there, mostly ex-SOCOM types, who spent their entire careers on US foreign policy. Who lost friends. Who came home with permanent injuries, both physical and psychological. Who based their entire ego-identity around the idea that they were defending freedom and their homeland.

How much do you think it would cost them to face the lie? To realize that all their suffering and sacrifice was for the sake of the Rockefellers and Lockheed Martin? That's some stick-a-P320-in-your-mouth level existential crisis shit right there. And it's not surprising that even guys who will happily freeze their asses off swimming miles off Coronado would rather not face that shit.

That's why they'll spin you true, but ultimately irrelevant, tales about how bloodthirsty the people who hate us are, justifying this decade's shit decision in terms of the previous decade's shit decision. And that's how you end up in a VA hospital missing both legs while Boeing stockholders are in Barbados drinking pina coladas.

See, the secret is that you don't become a retard by making bad decisions. Everyone makes bad decisions. I once dated a Ukrainian-American lingerie model whose love language was "gifts".

While I was broke and in college.

No, retards are people who double down on their back decisions instead of backing out of them the moment they realize they were bad. Learn to do this, and you will survive your mistakes. I survived Kateryna.

If you have trouble with this notion, remember that you don't have to admit your screwups to anyone but yourself... if you just stop doing that, and let the matter drop, people will usually forget. Also remember that some things take time and persistence to pay off, but that's not an excuse for continuing to lie to yourself once you realize that your bad results are coming from your choices, not from lack of commitment to them.

Lastly, do not flagellate yourself, literally for metaphorically, for these kinds of mistakes. The more ashamed you are of making mistakes, the harder it will be to admit to yourself that you made them.

The secret to not fucking up your life, whether you are a single person or an entire country, is as simple as "When you are already in a hole, stop digging."

Next Page

About The Parables of The Sower
We will be bringing you all updates here on this blog!

Latest Posts