In this piece, by 'socialism', 'communism', and 'capitalism', what is meant is a state-of-mind, a general worldview on the human condition, than a strict definition of economic philosophies. That said, in a broader sense, the underlying dynamics of economics shape and define all areas and aspects of life. After all, even if all considerations of money and material goods are removed from the equation, people find themselves in conflict and/or cooperation over matters like leadership, likability, respect, and affection. Even if ten people are stuck in the same room for days on end with no possibility of accumulating money or wealth, they find themselves negotiating and competing over who has more listeners, followers, allies, supporters, and/or friends: Social Capital. So much of social relations is like emotional economics, or 'emonomics'. If economics is the politics of goods & services and if politics is the economics of authority & governance, personal/social relations are the political economics of emotions. It's a matter of amassing as much or more likability, affection, popularity, trust, respect, reverence, loyalty, and/or honor as the next person. Naturally, everyone has to make an effort at 'emotional wealth' and 'emotional authority', and this can be observed in any school playground among kids, many of whom vie to be liked more. High School students surely understand the 'emonomics' that distinguish 'popular kids' from 'unpopular kids'. Even if being 'popular' in school doesn't guarantee monetary reward or class presidency, it FEELS better to be 'popular' than 'unpopular', and emotional wealth counts for something. In THE CHRISTMAS CAROL, Ebenezer Scrooge was wealthy in capital but poor in affection, and he finally pays a price.
Though effort is important in 'emonomics' as in economics, it's also true that some people are far more adept in earning emotional wealth than others. This has to do with a combination of self-image and dealing/connecting with others. People good at social interaction but with poor self-image and People not good at social interaction but with inflated self-image will both end up a bit neurotic. Happiest are those with positive self-image and enviable skills in forming personal and social relationships.
'Emonomics', like economics, breeds both egotism(that easily runs out-of-control) and resentment(that often simmer into hatred). For some people, enough is never enough in their pursuit of money. They must have more, and then more and more. If they could live forever, they'd seek monopoly over all the world. Just look at people like Jeff Bezos and George Soros. Their piggishness knows no bounds. At the other end of the spectrum, there are the radical socialist types often driven mad with envy & resentment and invoking justice in their call for an egalitarian society where the rich are denounced as class enemies and marked for destruction. They are so consumed by a combination of material envy and moral outrage that they reject any attempt at compromise as akin to making a pact with the devil. Both extremes of egotism and egalitarianism are like cancers that can grow out-of-control. Cancer is natural(or 'abnatural') but deadly, and so are extremes of political economics. Humanity learned the lessons of the 19th century Gilded Age of Capitalism, the horrors of 20th century communism, and now, in the 21st century, the world is learning the lessons of globo-homo-shlomo-capitalism and its craziness.
There needs to be some kind of balance, and the tragedy of fascism is it could have provided the equilibrium but crashed and burned with the egotistical hubris of Adolf Hitler and ethnocentric arrogance of 'Aryanism'. That said, Zionism, a form of Judeo-Fascism, serves as the ethno-balance that allows for a compromise between rich Jews and non-rich Jews. Without that ethnic component, rich Jews would become full-blown globalists and favor goy uber-rich around the world than fellow Jewish countrymen who aren't as fortunate. Once the elites no longer see eye-to-eye with their own national folks, they no longer care if the masses surrender to vices and become morally corrupted. If anything, the elites may manipulate vice and hedonism as a means to control the degraded masses who, if need be, could be killed off with opioid addiction & low-birthrates and replaced with masses of New Immigrant-Invaders. Through most of US history, it was noble race-ism that restrained the white elites from mere self-interest and self-absorption as they, as race-ists, felt a sense of patriotic kinship with fellow white Christian countrymen. But once race-ism was excoriated as the worst of all secular 'sins', white elites dropped their racial consciousness like a hot potato and focused ONLY on their own wealth & privilege and identified mainly with other uber-rich types around the world. Of course, given that the West is under Jewish Rule, white elites do speak for the security and welfare of Jews of all stripes and classes. Jews know that racial consciousness is an advantage but also a burden. As Jewish elites still care for the Jewish masses, they are united as one people. However, it also means that successful Jews in US and Israel must lend support to non-successful Jews, and that could be a burden... but not if white goyim are made to pay taxes to support Israel and other Jewish interests. Race-ism, like anything, has a noble side and a dark side. Like fire, it can fuel civilization or burn it down. Same could be said of any religion, ideology, or science itself, e.g. nuclear energy can power an entire city or blow it up. Since the end of WWII, Jews have been all for Jewish race-ism but have denied racial consciousness and unity among white goyim. It's the #1 reason why Jews keep winning and white goyim keep losing.
If Jewish elites were into deracinated or anti-race-ist mode, the non-rich Jews will grow in resentment and go into class-warfare mode against the rich Jews who no longer seem to care about their ethnic brethren. The reason why rich Jews are mindful of the needs of all Jews and why non-rich Jews tolerate and cooperate with rich Jews is because ethno-consciousness serves as the balancing act between egotism and egalitarianism, both of which are destructive if allowed to run wild. National Socialism provided a similar kind of balance for Germany, which is why Adolf Hitler at his peak was much appreciated by both the rich German class and the German masses. He knew that ethno-consciousness was the glue that could unify the German upper-classes with the German masses. National Socialism failed, morally and ultimately militarily, when it went from nationalist mode to imperialist mode. Likewise, what had once been noble about Zionism is fading as Jews have gone nuts and now think in terms of hegemony and imperialism.
Love & Sexuality is about 'emonomics' and 'sensonomics'. At its base, it's about competition for love & affection and sensual pleasure. According to Greek Mythology, Helen of Troy launched 1000 ships, and the Bible is full of stories about men who lose their minds(and morals) over women. And beautiful women use their wiles to get their way with men of all stripes. It is then hardly surprising that love/lust and sexuality/sensuality have done their share to both save and destroy humanity. It's been said fools have been redeemed and wise-men have been undone by love/lust. There have been so many stories, poems, and songs about the mystery of love/lust that is equally inspiring and infuriating. It's like what John Cusack's character says about the theme of love in Pop Songs in HIGH FIDELITY:
Given the dynamics of love/lust, there will always be extremes of behavior among a segment of the population, no less than with economics and politics. Just like there will always be someone who's obsessed with being the next mogul, fuhrer, or radical, there will always be people swept up by romantic love or wallowing in mad lust. Of course, love and lust are intertwined, but some people are more into the dream whereas others are more into the cream, as with Billy Boy Clinton who apparently didn't care about the WHOM as long as he had lots of readily available women to stick his dong into. But just because extremes will always exist doesn't mean that most people should subscribe to those standards. In the past few decades, the media have been pushing 'EXTREMACY' or 'Extremacism' as an ideal, and what is especially worrying is that even seemingly normal/regular people are infected with extremitis. Even non-rich people think in terms of moon-or-bust. As most of them can't be rich like Silicon Valley millionaires, let alone billionaires, they settle for the next best thing, which is to put on the airs of the 'creative class' and adopt attitudes most associated with the globalist jet-set, which is globo-homo. Even the current 'socialism' is corrupted. It's no longer about justice for the working/middle class but about FREE STUFF so that one can feel on the same level as kids born into rich families who never have to worry about balancing the checkbook. After all, it's one thing to demand fair wages and another thing to demand FREE college tuition for four years of majoring in nonsense, which of late include most departments in the humanities and sociology. And then, consider so many people who want to be like pop idols and go out of their way to dress up like skanks in pornified music videos and trashy TV shows that are mostly about loose sex and jungle fever.
The same goes for politics. It used to be that extreme personalities sought to be the next Napoleon, Castro, or Mao, whereas most people sought moderation and balance. But PC has spread the virus of Justice Junkie outrage, and now, so many young people from middle class families see themselves as so 'woke', 'committed', 'radical', and/or 'revolutionary'. As most of them are ill-read, shallow, and immersed in pop culture, their idea of 'progress' is, of course, something about 'muh hair', 'muh tattoo', or 'muh favorite form of idolatry'(usually trashy celebrities, vain movie stars, or the Holy Three of Magic Negroes, Holy Homos, and Jews-as-new-jesus). Consider all those middle class girls from good homes who joined the Pussy Hat March. It's one thing to oppose or loathe Donald Trump, but what was all that festive hysteria about? It was like the cult of universal radicalism + Slut Culture + Hello Kitty. And what was the point of talking & acting porny in the name of opposing Trump's 'misogyny'? "I wear a pussy hat, don't grab my pussy!!"??? Imagine a guy wearing a pud-hat while holding a sign, "Don't suck my dick".
Anyway, since most people can't be uber-rich or uber-powerful(or extreme in some awesome way), it's as though they crave an ersatz means by which they can at least FEEL rich or FEEL radical. Since the uber-rich and/or famous are globo-homo, the hope is some of the glitz/glamour will rub off on you if you too are for globo-homo. Since elite professors & elite opinion-makers in media always seem to be in faddish outrage mode, maybe you too can feel 'empowered' by sharing their sense of rage on Twitter, Instagram, or Facebook. This is so different from the past when Middle Class Values were deemed to be ideal for most people, including for the elites. The middle-centrism pushed the lower-elements to improve themselves and rise to middle class respectability; and middle-centrism restrained the rich from indulging in excess egotism and/or decadence. If American and British democracies fared better than Italian Fascism, National Socialism, and Communism, it was because they were essentially middle-class ideologies, i.e. the elites of traditional liberal democracies believed that, despite their power and privilege, they must be standard-bearers of the respectable educated middle class. In contrast, egocentric radicals like Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler felt that values were merely ever-malleable instruments of their will-to-power that would decide Destiny. In our times, humanism and middle class values have been undercut by the cult of idolatry(of Pop Culture), minority-elite-supremacism(mainly pushed by Jews and homos), savagery of Afromania(as blacks are genetically anti-civilizational), and neo-imperialism that has corrupted the notion of 'liberal democracy' into a mere nihilism to justify endless wars and hunger for greater hegemony. Even as the West increasingly becomes more illiberal and intolerant(under PC regimen controlled by Jews and cuck-collaborators), it invokes 'liberal democracy' ever louder to justify its military occupations/invasions and financial terrorism around the world. US and Israel, allied with loathsome Saudi Arabia, plot to destroy Iran by military and financial means. Now, why would 'liberal democracies' be most closely allied with Medievalist Saudi Arabia, and why would they target Iran and Syria, which are far more open to modernity than the Saudis are?
What applies to political economics also applies to 'emonomics' and 'sensonomics'. There are some individuals who want to have it all: All the partners and all the pleasure. They have no sense of limits. They might be called 'Sexual Capitalists'. Now, not everyone who subscribes to sexual capitalism is successful at it, just like most so-called libertarian ideologues aren't good at business and spend most of their hours as toadies swooning about and sucking up to the rich and privileged as the best-of-the-best. In order to be a successful sexual capitalist, one must be (1) rich and clever (2) physically handsome/pretty (3) licentious and/or (4) big-donged if male and big-boobed if female. A rich person without looks can get lots of partners. A non-rich but attractive person can find many mates. A non-rich or non-attractive man with a big dong or non-rich or non-attractive woman with big boobs will be moderately more successful than those without such attributes. Granted, there is a way in which even a non-rich and non-attractive person can be successful in mating: By having very low standards, i.e. a man who's willing to stick his penis into anything will find plenty of women, and a woman who is a total trashy skankass whore who will put out to ANY guy won't have trouble finding mates. At any rate, what distinguishes sexual capitalists is their lack of sense of limits. Consider Billy Boy Clinton. Obviously, Hillary wasn't enough for him. Or he wasn't content to find some mistress on the side. He used his position and privilege to pork as many women as possible. And the fact that there are plenty of women who will put out to such men, the alpha males, goes to show that sexual capitalism is very much alive among women as well.
Just like economic capitalists have no sense of limits in their accumulation of wealth, sexual capitalists want all the trophies. Indeed, they often brag about it. It's been said Brigit Bardot had sex with over 1,000 men. The TV show SEX AND THE CITY spread sexual capitalism as the favored norm among urban upper-middle-class women(and all their underclass imitators). And even though many geek-o-centric teenage comedies pit the geeks and gorks against the jocks and alphas, their message is sexual capitalism because, after all, the ultimate objective of the geeks and gorks is to somehow outwit the studs and get the girls for themselves. It's the geek fantasy of having the success of jocks, not unlike dimwit libertarians who dream of being like Bill Gates or some other billionaire by reading Fortune and Reason magazine. If some sexually unsuccessful people idolize the sexual capitalists — a case of ideological sexual capitalists who get no action themselves cheering on the dominant players in sexual capitalism, not unlike white beta-males in the stands cheering on successful alpha-male black athletes — , others wage an all-out sexualist war on the 'injustice' of the sexual marketplace. This might be called 'Sexual Communism', and it can be found among all groups, all races, all ethnic groups, both sexes(and the so-called '50 genders'). Steve Sailer has remarked that much of female journalism consists of resentful angst about not being sufficiently noticed by men. The 'law of female journalism' has so many writers of the (not-so-)fairer sex pontificating about the injustice of not enough people going gaga over their hair or body. As for the Body Positivity Movement, it says fat/obese blubberpusses are beautiful too and their bodies should adorn fashion magazines.
Even trannies have gotten into the act, and they've found allies in the media who say it is both 'transphobic' and 'anti-women' for straight men and lesbians to reject them as 'sexual' partners. Apparently, such logic would have us believe that men and lesbians should be equally attracted to tranny 'women' as to real women. And much of Slut Pride culture has consisted of ugly and gross-looking women dressing up like hookers and demanding attention that they normally can't command. If we push the dynamics of sexual communism to its logical conclusion, the ONLY solution would be something like Rev. Moon(of the Unification Church)'s nutty idea of mass-weddings where men and women are randomly matched to be mates. If indeed all men and women are said to be attractive — whereby a fatso hippo-mama is just as gorgeous as a genuine babe — , then no one should seek out the superior mate since no such would exist in a world where all men and women are created equally beautiful. But who wants to live in such a world?
If sexual capitalism breeds piggish behavior and if sexual communism fosters piggish resentment, the solution would seem to be what might be called 'Sexual Socialism', the middle-ground that is the best for most people. Now, it won't appeal to all people as there will always be sexual capitalists who want it all and sexual communists who won't be satisfied unless the world finds them as attractive as the top jocks and babes. Plenty of Jewish men are sexual capitalists, out-of-control Portnoys who use their money and power to get as much 'pussy' as possible. And plenty of Jewish women are sexual communists who push miscegenation of white women mating with black men mainly because they envy and resent white beauty. They want white women to squeeze out babies with frizzy hair, flat noses, and fat lips. That way, white beauty will be mongrelized and look no better or even worse than Jewish features. Jewish female neurosis can be heard in the song "Seventeen" by Janis Ian.
Where sexual socialism differs from sexual capitalism and sexual communism is it combines the understanding(and even appreciation) for differences but with a sense of socio-moral limits. And the mores of sexual socialism is workable, constructive, and productive for most people. Most people shouldn't surrender to the EXTREMES of either sexual capitalism or sexual communism, just like most people shouldn't become a purist libertarian or radical communist. Most people should admit that sexuality can never be equal and that some will be more successful than others; but they also need to reiterate the life-lesson that sexuality must be part of love, commitment, & obligations, and that means one can't have everything(even if attainable in financial or sexual terms). Without such structures in life, people become like shapeless slugs in their emotional and even social life. Pursuit of sensuality without an overarching vision-of-life and purpose-in-life is like being without a vertebrae. What distinguishes animals with backbones from animals without? The former has stable shape and structure, whereas the latter are formless as they squish and squirm around. Sensuality without the structure of love, commitment, loyalty, and responsibility leads to loutish behavior that fills the world with slime. What would society be like if men and women sought sex without considerations of marriage, fidelity, unity, and family? Well, just look at much of black America or working class British society. It's a world of shamelessness, grossness, and misery, especially for the kids, many of whom are born to trashy single-mothers and grow up to pop culture junk on TV. It also leads to the pornification of mass culture where sensuality isn't part of something bigger and deeper — love and marriage — but something that exists for its own sake, as if the thrill of the moment should be the defining focus of one's entire life.
No sane person can endorse sexual communism even though there are powerful people in the media who would have us believe that a fat whore, a tranny, or ugly woman is equal in beauty. According to such people, Victoria's Secret should feature Lena Dunham or worse. Because sexual communism is so against primal human nature, it generally gets little traction among the masses despite it being pushed by certain sectors in media/academia. Sexual capitalism has far more traction among the masses because, instead of going against primal human nature, it exaggerates and intensifies it. It allows the masses to indulge in the fantasy that they can be like super-famous celebrities who hog fame/fortune and get to have sex with untold numbers of men or women. Then, it's not surprising that so many men(and now even women) high-five those who are most successful in humping-and-dumping a series of partners. And yet, the logic of sexual capitalism is pretty grim for most people. The result is something like prima noctis or droit du seigneur in BRAVEHEART. In the Mel Gibson movie, the lord gets to sexually deflower and enjoy the women before they are married off to locals/subordinates. It deeply wounds the pride of local men. (Historians say BRAVEHEART is filled with historical inaccuracies, btw.) Sexual capitalism works the same way. Imagine a community of 100 men and 100 women. Suppose all the women have sex with the top 5 men before they eventually marry the other 95 men. How is it good for most men to know that their wives put out to the top 5 men? What men with any pride would high-five the top 5 guys for having screwed their women before they got married? Most men should know that whenever they cheer on some stud, they're collaborating in a scheme whereby some guy gets to screw their future wives. If there are 10 men and 10 women in a room and if each man should end up with one of the women, what sense would it make for most of the guys to cheer on the ONE guy who screws all the women? It's like plates of food. In a cafeteria, one should choose a dish for himself. He shouldn't put his fingers on various dishes to sample them as it would mess up the dining experience for other customers. Sexual socialism allows for inequality and hierarchy as such are part and parcel of what we are. It allows the more successful and/or more attractive to find the superior or more coveted mates. Unlike sexual communism, it doesn't pretend all men and women are equally attractive and should be happy to settle down with just about ANYONE. However, it also rejects the logic of sexual capitalism that says, just because one happens to be blessed with money or attractiveness, he or she should hog all the sex and act like the blob. Sexual socialism allows the superior to attract the superior but also enforces the structure necessary so that one's pursuit of sex will be part of love, marriage, family, and responsibility. And that means each person should pursue and attain one partner. It should be enough for the superior person to find the superior mate. He or she should keep his/her hands off others. And guess what? That used to be the norm until the 1960s when various 'revolutions', of which 'sexual revolution' was one, made sexual capitalism the dominant mode of human behavior and fantasies.
The great irony is that, in a way, sexual capitalism and sexual communism feed off each other. After all, the so-called Sexual Revolution was sold as liberation and equality, i.e. all men and women, without the old restraints, would have equal fun in the sack. The promise of equality actually led to more inequality, a world of studs, sluts, and incels. Sexual communism, as practiced today, isn't about accepting people for what they are: The fact that most people aren't anything special in terms of intelligence, looks, or ability but nevertheless have value as fellow humans and fellow nationals. Sexual communism of the Current Year has no interest in the humanist principles of the post-WII period. Rather, it is about the fantasy of everyone being equally beautiful, glamorous, and 'popular'. Instead of universalizing human worth based on humility, moderation, and neighborliness — like in the movies MEET JOHN DOE(dir. Frank Capra), MARTY starring Ernest Borgnine, and BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES — , it is about the universalization of Diva Mentality, as if it's a 'human right' or 'diva entitlement' for every person to be regarded as Hot Stuff. Such diva-mentality, which had been relegated to camp, has been made champ in certain quarters of media/academia.
What had still been comic fantasy with Divine the transvestite has become the oft-repeated theme of New York Times editorials where writers, usually female or tranny, gripe about the INJUSTICE of the world in not finding them as wonderful and attractive as they would like. In that sense, the current sexual communism is worse than the lunacy of Rev. Moon as mega-matchmaker for men and women around the world. As nutty as Moon was, his message wasn't that everyone is equally attractive but that everyone is at least soulfully equal under the eyes of god. In contrast, the current sexual communism would have us believe that everyone is hot stuff. As such, it has a direct link to sexual capitalism that is all about No Limits for the Superior. Current sexual communism, instead of opposing the hierarchic notion of the superior, would have us believe that everyone is equally superior, an oxymoron. Imagine a communism that insists that everyone has a 'human right' to be fabulously rich oligarch. Absurd, isn't it? Current sexual communism would have us believe that everyone is entitled to being considered as so beautiful and wonderful in the spirit of universal narcissism. Is it any surprise that even a nutball like Pedro Gomez got into the diva habit of referring to himself as 'they'?
Pablo Gomez the Tranny Murderer who insists he is 'they'.
What most of humanity needs is a compromise and moderation between the 'extremacism' of sexual capitalism and sexual communism. People need to understand that there is and always will be a hierarchy in the sexual marketplace(unless future beings are bio-engineered by the state to be equally beautiful), and that some people will naturally find more attractive mates than others do. That said, it is good for all of society if those with superior traits/abilities find and settle for ONE mate who is to their liking. That way, they get the better mate but focus on developing a life and forming a family with him/her than loutishly hogging the sexual marketplace to satiate one's boundless lust that, lacking the structural backbone of morality-commitment-obligation, overflows like sewage. Rappers, for instance, would do better to sing "Stand by Your Ho."
