Welcome to Sponge’s Nightmare, a bubbling meandering cauldron of misapplied effort and hipster poetry read to you through the trebled-feedback of a close-contact mic by an over-weight, moled, part-time-courier-part-time-bartender bearded millennial with metered earlobes, a brim-flipped-80′s bicyclist hat, woman’s jeans and a tattoo of a chicken and pig on either foot, because it was good luck for sailors, and yes he somehow probably gets laid more than you – but never mind that when you are sitting in a place with ripped couches older than the edged and depressed but happy go lucky staff, burnt-out candles plugged into wine glasses, carefully chalked menus, weird-ass Turkic carpets dragged back from Kazahkstan by some weird-ass Norcal hella-douche who’s rich parents paved and plugged his travel schedule so he could make vague references, in liberal fashion, to faraway places and up his pussy percentage and admissions to an overpriced brain-washing colony before he could runoff to be hand-placed into pretend i-banking 10 years after its prime. Gaze through the smoke still lingering from lost freedom and see our brown haired chubby host – the black haired one with the gap in his teeth works across the street at the pizza place, the other branch of which was shutdown for tax fraud and employing Brazilians illegally – you know the ones who rape fourteen year old white girls at roady/loady house-parties in the tier three ‘burbs – not mention their being the same muchachos who spell my four-letter name wrong on the fucking pizza box. With a grin all the more pathetic because this is fun, he’s rolling his fat hips and slowly pointing in the air – don’t break his chi by talking to him about OWS – no not the hedge fund bidding on billions in bust government sponsored resi loans but “the movement” – ’cause all you’ll hear are vague references to evil corporations and partially recalled quotations by Noam Chomsky, which stick to this sticky linoleum floor better than to the tap-water-fed brains of the city. If you sat at the bar, the stools are ripped and the dated home-printed menu has food crusted on it, but at least you aren’t stuck in at an apartment party hosted by a fat asian girl, and your now domesticated friend who thinks he’s succeeded – their two cats twitching their tails at the frowns of his african art on the wall. Not for those given up for dead – The Nightmare is the place of those with sponge-like insatiability lost in the urban madness, who refuse despite all evidence to believe there is a tomorrow that will hangover a brain piecing together the gaps – no it is not a stroll under the lime trees in a fascist jacket to Alexander square to attend some exotic techo club in an office tower with a Scottish chick whose pierced titty you suck in an alley on the way home at 4 in the morning, but its all you got whether you are 93 feet east, in all asia or talking to the lord hobo himself. You can take your triple-hopped quad doppelbock artisan beer and stroll outside to the sand pit where modern metal art stands rusted out, and pass the bar positioned in a hollowed out vw van, and plop yourself in make-shift seating to listen to the blazard-blowhard couple twang seemingly ripped tunes on an acoustic guitar in front of a fire pit – and they’re actually pretty good – playing music that is all the better given the fact that it you don’t recognize it – it has no happy woman singing, no whiney ass-clown moaning and best of all you can’t understand the words. A nightmare has mornings, and if you were there on a rained-out emerald city morning before the Chilly-Chally-Bra-Cali’s migrated north like the spickarros of Mexicano, you might have a had a rooibos red velvet Chai latte thicker than a milkshake, as you watched those other lost playing d&d and reading samisdat zines, Banned Books or pulling a beard smoking rolled cigarettes on a balcony, as the rain came tumbling down.
Jan
27
Sponge’s Nightmare
Sep
20
Top Hat Theory
It happens all the time. Maybe you are sitting in your apartment nursing a hangover. You’re taking fluids, maybe loading up some videogame or a Netflix show. And then it happens. Some fucking prick riding his loud motor cycle guns it down your street. Or maybe it’s some douche bag in his 0% down car all fixed up so that the thing is actually louder and more obnoxious than it otherwise would have been. And then you ask yourself, how the fuck does this happen? What is it that leads some mentally deficient person to spend money they don’t have on something like an intentionally loud vehicle that just pisses everyone off? How do these people exist? Why?
The answer is expressed in “Top Hat Theory.”
Top Hat Theory teaches us that male behaviors and their trends are directly attributable to the perception that adopting a behavior will help one get laid. So we re-ask the question, why does some douche ride a loud motor cycle? The answer is, “because some chick chose to fuck a guy a like that once and other women continue to do so, ergo he has chosen this style of behavior in the hopes that it will increase the probability of coitus.” Why women choose to reward this type of behavior or at least not explicitly punish it doesn’t concern us in Top Hat Theory. Instead we are more interested in the results of their choices.
Let’s run through an example. A guy gets laid. And the cause of him getting laid is associated with some type of behavior. Maybe he’s wearing aviator sunglasses. Other guys realize that guy got laid, and they also deduce that his getting laid was associated with his wearing aviator sunglasses, because the little chicky thought they were “oh my god so cool can I try them on?!” So, the guy that didn’t get laid goes and buys some aviator sunglasses to improve his odds. And the process repeats. The next thing you know every douche on the boardwalk is wearing aviator sunglasses…until some guy decides to experiment with 80’s sunglasses. Maybe his experiment ends after a period of involuntary celibacy. Or perhaps, maybe even by pure chance, he gets laid. Others identify the connection with 80’s sunglasses. And BOOM! We experience Schumpeterian Creative Destruction. Now 80’s sunglasses start flying off the shelves as aviators disappear and early adopters of the new 80’s sunglasses douche-play reap all the benefits, until the last halfwit gets duped into paying a huge price for 80’s shades that no longer score social points, because it is too common.
Top Hat Theory is similar to Chaos Theory in the sense that one little seemingly random event occurs, and it snowballs into something much bigger the end result of which could be quite different than what started it. In Chaos Theory the example of the butterfly is often given. A butterfly in the Sahara Desert flaps its wing. The chain of air molecules bumping into each other causes subsequent perturbations – they bump into the next molecule and the next molecule bumps into the next one etc, throwing everything out of its previous trajectory possibly causing the marginal change in the direction of a breeze which then goes on to cause the creation of a storm, which then goes on to become a hurricane, which then floods New Orleans, which then leads to a humanitarian disaster, which then leads to a growth in government, which then leads to tyranny, which then leads to global government which then leads to the enslavement of virtually the entire human population by a global elite etc. Through cause and effect and the marginal impact of some occurrence a series of events happened. Styles don’t just change. They evolve. One decision to wear an earring in the 60’s snowballs through various innovations into the hipster culture of today – with all perturbations scaled to their association with getting laid.
Now it must be stressed that the trend need not cause getting laid. Rather the stylistic trend need only be associated with carnal success – though it is necessary that it be interpreted by others as the cause of success such that someone somewhere goes on to adopt the behavior.
For example, these guys riding the loud motor cycles might be getting laid because of other characteristics they have. One guy is tall, another one is rich etc but they both ride loud bikes because they enjoy being a pest to other people. But because they get laid some man somewhere identifies the cause as their having loud motor cycles (as opposed to being separately tall, rich or whatever) and this observer goes on to mimic the motor cycle behavior with the intent that he too will get laid because of the association he has observed. So, we can see that odd behaviors can emerge from randomness but persist because they are not explicitly unrewarded. If all women collectively somehow agreed to not sleep with douche bags on loud motor cycles (even if they are tall or rich etc) there would be nobody on loud motor cycles.
Behaviors exist because the adoption of them does not lead to not getting laid. If a behavior led to explicitly not getting laid, it would disappear. For example, being an intelligent, forward thinking, non-douche young man will guarantee that you do not get laid. Ergo, that behavior disappears and virtually all young men become douche bags. Adopting some form of douchery is what is sexually rewarded, so they must do it – however much they protest against it and hate themselves. The value of getting laid is just too important.
Let us summarize the classes of behavior in the context of examples that have appeared in this essay:
Aviator sunglasses – a behavior appears to be causal and actually is causal to getting laid. The behavior spreads rapidly and declines quickly as competing males adopt it and it loses value as a result. The style evolves quickly as competing males experiment with derivatives of the original successful behavior.
Loud motor cycle – a behavior is presumed to be causal to getting laid, but is not actually causal to that outcome. The behavior persists and remains for a much longer period. There is no stylistic innovation, because adopters of the behavior cannot delineate what features lead to success and what features does not. Their success and failures are actually the result of some other variable.
Intelligent non-douche bag – the behavior is explicitly punished in that the adopter of this behavior will never get laid. The behavior is abandoned or the adopter endures involuntary celibacy.
Top Hat Theory is the concept that the causal or non-causal association of a behavior with sexual success will lead to its proliferation. Indeed the very name of Top Hat Theory also highlights the understanding that this behavior can be utterly ridiculous and even have no causal relation to getting laid. If men believed that wearing a top hat was supportive of their getting laid, we could bring back the top hat. We could pay some women to publicly direct their attention to men with top hats for a period of time. Other men would see multiple instances of the association between top hats and women and become conditioned to the connection. Soon these men would don top hats for obvious intentions. As long as they remained faithful to the potential potency of the top hat, it would persist.
Jul
08
Food Stamps
As the United States continues its decline, individuals need new information to address new issues. This post will try to fill an informational void facing many young urban professionals, who, in the process of attempting to save the hundreds of thousands of dollars needed for a down payment on the typical over-priced single family home in a metropolitan suburb, have uncovered that they are falling immensely short and need to continue slashing their budget to save more in an inflationary, negative real interest rate environment. A common saving strategy for many coupled but childless urban professionals is to cook at home. This is done most effectively by cutting coupons, looking for deals, and maintaining rewards card status with the grocery store. After working a 50 to 60 hour week all errands must be done in the “free time,” that is the weekend, and added work is required that these errands are not too costly. While the journey to the grocery store and dealing with the colorful, courteous and competent people who work there is one joy, a more motivational experience is presented on the occasional happenstance that the couple gets to see an EBT card user in action – generally buying lobster, high quality fillet, an assortment of treats for multiple children, or other things generally out of the consideration for our working, taxpaying, and thus procreation-postponing professionals. Can there be a meeting of economic incentives?
With roughly 48 million Americans on food stamps and 101 million Americans participating in at least 1 of the 15 food programs offered by the US Department of Agriculture, circa mid 2013, it has become clear that working, saving, cost-cutting and postponing consumption is an unpopular strategy. It is unpopular, because it is losing, and arguably has little chance of success even when properly employed. The people who engage in this are literally failing to replace themselves biologically and thus the country has been inherited by the metaphorical profligate grasshopper to the expense of the frugal and efficient ant.
Food stamps are now known as the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), and administered by the Department of Agriculture in the form of Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) Cards. To qualify for food stamps you have to demonstrate, as arbitrarily defined by the US Census Bureau, a sufficiently low income as an individual or couple. Unlawful possession or use of food stamp benefits in an amount of $100 or more is a felony while less than $100 is a misdemeanor. Attempting to “sell” (ie. transfer the benefits of) food stamps can result in penalties and fines, including being ineligible for the program for seven years.
Legalities aside, one possible strategy that presents itself already is to not be legally married, have the low income (say working part time) child-rearing partner qualify for food stamps while the “dead beat” partner provides a real income. Because food stamp benefits can range to as much as $1,500 a month, roughly $28,500 a year as pre-tax income, some might argue that this is easily a wise move. However, for most people the tax savings to being married in the eyes of Leviathan are positive. Thus, pre-tax food stamp benefit would need to be discounted by the cost of extra taxes due to not getting the married-couple tax deduction as well as income foregone by having one partner not really work and future income foregone for their not developing a career. Though there are variations on this approach and situations where it could conceivably be profitable, it is unlikely the “partner-assisted welfare beneficiary tactic” will generally work.
The welfare state often steals something valuable from one man, only to give something less valuable to another man. In our case, the working couple is robbed of the much valued fruits of their labor (via taxation), and a less valuable product is provided to the foods stamp recipient – we know it is less valuable in this case because she is willing to sell the food stamps at a discount for cash. But due to the fungibility of cash, and the couple’s need to save, this creates a trading opportunity between the taxpayers and the tax-recipients. In order to understand the economic rationale for transactions in the food stamp secondary market we have to know the underlying numbers and specifics.
As a result of EBT card implementation the physical market for food stamps has disappeared. You can’t simply buy food stamps off of someone and then go use them. It is now necessary that the card holder does the actual shopping. According to blackvoicenews.com, here is how the common but illegal food stamp transaction works: “People sell food stamp funds in front of stores, and offer to go into the store and buy groceries for [or with the direction of] an incoming customer. Once purchased, the Electronic Benefits Transaction (EBT) beneficiaries sell the groceries to the customer for cash.” Obviously, there is no reason for the tax-payer to engage in this transaction, unless they get some kind of benefit. Why do something illegal if you are paying the same amount for groceries anyway? Thus a discount is in order such that the savings accrued are offset by the probability-weighted loss involved with state aggression. For example, the EBT card holder will buy the couple $200 of groceries, as long as the couple gives her $100 cash. If the couple does this, they would save $100. But if they got caught, they would have to deal with all sorts of immeasurable legal crap.
Our research team has been able to compile a large set of food stamp trade data. The transaction sample ranges from 2009 to 2013 and captures both rural and urban areas. From this we can understand that the secondary market price of food stamps is about 50% on the dollar with no discernible variation over time or geography. Transactions range from a low of 46% to a high of 60%. Asking prices range to as high as 75% and the typical bid-ask spread almost 9%.
If a couple normally spends $500 a month on groceries they can save $250, assuming the observed 50% on the dollar food stamp secondary market regulatory arbitrage. This adds up to $3,000 a year. On a pre-tax basis, this is the equivalent of earning an extra $4,500 to $5,000 a year. And for the progressive mind – know that the tax recipient makes the same amount in cash through the transaction, as well. Though mutually beneficial, and engaged in under free-will, this is illegal.
One argument for why food stamps should be non-transferrable is that the dead beat will use the excess cash for drugs. Yet by giving them free food, they do not have to pay for food, which frees up money to go elsewhere and thus they already have…. you guessed it….more money for drugs etc. But more importantly, it is a poor assumption that they will only spend the money on vices. It is entirely conceivable that the tax-recipient would do something constructive with it. While it is, of course, unethical to steal from the couple to give to the tax-parasite in the first place, the situation could be made somewhat better by allowing the food stamp holder to engage in free market operations. The government really just wants to give cash to the destitute so they can “stimulate spending,” so why not just let the market put cash in the pocket of the EBT holder?
In this sense SNAP will amount to a small business program perhaps called “Socialist-National Arbeits Program” or SNAP for short. It will encourage the interactions of groups in society that might otherwise not meet – thereby supporting the central planners’ desire for integration, mixing and homogenization. Food stamp recipients will start out as small proprietorships selling their government-given wares and eventually blossom into whole-sale trading desks that can be manipulated by regulation or the Fed for further central planning purposes. Unemployment will fall as businesses provide secondary market analytics, brokerage and other supporting services to the food stamp market. Universities will prepare America’s children for careers in the booming industry. And America’s retirees could enjoy the safety of food stamp discount backed securities.
And, finally being allowed some savings, the urban professionals will feel like more than just the tax slaves they otherwise are, while the tax-sponges will have the freedom of more highly valued fungible cash as opposed to the limitations of rigid and less desired food credits.
Apr
13
Revisionism
Host: Well, how great it is today to be joined by Dr. Javier Jimenez, of the Historical Revision Institute. Javier, of course, is well known in post-structuralism and revisionist circles. He holds several adjunct faculty positions at Ivy League and liberal arts schools. He’s authored many books including World War II: It’s as Simple as Good vs Evil, The Civil War: It’s as Simple as Righteous vs Racist, and Latin America is Only Poorly Performing Because of Stuff that Happened 500 Years Ago Not Because of the Societal Milieu. Javier, naturally we have a number of questions about your various works, but first can you tell us more about what sort of brand of historical revisionism you work with?
Javier: Certainly. The school of historical interpretation I work with is about shedding light on the injustices created by the writing of history at a given point in time by the people who were dominant at the time. What we find as historians is that contemporaries invariably skew history in such a way as to promote their own interests and reasoning for events and decisions, usually while selectively leaving out some information. Revisionist history goes back and re-interprets history and uses triangulation from multiple sources to bring dormant viewpoints to the table.
Host: That makes sense. So, this is never contemporary, you are always working with events that are dated. Can you give us an example, perhaps from one of your books, that serves to tell us about how a historical event evolves in the context of new evidence and interpretation? Because, this sounds like it could be a two-edge sword, in the sense that it could be used to achieve desired conclusions rather than real ones?
Javier: Oh, it definitely can be a two edged sword. For example many propagandists today, try to interpret communism as having been a failure. They claim that communism killed tens of millions of people and that the system’s inability to engage in rational economic calculation caused no end of grief. They say this over and over even though we all know that central planning by academically well-educated experts always works. In the case of Socialism, they claim that the UK’s National Health System has been a failure, but, everyone who is writing about that is a contemporary. In years time we will be able to change this viewpoint. As far as an example, I give you this one. World War II has a typical story, but we have gone back and done research, that indicates that this war was essentially a multi-color global community fighting a rampant white capitalistic fanaticism as embodied in the Nazis. If you look at old movies they try to show the American soldiers at Normandy as being Caucasians but in fact they were almost all Latinos, Blacks, Asians, women, the disabled, the elderly, Americas children, Muslims and Native Americans. The Caucasians were on the other side of the beach! But you see, the white aristocracy in the US controlled the news at the time and changed all of this so as to promote their own interests.
Host: Stunning! So, everything we thought we new about history really has a lot more to it?
Javier: Si. It has only been since this recent wave of progressivism in the US that people like me are allowed to reinterpret and make new facts about history. We can finally have a history for all Americans.
Host: Did you say “make new facts?”
Javier: Si. The making of new facts is very important, for example elsewhere in science, the climate change data. Americans need a history that includes everybody and is with the times, so it is important to show that all events in US history have these underlying truths. For example, now that we are accepting socialism in America, we need to make the Nazi’s appear as corporate fascists rather than as national socialists as their name suggests. We have also been able to determine that the light bulb and the semi-conductor were really invented by the same group of African-American slaves that later invented internal combustion engines and the micro-chip. The entire Army of the Potomac consisted of homosexuals. The Write brothers actually stole their idea from their younger sister and passed off the airplane as their own invention. Not a single non-Jew died in the Holocaust. The list goes on.
Host: So, you “make new facts” to support desired conclusions for today….But….
Javier. Oh Si. But in this process of mainstream Revisionism, it is also important for us to remove old facts that were clearly biased. There is no reason that biased or meaningless opinions be incorporated in the correct view of history. So, we actively work to remove these incorrect understandings. This is why other than talking about our new facts, we don’t mention anything else about the topic. For example, we make sure there is no discussion about Southern opinion in the Civil War. Instead we just repeat that they are racist and it was an American crusade of liberation. We’ve been able to remove from public knowledge and discourse any facts that might undermine our predetermined conclusions.
Host: Ok…Well, could it be argued that your “revisionism” is just the re-writing of history according to the new paradigm of the people in power today. So, what would you say to somebody who said that everything your research produces is really just a complex way to serve the powers that be in the here and now? If they said, Javier, your research does not seem to have any factual basis to it, because your sources are circular references, or your facts are obviously made up. Your research serves to give the illusion of historical justification or precedence to some politically desired outcome today. Your work is really designed to make current agendas and schemes more palatable to the population at large, by manipulating people’s ability to contextualize current proposals and societal developments. Javier, what would you say to somebody who said you are an apologist for the powers in the state and essentially an ideological defender of an oppressive central state regime?
Javier: Well, I would say they are racist.
Host: My thoughts exactly.
Javier: Or maybe even a terrorist.
Host: Definitely. Soon all “racists” will be “terrorists.” But, Javier, unfortunately we have to wrap things up. It was great having you on the show.
Javier: It was my pleasure.
Jan
12
Ovaria Now
Host: Well, I’m joined today by Les McPherson of Ovaria Now, an institution which describes itself as second generation feminism for a globalist future. She’ll be telling us a little bit about what her institution does and how their place adjacent to the academic-industrial complex helps shape the minds of malleable females and the population at large. Les, how about some background for our listeners?
Les: Thanks, it’s great to be on the show. Well, first I’d like to start by explaining how we are different from traditional feminist organizations. I know a lot of people hear “feminism” and they think of angry and irrational liberal women. And they are right to do so, as people like the feminazi’s are something that was historically intentionally fomented by our earlier works to help foster the decline of conservative values – for example the traditional nuclear family, which is obviously the most efficient form of domestic organization to date. So, why did we want to undermine tried and true values that have been integral to human civilization since the dawn of recorded history? Well, to impoverish the people, keep them stupid, have them raised poorly, and all-in-all put them in a position where they can be easily controlled. The ultimate goal is to have one small strata of the human population rule over the rest until the larger part is liquidated and or the species bifurcates. Ovaria Now is different in that we will now be playing the next tune in the song of feminism – as opposed to the previous – what today is archaic tune, and this new tune will be geared to encourage new actions on the part of people inscribed or affected by our doctrine.
Host: Well, let’s not get to ahead of ourselves. Can you tell us more about the evolution of feminism as a means for controlling the population?
Les: Historically, we have tried to convince women that some broad abstract international male conspiracy was working to keep them enslaved as mothers and hausfraus. Obviously, that was ridiculous, but it was needed as a base lie that could be force fed to a generation of women attending college. Upon graduating and entering the workforce or family life, we could always rely on these women having a chipped shoulder so to speak – as their entire psyche, much like many American blacks, revolved around victimhood and a persecution complex. These women would be more likely to vote for activist government promising to rectify perceived injustices and more likely to resent and ultimately abandon their family commitments, thereby ensuring economically and emotionally weaker males as well as poorly raised children, who in turn, could also be better manipulated.
Host: In reading some of Ovaria Now’s white papers, I’ve also seen references to the collectivization of women. Could you tell us a bit about that?
Les: Absolutely. Conservatives view the collectivization of women as literally the sharing of spouses, maybe some sort prima nocta by a TSA agent or if your neighbor wanted to come over and have a go at your daughter he would have the right to do so. That would be pretty tough to create because a lot of women would be really PO’d by ‘free access at any time’ and some men, too. What we are really trying to do with the collectivization of women is make to make them working (read taxpaying) sluts. We want them to view sex as conquest and have them waste their time trying to one-up their friends both in terms of relationships and in terms of their professional careers. We want them to have sex with worthless douche-bags or the men who do our bidding instead of committing to one guy and building a family. Pathetic hopes and dreams related to career and “financial independence” [laughs] generally do the rest of the job to make sure they don’t build a bountiful household. [laughs] We’ve done a great job with this too. I mean think of how used up most women are by the time they are 25 these days? And they gave it away for free! [laughs] They weren’t even getting paid! They are taking one of their most valuable assets and literally letting people use it up because the guy has a nice car, a backwards hat, lives in a cool fraternity or whatever. These used up skanks will only end up in relationships if they aren’t successful professionally, because they will want some guy to take care of them – this is of course the vast majority of them. And when they do end up in a relationship, we can count on their hedonistic past, domestic incompetence, and general shallowness and shortsightedness to do the rest of the work. So, these girls fuck around in their youth, and then they latch on to some poor sap and don’t even do the things sexually for him, that they use to do for the guys in the past ,who cheated on them etc.
Host: Sorry to interrupt, but if I understand correctly, what we have here is essentially something similar to the Federal Reserve with regards to interest rates. The market is completely flooded with pussy, but if you want to get it as a male you have to commit whole heartedly to some physically or economically self-destructive lifestyle or “conform” and do the bidding of the powers that be. So, please, why do you want women to reward douche-bags and men that do your bidding and not, say, men who are more level-headed, resistant to serfdom, and intellectually independent?
Les: Quite simply, it is to shape male behavior. We exercise ideological control over women, which in turn affects their actions, which indirectly control male actions and viewpoints. Everything that men do is one way or another related to pussy – except for gay men, which is another project of ours. So, basically, to get pussy, men either have to succeed immensely, which they can only do by serving our globalist leaders, or they have to be king of their small social world – a narrow, difficult and wasteful task. The former serves us in obvious ways, but the latter ensures an ever expanding universe of useful idiots who waste their time trying to perfect their social competitiveness in worthless or even detrimental environments. This is related to the fact that we haven’t legalized prostitution yet on a national level. Obviously, if that was legalized millions of women could be made financially better off and far more men would have natural releases that would decrease rape and other crimes, making people less afraid. But we need these men wasting their energies to satisfy their natural handicap. We want to make these guys to work for it! Either by buying stupid shit and ascribing to a sub-culture or wasting their life in a mildly lucrative career. The point is that we end up with men who directly serve us, or are at least easily manipulated plebs. So, yes, the ideologies we spread in a sense help control the pussy supply in a way that is similar to the Federal Reserve and various government agencies manipulating the credit supply. If you want the newly printed money, you have to serve us. If you want pussy you are either serving us directly or indirectly. There are still exceptions of course.
Host: What is the ideal woman then?
Les: The ideal woman is one who spent a lot of time in school getting indoctrinated with our global vision and worldview. She would have fucked around and gotten used up – the purpose of that to be to divert the energies of male peers from anything constructive and also to affect her own sense of self worth. Ideally she perseveres and gets a solid career off the ground. She then earns money and thinks she is too good for men who would commit to her. She thus spends her life fucking around with random males who have dedicated much otherwise self-defeating energy to capture her on a few fleeting nights. More importantly to us, she is effectively a taxpaying stooge who has taken a job that a well-earning father or provider might have achieved. Bottom line is that she is a taxpayer who consumes and doesn’t reproduce biologically. Then by having one of the few good earning jobs, she prevents a man from earning well and providing for a family. Her entire life is a vain escapade that has no purpose and causes untold destruction. But we like that destruction, and the state effectively gets 40% of her income through various taxation. This income is re-invested in more efficient means of subjugation.
Host: Why don’t you want women to have families?
Les: One, we want to decrease the size of the human population to a more manageable size. Two, we want to make sure that values beneficial to the family, and by extension, the offspring, are eliminated. These values foster independence. Independent, let alone armed, people are difficult to control. Obviously, the global elite need an easily controlled population and that will come by force if it is not first achieved by ideological manipulation.
Host: So, what new ideologies can we expect see from Ovaria Now? What exactly are the next tunes to be sung from the flute of mental servitude?
Les: Well, as you know one of the big things talked about today is perceived differences in pay for men and women for the same or similar work. Historically, we used to say this was because all men were evil and it was old white guys high up in businesses who were being mean and intentionally under-paying women because of their own biases etc. Alleged mean white males are the cause of every problem in 20th century ‘liberalism.’ Obviously, that was 100% bullshit and childish, but again, it was a necessary lie to get people looking for answers and demanding something to be done. The real reason, of course, that there is a difference in pay, when it does actually exist, has to do with the marginal productivity of the worker. The female in all probability will temporarily or perhaps permanently leave the job in order to have kids. This uncertainty for the employer is made even worse by being forced to pay some amount of maternity leave. This pain and uncertainty is passed back to the employee in the form of reduced wage. So, what we propose now, is to accept this difference in pay as an economically rational outcome [laughs] we don’t want to hurt big businesses you see! As you recall we have been encouraging women to engage in sexual conquest – this often comes in the form of affairs with co-workers. What we will do politically now is try to encourage the passing of legislation that will allow women to prostitute themselves in their places of work and only in those places. Our research shows that women who have been sexually active enough in their earlier years, as we’ve encouraged, view sex as “a handshake” and are less likely to be averse to the idea of getting paid for what they generally have done more than less for free. This ties in with our collectivization of women, and has already been instilled with the “fuck buddy” mentality. By prostituting themselves sexually at work, women can make extra money that will actually make their wages surpass those of males. They will be prostituting themselves in safe environments with men and women they know – and of course it is very easy to tack in a romp at the end of the work day. This will give all working women their own sexual fiefdom where their only competition is other female co-workers, as opposed to professional prostitutes and young college girls etc. Male workers will become more docile with sexual gratification. Of course, we can’t call this prostitution, instead we will stylize it as mental health, supporting the workplace community, sexual empowerment or something to that effect. In the UK, for example, we’ve already been supporting propaganda research that shows that an affair-filled relationship is actually healthier than a monogamous one. Another plan to raise female wages is to award fixed percentage salary increases to women who agree to be sterilized. The company will make it up in a tax credit. The woman of course would still free to engage in workplace prostitution.
Host: Well, I for one certainly look forward to that! You saw our admin when you walked in, eh? But what else is on the radar?
Les: We plan to continue the war against motherhood, especially as that waned a bit in the 90′s with the glorification of the pregnoid form and the soccer mom. We want to show that women who have the ability to be stay-at-home mothers and exercise that ability are detrimental to society. We want women to think that being a homemaker and a mother is a bad thing. We want them working and paying taxes not passing values, culture and independent thought to the next generation. Some women will still want to breed, so we are looking at ways to create public nurseries. When a woman does get pregnant we want her to pop out the kid and then go right back to the assembly line and pay taxes. The baby will be in a nursery where it is raised by alleged “professionals,” inoculated as we see fit, nourished as we see fit etc. It will then go to public schools where we can shape its mental development and worldview. With further testing we can determine where it is most useful to us and then teach it that trade. The real key is to get children away from their parents. We can’t have people identifying with family or putting family ahead of the collective cause célèbre, and with this, control cultural and racial homogony can be better achieved. We like symmetry.
Host: Probably the biggest irony in all of this, is that you can see how important virtuous women really are in society. Their decisions really are the invisible hand that shapes communities and cultures, and most obviously, the actions of males, who lets just say, are sometimes a little more extreme and noticeable in their actions. By shaping the worldview of women, dictating to them what they want and perceive as good, you indirectly are able to control the actions of males, and you’re in an even better position to shape and control the next generation.
Les: That’s right and what has really been amazing to those of us who were involved in traditional feminism and the second generation of feminism in Ovaria Now, is just how quickly women were willing to give up family prospects because of the promises of sexual conquest, career, or just believing that homemakers are bad or somehow failed to self-actualize. It’s like they don’t understand how important mothers and family are. But I guess that’s why these people are pawns on our chessboard. If they had any brains they’d be the manipulators not the manipulated.
Host: Indeed. Well, all the best in the long inter-generational process to establish a global plutocracy etc. We were glad to have you on the show.
Les: Thanks.