The Post-Modern Inversion of Jus Primae Noctis

It is not a coincidence that policies have changed regarding public behavior, sexual morality, and family formation:  until recently, Western elites depended on a ready supply of talent, labor, and fodder: they were keen to breed their subordinates.  While there were cyclical periods of famine or population abundance, eventually, an exogenous shock would reassure the elite of the merits of a fecund populace.

However, with labor becoming increasingly irrelevant and fodder easily bought or automated, it soon became apparent that, under the existing rules, there was no room for both non-elite family growth and the hyper-concentration of wealth and power which attends the highly-sought economic and political monopolies and cartels enjoyed by our Western elites.

Old News:  Even Colonial Britain Dealt With This Problem

This isn’t a new concern: we can go back to Malthus or other morbid minds regarding utilitarianism and its attitude towards population:  an excessively high population, with low or even negative economic yield, was recognized as a threat even in his era, as it could undermine the needs of the State/Nation/Race/etc.

The United States, herself, was a dumping-ground for agitators and the disgruntled of the UK: precisely to avert another civil war, the UK dumped her surplus into the US.  Later on, after the “war for Independence” (the British military effort was deliberately sabotaged from within in order to help Britain “pivot” towards Asia and great profit, but that is another story itself), Britain later used her other colonies for not only diffusing problematic people, but also to help physically consolidate her Empire:  win-win.

Proven Shocks: The Working Class “Marriage Market”

For the “working class” in the US, the future is already here:

Adverse shocks to local employment opportunities stemming from rising international competition from China in manufactured goods yield a fall in men’s relative employment and earnings; an increase in the rate of male mortality from drug and alcohol abuse; a reduction in the net availability of marriage-age males in affected labor markets; a reduction in the fraction of young adults entering marriage; a fall in fertility accompanied by a weak rise in the fraction of births to teen and unmarried mothers; and a sharp jump in the fraction of children living in impoverished and single-headed households(Autor et al. “Marriage Market”).

The American social system is pathetically fragile:  all it took, all it took was one secular change in the economy, and that was it:  working-class marriage rates crashed, and these working class people were reduced to subsistence and annihilation. 

These working-class communities completely failed to absorb or support their own who fell into hard times. In all likelihood, their own local elite probably sought to predate upon them, as it is these working-class white men with poor prospects who drive the opioid market.

This is really, really, really bad, because the outcome from this experiment gave the elite confidence in the next evolution of their “Family Strangle”, but first: a thought experiment!

Thought Experiment:  Pretend You Are Bill Gates

Imagine you’re Bill Gates, and you’re sitting with Buffett and Bernanke on a private island.  The topic is planning the US economy for the long-term, and all three of you understand some-sort of Fabian defense should protect your personal interests.

Being Bill Gates, you’re an expert manager: you can assess and deploy resources deftly, and you can read people and anticipate their moves very well.  With great success behind you, you justifiably possess great confidence in your insights and judgement. 

H1-B’s:  The Bell Tolls for Thee

You have hired an army of H1-B’s to cheaply produce products and services for your company.  In fact, your shop, Microsoft, has single-handedly changed the regional demographics of the Seattle conurbation!  Wow!

Using your clout and resources, you managed to harvest some of the best minds in the world to work for you: this small, imported elite produce immediate dividends within your organization. 

This is good, but you want more.

As a manager, you want to minimize your overhead, and so naturally, if you can harvest servile and sufficiently talented workers abroad, then, so be it!

You start farming-out the less sophisticated work, and soon, you subsume entire communities of Indian developers, who, coincidently, refer your managers exclusively to other Indian developers in their personal network.

However, this comes at a price:  you crowd-out higher-skilled American workers, who can not accept the terms of H1-B employment:  the H1-B salaries are too low to justify the investment of time for an American worker and will crush the expectations of a family which depends on his income for survival.

“Whiny White Americans”:  H1-B Puts a Lid on Skilled-Labor
Native Family Formation

By suppressing wages and imposing draconian working conditions, an H1-B policy which crowds-out native skilled workers should, according to the outcome observed with the working-class workers crowded-out by automation and the Chinese, crash their “marriage market”, too.

The studies that evaluate this aren’t very compelling, yet. However, I maintain the simulations (which are not publicly released) suggest that, indeed, an active H1-B policy which displaces native skilled labor formation will have the same outcome as witnessed when Chinese production and automation displaced native working class labor.

A senior IT worker in the US with three kids in college faces economic ruin and certain divorce under the same employment terms of the satisfied H1-B expat putting three kids through college in India.

This situation persists today and has reached the point where the engineering industry is becoming an Indian-dominated market, with native-born American engineers even obligated to work in India, herself, to just keep their supposedly American job!

Bill Gates’ Problem With H1-B Betrayal:  Scaife

As slow as people may be, there is a chance they realize they are being crushed.  Naturally, it is not a grass-roots effect in the US, but the result of men like Bannon working for ferocious and cynical oligarch-clans, such as the Scaife clan. These political opportunists will avail themselves of the populist anger and use it to help crush competing oligarchs, such as Bill Gates, whom they jealously view as an unjustly-enriched competitor.

This very credible threat scares you, as a fellow yet competing oligarch:  what do you do to protect yourself, politically, from Natives who object to being under-cut in their own trade and can be politically mobilized under enemy oligarchs and used against you?

Solution:  The Dialectic of “Progress” & Mass-Mobilization

To protect yourself against this betrayal (and it is a complete betrayal of your countrymen), you have to go as deep as to redefine the notion of citizenonly under the mantle of Social Justice can cynically outsourcing jobs be a
politically-protected activity!

“White Privilege”:  Bill Gates Plays Defense to Win the Civil War

By financing the Social Justice movement, the Fabian oligarchs anticipate the “Trump Effect” backlash by installing collaborators and supporters throughout Industry, Academia, Media, and Government. The objective is to front-run the Scaife-led populism and buffet it through a dialectic of progress, racial justice, and other a-historical and asinine credos and theories.

For those sincerely following any nationalist or alt-right leadership or media, do know that Dick Scafie, who financed and orchestrated this movement, was divorced because of his penachant for $28/night motel rooms and easy women... not exactly a worthy object for martyrdom nor a leader with any integrity: trust no-one in the "alt-right".

Private investigator Scannell, commenting on what became a much-discussed local news story, put it this way: "Mrs. Scaife acted as any loving wife would upon finding out just days earlier that her husband had a confirmed meeting, for several hours, at a $40 motel with a woman previously arrested for prostitution."

Porn:  An Inverted Jus Primae Noctis

While the asinine neo-Left battle with Scaife's felons harvested from the discarded remnants of flyover "white" society, the Fabian oligarchs also maintain a policy of broad and free access of pornography.

Pornography has proven the ideal poison for the effort to extripate the fundamental root of marriage: monogomous, romantic love. The Fabian oligarchy correctly concluded that they could quietly and freely forestall marriage through broad psychological and social reconditioning using hard-core, addictive pornography. 

Freely-available pornography, which was illegal and intolerable only a few generations ago, has a demonstrably causal efficacy in reducing marriage rates and family formation:

Substitutes for marital sexual gratification may impact the decision to marry. Proliferation of the Internet has made pornography an increasingly low-cost substitute. We investigate the effect of Internet usage, and of pornography consumption specifically, on the marital status of young men. We show that increased Internet usage is negatively associated with marriage formation. Pornography consumption specifically has an even stronger effect. Instrumental variables and a number of robustness checks suggest that the effect is causal(Malcom, Naufal, IZA DP #8679.)

Communism 2.0:  “War of the Sexes”

Despite a bad labor market and insidious, addictive media vitiating social bonds, that endless fount of procreant urge and love still manages to couple husband and wife in matrimony. 

To truly destroy the family, the State must replace the Patriarch in the family.  This means the father loses all rights over the children, estate, and household, and is no longer a father but “a partner”: contingent and ephemeral, forgotten and replaced with a swipe to the right.

Science Says: Fathers Are Useless

Furthermore, alienating the “father” from his “household” creates a new social caste of “single mothers”, the most fervently authoritarian and servile of all social groups.

However, even "science" now claims that fathers are superfluous. A recent study conducted by the APA concludes that as long as woman wants to have a child, the outcome of that child is as good or better than if she had raised the child with a "partner".

It is important to read these studies: studies such as this, while they seem esoteric and dull, actually do inform simulations and models used to develop public policy. If the outcome were substantially different, social engineering would be improvised to either improve the outcome or, if desperate, change tack entirely.

However, it seems as if the Fabian Oligarch final solution of the Family is working, just fine:

Fifty-one solo mother families were compared with 52 two-parent families all with a 4–9-year-old child conceived by donor insemination. Standardized interview, observational and questionnaire measures of maternal wellbeing, mother–child relationships and child adjustment were administered to mothers, children and teachers. There were no differences in parenting quality between family types apart from lower mother–child conflict in solo mother families. Neither were there differences in child adjustment. Perceived financial difficulties, child’s gender, and parenting stress were associated with children’s adjustment problems in both family types. The findings suggest that solo motherhood, in itself, does not result in psychological problems for children.

Futhermore, having a man in the house actually risks poorer outcomes for a willing single-mother, assuming he isn't a biological father:

...the solo mothers did not have to cope with the potentially stressful experience of their partner’s infertility and his lack of a genetic relationship with the child.

UBI Marches on the Bosom of Single Mothers

There is a reason why “single-mothers” have been cultivated and encouraged as a social entity:  they prove the most reliably servile and dependent on the government, out of any social category, irrespective of race. 

Single-mothers will not only accept unlimited tyranny in exchange for the bare-minimum modicum of security, they will defend and advocate it. With popular militant feminism defending the single-mother in the public space, attacking these single-mothers for their servile and selfish allegiance proves politically very costly, especially when no countervailing option has been offered by the opposition, such as Scaife's cynical "nationalist" platform, which is just austerity and its attendent opioid/prison/police profiteering.

These children of UBI mothers will see the State, not their “mother’s partner”, as their father, and the Fabian Oligarchy will have the Plantation they so deeply desire.