For men to optimize sex, a high degree of personal sexual freedom is necessary.
Unfortunately, the more developed human societies become, the more personal freedom is curtailed. It is a direct offshoot of the modes of production of humanity at its current stage. Available technologies make a higher degree of governmental control possible, so control exists.
At the same time, modern communication technologies produce a widespread distribution of knowledge, even to people with limited intellectual capabilities.
Control technologies and information distribution technologies in modern democracies lead to many ill-conceived government policies, and most certainly to freedom-limiting control.
People may dream about intellectual elites imposing personal freedom Plato-style. That has a dim chance.
Or anarchists implementing non-governmental rule. Practical experience has shown that grassroots regulations can be even more controlling.
Or radical libertarians doing away with a lot of government involvement. But their focus is capitalist freedom, not personal freedom, and because of conservative inclinations among some libertarians, it is unclear what amount of sexual freedom would be available under their rule.
The best bet for personal freedom is chaos. Not the creation of societies of personal freedom, but the dismantling, or even destruction, of societies with freedom-limiting control. In an environment of conflict and chaos, people have other problems than controlling male sexual behavior.
POWER OR ANONYMITY
In a society, large or small, with an absolute ruler who may be a king, a dictator, a warlord, or a mafia boss, the ruler presumably enjoys a maximum of personal freedom. He is also in danger of being assassinated or simply murdered.
A society may be ruled in an authoritarian manner, but only if there is a sense that the way it is ruled is beneficial to many will there be general contentment, and thus a low level of conflict and good public safety.
Being a dictatorial leader, or even a mafia boss, may have its pleasures for some time, but the likelihood of something other than a comfortable death is high. Personal freedom isn’t guaranteed for the man at the top, either. There are too many security guards of ultimately doubtful loyalty, too much attention from subjects, and nowadays, from the international community.
In the modern world, personal freedom requires anonymity, the more the better.
BYPASSING SEXUAL MORALS
Sexual morals are sexual restrictions. Sexual morals curtail sexual expression, limit the number of sexual partners and relationships (prescribing monogamy), make initiating sexual relationships complicated, and restrain sexual activities.
There are many reasons why mankind developed restrictive sexual morals. Some origins are sound, for example, if morals relate to disease.
The Guardian: STIs may have driven ancient humans to monogamy, study says
Whether people support sexual morals strongly relates to sexual economics. Attractive men have a lot to gain if the level of sexual morals is low. Unattractive men fare better in societies where monogamy and other sexual morals are strictly enforced.
For attractive women with a pronounced sexual appetite, sexual morals are an obstacle. But for attractive women who are in a long-term relationship with an attractive or very attractive man, sexual morals protect their interests and emotional investment.
For men and women, when social needs (such as protection in a hostile environment) are pronounced, sexual morals become more accepted. In safe, non-violent societies, women can afford to downgrade sexual morals.
Likewise, when emotional needs are satisfied to a high degree, sexual needs can become less important. This is why members of religious communities who find their emotional needs (identity enforcement, group loyalty, friendship, absence of fear of dying) served to a high degree easily accept sexual morals.
But religions are irrational, and Kreutz Ideology holds that the satisfaction of emotional needs by religions is illusory and suited only for individuals with a low degree of self-cognition, in spite of being otherwise well-educated. Religious delusions work like drugs, and even intelligent individuals can get addicted to drugs and religions.
Overall, unveiling and undermining sexual morals works more in favor of attractive and successful men than it does for any other segment of human societies. This is why Kreutz Ideology includes ‘unveiling sexual morals’ as a public male sexual strategy. ‘Unveiling sexual morals’ is a cause that very rich men may want to support financially.
The truth is, of course, that no moral system can be proven scientifically or logically. Morals are a matter of taste.
Even though sexual morals typically restrict female sexuality more than male sexuality, women often are in favor of sexual morals. The reason: restricting female sexuality raises the market value of female sexuality.
ESCAPING RESTRICTIONS
For men who pursue optimal sex, it makes good sense to escape the restrictions imposed on their sexuality by policies designed to uphold the market value of the sexuality of women who are not in their prime.
This is possible by relocating to developing countries where poverty preempts restrictions on sexual conduct and personal freedom.
PROLONGING SOCIETIES OF ECONOMIC NEED
Humans have sophisticated systems of trading with each other. This sets them apart from other animals.
Anthropologically, reaching back to the times of common ancestors of humans and other animals, evolutionary biology points to sexual selection (male competition and female choice) as a foundational dynamic. Viewed as sexual economics, it suggests that females may trade access to sexuality for certain male characteristics of desirability.
The concept is ingrained in evolution. Until now, in human societies, sexuality has functioned as a female resource that is traded. But the marketplace is greatly diversified. Nevertheless, throughout all sophistication, trade is possible only with resources that are in need.
Human needs can be analyzed as four categories: 1. material (economic) needs for nutrition, shelter, equipment, etc. 2. social needs for protection in an adverse environment. 3. emotional needs for self-esteem and belonging. 4. sexual needs.
Anthropologically, while sexuality was and is a female resource, material support and protection were and are primarily male resources.
In modern, affluent, and largely peaceful societies, such as those characterizing North America and Western Europe, the male resources of material support and protection diminish in importance. They are widely unneeded and have little trade value. Thus, in North American and Western European societies, males have, apart from their own sexuality (which has little value in this context), only emotional commitment left as a resource that can be traded for female sexuality. This leads to the high degree of male domestication that is typical for North America and Western Europe.
In dangerous and brutal environments, male protection is a very valuable resource. In dangerous and brutal environments, males also die violent deaths in a much higher proportion than females. Thus, a male public sexual strategy of making societies less safe in order to increase the value of the male resource of protection is full of pitfalls. The chances of a comfortable death are clearly reduced, for males more than for females.
Alternatively, a male public sexual strategy of prolonging societies of economic need, or poverty, is more gentle. Proponents of this strategy argue it leads to an increased value of the male resource of material support. In societies of economic need, men have an advantage in accumulating wealth, which then becomes a valuable resource to trade for female sexuality, and this can be largely peaceful.
Sexual relationships in societies of economic need follow simple patterns. Rich individuals can afford sexual satisfaction. Poor individuals trade sexual attractiveness for wealth.
As offshoots, there are certain positive consequences that are not directly connected to the exchange of female sexuality against male material resources. Poor couples stay together because they are preoccupied with arranging their livelihood. There is solidarity, and children feel sympathy for their elderly parents.
BLOCKING THIRD-WORLD DEVELOPMENT
For male sexuality, rich and developed countries are a golden cage. It’s an automatism that is hard to beat. It’s an automatism in democratic countries like Sweden, and in undemocratic ones like Saudi Arabia. Where there is wealth at the disposal of governments, people will be regulated. And male sexuality will be. But liberty depends on the absence of regulation.
Wealth will be generated. It’s an automatism embedded not just in the fact that all human individuals aim to improve their own conditions. Ultimately, it is embedded in the fact that self-replicating molecules improve the environment for their self-replication.
Humans are not ants. Self-cognition allows humans to recognize that there is no genuine value in creating ever more organized societies. Value lies only in an individual comfortable death, and before that, during one’s lifetime, individual optimal sex. Too high a level of social development and public wealth is, by all experience, detrimental to the optimization of sex.
The logical consequence, according to this framework, is to oppose overzealousness in social organization and, on a global scale, to block Third World development.
In developing countries, the absence of public wealth currently puts limits on liberty-curtailing social organization. But the more developing countries develop and become richer, the more liberty-restricting they become.
All the more are developing societies conducive to personal freedom the less prevailing there is consensus about a common good.
Self-cognition allows us the knowledge that humans are individuals, not part of a greater purpose. Thus, striving for one’s own benefits is what makes sense, and not striving for the good of mankind, or the good of one’s fatherland, and not even the good of one’s family.
For such self-cognition, and its practical consequences, developing societies are the better frame. But only as long as a low level of wealth persists.
FIGHTING GLOBALIZATION
Globalization basically assimilates other cultures to the dominant cultures of North America and Western Europe. North American and Western European culture is more tilted towards female sexual strategies and the domestication of men than any other culture around the world. It is therefore evident that cultural differentiation is in the interest of males much more than it is in the interest of females. Thus, it makes perfect sense as a male strategy to oppose globalization, as well as the primary agents of globalization, such as the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank, and many other kinds of international organizations that interfere with the independence of economically weaker cultures and countries.
OPPOSING THE USA
No other country forces its cultural standards on the rest of the world as blatantly as the USA. US aid and US trade are commonly linked to lists specifying to what extent a country conforms to specified standards. It’s a pest.
Thus, anybody who has ambitions, sexual or otherwise, that do not conform to US ideas has an interest in seeing the US weakened, by whatever strategy.
UNDERMINING WESTERN CULTURE
Western culture refers to the culture of Western Europe, North America, and Australia. It does not refer to Westernized developing cultures.
Western culture is tilted against the sexual interests of a large number of men.
It is tilted against the sexual interests of minorities, especially immigrants, and it is tilted against successful men in general because it puts severe limits on the scalability of sexuality. Successful men, economically, politically, or just publicly, cannot optimize their benefits from sexual relationships. They are caught in a one-woman-one-man social and legal system. And the more successful they are, the more their sexual freedom is limited by a free press whose function is social control and the undermining of personal freedom.
Successful men in Western culture do not have better sex than average men. Rather the opposite. Even in low-class and criminal subcultures, men of good social intelligence are likely to fare sexually better than men who conform to what is considered a successful existence.
For successful men, to scale and optimize sex would mean a life of multiple relationships of love and sex, consecutively or in parallel, with optimal sexual partners. The faulty idea of lasting love and a single exclusive lifelong sexual relationship is not the optimal sex prior to a comfortable death that Kreutz Ideology is about. It’s not for women, and, even more so, not for men.
Western culture is defined by outmoded sex-negative Christianity and sex-negative feminism.
Sometimes, outmoded constructs can be repaired. But sometimes, it makes more economic sense to just discard them.
DISMANTLING DEMOCRACY
The gender-specific resource of females is sexuality. If in short supply, it can be traded. Male sexuality isn’t in short supply. It isn’t of a high exchange value.
Potential male resources that can be traded are protection from adverse natural and social environments, economic support, and emotional commitment.
In rich, peaceful Western societies, the value of protection and economic support diminishes. Thus remains emotional commitment. It is the willingness of a man to submit himself to a woman for an infinite time, exclusively and domesticated, while granting a woman a high degree of freedom, even for sexual adventures. It’s a feminist ideal to trade the resource of female sexuality for as many benefits as can be imagined.
Rich, peaceful societies are not good for men. They diminish the exchange value of protection and economic support.
Chaos and poverty are inherently good for men, making male resources more valuable. Chaos and poverty also present opportunities for personal freedom.
Well-organized, rich societies can implement a lot of social control. Male sexuality is best optimized where there is little social control and economic need.
Large, poor countries with a lot of ethnic, religious, and cultural internal fragmentation and weak, long-ruling political establishments usually interfere least with personal freedom.
Social control is easier to implement in small countries, in rich countries, and in ethnically, religiously, and culturally homogeneous countries. New governments, especially after revolutions, always implement more social control than existed before. But even in disorganized, poor countries, direct democracy usually limits personal and sexual freedom, because elections are won by exploiting the hatred and envy of a populace towards those deemed privileged or less restricted.
CURTAILING FREE MEDIA
A free media in Western or Westernized countries has a detrimental effect on the personal freedom, especially the sexual freedom, of men. Male sexuality is usually portrayed as negative and associated with abuse. Female sexuality, on the other hand, appears positive, and even violent transgressions, such as the murder of a husband, receive a sympathy bonus long before details surface. The man must have been abusive! Serves him right! Because Western and Westernized free media is biased against men, curtailing a free media is considered a viable male public sexual strategy within this framework.
CHANGING LEGAL SYSTEMS
Legal systems come with political power, and they can be changed quickly, even within a few days.
But not every society is ripe for a revolution, or even just a coup d’état. Without a change of the political system, changes to a legal system can be frustratingly slow.
Radical, abrupt changes to a political system require either external conquest or internal upheaval with a charismatic leader who possesses substantial political skill.
Aiming to change legal systems is a male public strategy that has a chance of success only under favorable conditions. If conditions are not favorable, it is better to change location.
CALCULATING VIOLENT LOSERS
Every social model and every society produces winners and losers. Some losers become haters. They hate so intensely that they just want to destroy. They don’t mind if this means self-destruction. Actually, dying in a destructive spree, and then getting killed, may not be the worst of suicides. And it’s not new. "Running amok" (*amuk*), a sudden, unprovoked attack of frenzied violence that often ends in the perpetrator's death, has a long historical tradition in Malay culture.
BANKING ON DESTRUCTION
Those who hate and are willing to sacrifice themselves to satisfy their hate add a new dimension of destruction to human societies. They do not expect any benefit for themselves. But they are not the only destructive force apart from violent crime. Successful men, rich and well integrated into conventional society, increasingly bank on destruction while themselves being out of harm’s way, and they do so for rational reasons. Those who are sufficiently smart and sufficiently wealthy can expect that after an upheaval, they have a shot at exceptional benefits, both economically and sexually. Peaceful change is slow, and those who bank on destruction may feel that they don’t have enough time to wait for uncertain peaceful change.