Most people are aware of the concept (and inferiority) of substitute
satisfaction, or, in German, Ersatzbefriedigung. Substitute satisfaction
is if we read romance novels instead of having romances, or if we watch
adventure movies because we cannot have adventures, and, of course,
when porn takes the place of making love.
There is an adherent affinity of capitalism towards substitute
satisfaction because it is easier to make money with substitute satisfaction
than with genuine satisfaction. Furthermore, substitute satisfaction
leaves a person essentially unsatisfied, so one can sell to him again and
again the same, or other forms of, substitute satisfaction.
The concept of substitute freedom is rather new. I am probably the
first one to use the term.
Just as sexual satisfaction is so much more relevant than other
satisfaction, sexual freedom is so much more valuable than other liberties. I
really do not care much for the freedom to drive 150 miles per hour on
“freeways? and even not for free trade.
And just as the peddlers of ersatz pleasures (or entertainment) are, in
reality, against real pleasure, the orgasmic one, the advocates of
substitute liberties all too often are against the one freedom that makes
the most philosophical sense, sexual freedom.
Have you ever wondered why those who are fundamentally most opposed to
sexual freedom, the Bushists and other Christian fundamentalists, are
the most vocal supporters of political substitute liberties, such as
free direct elections, local autonomy, and press freedom?
The answer is: they have realized that these political substitute
liberties play heavily into their hands, and effectively support a
reactionary, religious agenda of sexual restrictions and female
non-emancipation. They also have the effect of cementing US imperialism, both cultural
and economic.
Just dissect the three cited political substitute liberties one by one.
Free direct elections, or democracy: I have pointed out in several
previous articles how free elections and democracy function as a race, in
which contenders try to outdo each other by playing on sentiments of
hatred and envy. Democracy also usually leads to weak public security. A
dangerous environment (especially a dangerous urban environment),
however, has the effect of making people seek security in monogamous
relationships and family structures, thereby curtailing sexual freedom (and
that of females more than that of males). While free elections and
democracy may work in ethnically totally heterogeneous societies such as the
US, or ethnically largely homogenous societies, they are a recipe for
chaos in much of the rest of the world. And even where democracy works
comparatively well, it still weakens a country because of the resulting
political infighting between parties and candidates that differ wildly
in their political programs. Weakening other countries is, of course, in
the interest of the US.
Local autonomy: the net effects of retailing government functions to
community administrations are similar to the net effect of “free direct
elections? But in addition to resulting in weak public security and the
overall weakening of a country, local autonomy often also removes part
of the protection, constitutions provide for minorities or people with
lifestyles that differ from those of the local majorities. Furthermore,
the quality of local legislation typically is worse from a purely
academic perspective. Because local law-disseminating bodies do not have
legal experts to guide them, laws often lack precision and just reflect
local prejudices. An example of the ill effects of local autonomy in
recent years has been Indonesia, where town and village councils now can
enforce sharia law and create their own police forces to implement it.
Laws on the town and village level have been passed in such a large
number that a supreme court could not check them on their constitutionality,
even if there were the political will to do so (which is absent).
Indonesia: Gays Fight Sharia Laws
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=91&ItemID=11217
Press freedom: As any person of prominence will be able to tell you, a
free press is extremely restrictive to personal freedom. In effect, a
free press is like an ever-present police, which doesn’t just enforce
laws but also public sentiments on moral conduct. By reporting on how
certain people appear to enjoy a degree of sexual freedom which the
average person is secretly longing for, and jealous of, a free press is
extraordinarily effective in enforcing sexual restraint. Apart from that, it
obviously ferments infighting within a country, and therefore weakens
it, which, again, is in accordance to the global interests of the US.
