Company Policy: Monogamy Volume I

It has been suggested by way of a question that my view of The Company's monogamy marriage and breeding program is a form of social control where by you enter a exclusive relationship ultimately for the purposes of drone production.

Yes, that is a big part of it, but there is a great deal more. Simply producing children if they grow up independent thinkers is actually dangerous for the system, so there must be more stipulations. While a larger population may be easier to control (interesting fact, that). Any population of free thinking capable humans within this larger population presents an escalating systemic threat, should they become aware of each other and begin to act in concert.

Read Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars, for more about these concepts. Or for more topical data look into “domestic terrorism” in relation to tax and property activists.

It has been suggested that simply not being married and failing to have children is a reasonable attack on the system.

However, that only applies from the perspective of a drone family. If you are freethinking enough to attack the system logistically and demographically without the use of violence, then you should probably be breeding with all possible speed with as many people as you can, since odds are you'll drag up the average IQ a smidgen.

It has been suggested that being in a long term child free, marriage free, long term relationship is against the “Company Policy.” However any monogamous relationship is perfectly in line with the Company's wishes. You further objectify women by owning one or allowing yourself to be owned like a child or pet, you increase the value of sex by increasing the scarcity of it, and everything else you take off the social market, Which ironically is not a good thing for you because The Company becomes your pimp by dictating the rules under which you select a mate via advertising and economic pressure.

This alone is worth a book of material. I'd be happy to answer any specific objections anyone has to this claim.

"Power over a man's subsistence is power over his will." - Alexander Hamilton

It has also been suggested that celibacy is a valid option and against Company Policy. And while I agree with personal sexual freedom very strongly, choice is not without consequence. Being a celibate woman of moderate attractiveness is actually more beneficial to the company then being with one man. Because since you're “single” and women are sold socially as capricious, the men around you will disregard your vow and work all the harder to earn your approval. Many women do this intentionally to manipulate the men around them, as advocate so eloquently in “The Satanic Witch.” And since the company profits from this far more then you ever could, well, the conclusion becomes obvious.

Perhaps that's why we have so many lonely attractive compassionate young women out there scared to death to play the dating game or swearing “off men” for all time.

I urge them to simply get what they need as they need it with honesty and compassion and ignore the rules, most especially rules associated with entrenched gender roles echoed by media of any type. The words slut and whore should have no meaning beyond a positive one. And quit starving yourselves, you're hot enough and if you showed the same self discipline in intellectual endeavors your gender would run the world in a matter of generations.

It has been suggested that prostitution or serial monogamy is a valid response, but both are socially and in most cases legally sanctioned. Criminals constitute a non-group for purposes of social evolution except its the most primitive short term economically driven situations. Unjust laws may for a time cause social revolutionaries and civil rights activists to be criminals technically but the majority of lasting systemic social change comes from the actions of law abiding citizens. The founding fathers for example were the richest and most respected men in the English colonies at the time of the declaration of independence. Washington himself was the single richest man in the colonies. They were not the grass roots squashed by the people for the people types most people assume them to have been.

For more on this I strongly suggest A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn.

Prostitution is no more a way around this system (unless totally unrestricted) than rape is. Rape also deprives the company of its pay directly but in fact helps the company by further forcing women to be fearful and latch onto a big strong man for protection, when she's bloody well capable of protecting herself and has been since the development of the stone ax, and further providing government with reason for totalitarianism. “For our own good.”

It has been suggested that casual sex is a valid response. And while I agree that casual and professional sex needs to be socially available on the same level as a cheeseburger, that alone will solve nothing. What is needed it group empathy and group sympathy. Monogamy divides us up into neat little slave producing easily controlled ignorant consumer cells with no communicative ability beyond taking orders and spouting television references and producing more slaves.

I welcome any responses to any of the above.