“Full seldom doth a man repent, or use
Both grace and will to pick the vicious quitch*
Of blood and custom wholly out of him,
And make all clean, and plant himself afresh.”
Alfred Lord Tennyson, Idylls of the King, Geraint and Enid (1859)
I am rereading Libido Dominandi, a fat book that played no small part in my “red-pilling” when I first read it nearly twenty years ago. It pointed me to writers like Abbé Barruel and Nesta Webster, and from there I went, as they say, “down the rabbit hole.” The book is by E. Michael Jones, a Catholic writer with whom many of you are, no doubt, familiar. Those who know Jones know he is a provocative thinker and a good storyteller, but that he desperately needs a very stern editor. Many of his books are far too long, and pithy encapsulations of his thesis are too often secreted in out-of-the-way places.
Libido Dominandi has not grown any thinner since I read it last, but my eyesight has been sharpened by all those years in the rabbit hole, so its meaning is now clearer. The subtitle of the book is “Sexual Liberation and Political Control,” and Jones’ general argument is that the managerial State enslaves us through our sexual vices.
His argument begins with the traditional understanding of vice as a desire that takes control of a man’s life. When I have a vice, my craving for that vice is importunate, my obsession with that vice is morbid, and my reaction to being denied that vice is violent. Drinking is not, for instance, one aspect of the life of a drunk. It is what a drunk’s life is “all about.” And a drunk will grow very mean if you try to take it away.
Sexual vices seem to work in the same way. This of course builds on the essential nature of sexual desire, which is always importunate, obsessive, and prone to violence. For some reason, perverted sexual desires—sexual desire turned away from its natural end—is even more importunate, obsessive, and prone to violence. I do not know why this is so, but believe it is observably true. All men think about sex much more than is strictly necessary, but a pervert thinks about sex all the time. All men are eager to gratify their sexual desire, but in a pervert this eagerness is a reckless monomania. That is why he used to be called a sex maniac.
Traditional sexual morality was meant to protect men against becoming sex maniacs by forbidding perversions, and by enjoining a degree of chastity in the marriage bed. The latter was based on the prudent conviction that, if a man treated his bedroom as a bordello, he would sooner or later begin to treat a bordello as his bedroom. Traditional sexual morality recognized that human sexual desire has a way of “getting out of hand,” as just about every honest member of our species knows to his (and her) sorrow.
Sexual liberation removed traditional sexual morality and declared a general liberty to indulge in perversion and un-chastity. It denies that human sexual desire has a way of getting out of hand and calls slavery to sexual desire “natural,” “honest,” and “uninhibited.” It celebrates a life built around the gratification of sexual desire, and smiles with a special fondness on gratification of almost any sexual desire that is perverted from its natural end.
So, sexual liberation produces a nation of sex maniacs and slaves to sex because it releases men to be governed by their desires. If anyone draws attention to this mania and slavery, he is denounced as a man twisted by the perversion of prudery.
Jones tells us that there are three ways to exert political control over a slave to sex. The first is to threaten him with blackmail and exposé. This may seem at first bizarre, since there should be no shame after sexual liberation. The trick is that blackmail and exposé remain potent weapons against any man who is still struggling against his sexual vice. This is to say that he is resisting the temptation, but not always successfully.
For instance, a priest who denounces sodomy from the pulpit and then is caught with his catamite in the vestry. This priest might be a true hypocrite, but he might also be a “hypocrite” under the phony definition this word has been given by sexual liberation. A hypocrite pretends to hate his vice. A man who hates his vice but can’t break it, we should properly call a sinner.
The threat of blackmail and exposé also remains potent for persons enslaved to sexual vices that have not been liberated, and that are therefore still generally regarded as shameful. I am agnostic on the theory of widespread pedophilia in our ruling elite, but the logic of this theory is that these men and women can be controlled because they have been deliberately addicted to a shameful vice, and that sex with children is now a vicious habit that they can neither break nor bear to be exposed. When I say that sex with children is a vicious habit, I mean not only that it is wicked (which it is), but that the craving is importunate, the obsession is morbid, and the reaction to denial is violent.
The second way to control a slave to sex is to threaten to “cut him off.” This seems to be the way that a lewd prostitute gains control over a kinky client. In the political realm, this sort of control is exercised by declaring one’s self a defender of the kink, as the only thing standing between continued kinkiness and a chilling return of the old morality. Obviously, this is how the political left has enslaved all sorts of sexual deviants as a committed base of votes and donations. The sexual license of young females requires the backstop of legal abortions. Getting lots of young females addicted to licentious sex therefore herds them into the corrals of the political party that officially defends abortion.
As was said above, a man with a vice reacts violently when he perceives a threat to “cut him off.” According to Jones, sexual liberation becomes political control when this violent reaction is harnessed and put to work in a political cause.
Traditional sexual morality was meant to protect men against slavery to vice. It was also meant to protect society against the chaos that naturally accompanies sexual liberty. Irregular couplings spawn anger, violence, and not a few unwanted children. Until quite recently, it was thought that these were things to be avoided. To the modern managerial State, however, chaos is an opportunity. The modern managerial State hates chaos like a dentist hates cavities, which is to say not one little bit. Thus, Jones argues that the breakdown of the family under the sexual revolution has been essential to the consolidation of the State.
Because sex maniacs give the managerial State plenty to manage, the managerial State loves sex maniacs!
So, that is it. Our sexual utopia is an oppressive instrument of the modern managerial State. It ensures that you will become addicted to a sexual vice. If you struggle with that addiction, it will expose you as a hypocrite. If you get carried away and go off the reservation, that will be just fine, because blackmail is a stout leash. If you embrace your vice and hate those who might “cut you off,” the modern managerial state has you well in hand. Vote for your guardians and let’s all have a three-minute hate against the “fundies” who want to pull the plug on the party.
And what if things get a little wild and out of hand? Well there are always cops and social workers and reconditioning—I should say counselling. All provided by the State, of course.
*) Quitch is a species of grass that invades a farmer’s fields, crowds out his crops, and is devilish hard to eradicate.
Just as a small addendum on technique, I would say it’s important not only to blackmail but to provide. My understanding is that in intelligence work, blackmail alone is usually avoided because it tends to create a situation of such great tension that the target can suffer an attack of conscience, or even commit suicide, in an attempt to relieve the tension. The important thing is to have a carrot as well as a stick; you threaten him with exposure, but release the tension by providing him the thing he wants.
I’m not sure what to think, but that’s one reason I think that elements of control at the highest level will need to have complicity in the wicked actions not just knowledge of them. You’ve got to keep the guy on a leash. When you are the sole provider of the chosen vice, you also prevent him accidentally outing himself through riskier means of obtaining it.
I’m sure you are right that the two aspects are combined in practice, and are only separated in analysis. I hadn’t thought how blackmail affirms the dominant morality and might trigger repentance. Of course our culture turns repentance into another means of control, since forgiveness is conditional on conformity in other respects.
Pingback: Who Profits from the Sexual Slave? | Reaction Times
Calling those who oppose sexual promiscuity a prude seems to be an exercise in conflating good with evil. By painting good with a genuinely evil brush.
In the same way certain feminists declare how all sex is rape
>For instance, a priest who denounces sodomy from the pulpit and then is caught with his catamite in the vestry. This priest might be a true hypocrite, but he might also be a “hypocrite” under the phony definition this word has been given by sexual liberation. A hypocrite pretends to hate his vice. A man who hates his vice but can’t break it, we should properly call a sinner.
There are some far deeper problems lurking behind this distinction, I think. Let me start with that I am entirely secular, and yet a long while ago I figured out the trad Christian moral framework is a good way to tackle some otherwise difficult problems. Basically: should a society have loose or strict morals? If it is loose, well, you have problems. If it is strict, well, always enforcing and punishing them is cruel, and besides people turn it into a weapon against each other. Solution: make it strict, but also practice forgiveness. Forgiveness comes from the understanding that the moral standards are so high, everybody will sometimes fail to live up to them. Good solution.
Now of course moderns don’t want that. Somewhat even understandable why, a *mechanical*, simple crime: punishment or sin: judgement and condemnation is a simpler, more predictable system than figuring out who and when can afford how much forgiveness. Fits a mechanical-bureaucratical industrial + big government society more.
Which means the modern lib wants moral standards only as high as what he can comfortably live up to basically all the time. Which will be pretty low. But that is not the whole thing.
I have a hunch that it also came from the entirely opposite extreme as well: the superiority complex of the Puritan who is one of the elect, a self-declared saint so of course he can live up to even the strictest moral standards.
I mean, for example, isn’t it why Americans expect politicians, public figures to be saints? Francois Hollande cheats on his wife, France shrugs. Bill Clinton cheats on his wife, America is outraged.
The million dollar question: should that priest, when condemning sodomy from the pulpit, confess his own sodomy to everybody?
If yes, you hit the Puritan problem: that for a Puritan culture a sinner has no credibility, authority, prestige whatsoever, basically he should shut up and resign.
If no, well, at that point you have this problem that he has not a moral leg to stand on to comdemn and judge others. Which is fine as long as he can keep it as “hate the sin, not the sinner”, i.e. condemning the act and not the actor. But at point we hit the problem that morality is part of a social status game. I mean, it has to be. Since humans have very strong social status ambitions, any society that does not give higher status to good people than to bad people becomes a viper’s nest where only wealth and power gives you status and people do anything to get it. So of course you must shame sinners. Even a perfectly secular person like my and my parents understand that if a child does bad things he must be made to feel ashamed about them. And who else’s job it is but the priests to shame sinners?
Morals can be ranged on two axes, one ordering them from good to bad, the other from strict to loose. If you have bad morals, its good that they be loose. The morals of a modern SJW bad and strict. You are right about forgiveness, but there needs to be a set process for a return to good graces or respectability. In traditional Christianity, forgiveness was conditional on contrition and a firm resolve to avoid the sin in future. The notion that Christians should automatically forgive is a modern heresy.
Every secular person who knows something about psychology understands that addiction is a big problem. And recognizing this really changes a lot of things. I mean, experts used to think alcohol or heroine has chemical properties causing a “physical addiction” which is a brutal thing but marijuana only causes “psychological addiction” which is fairly easy. Nobody thinks that anymore. We realized you need no chemicals whatsoever to get addicted: just gambling does it. You brain provides the chemicals (dopamine) on its own all right.
And at this point concepts like libertarian personal freedom became less clear-cut because an addicted person isn’t really free, when trying to break free and failing he does not experience the situation as a normal free choice. You could say one part of himself wants the drink and the other part of himself wants to be cured from the addiction. His will is divided. This realization – that the human will is divided, that it is possible to want to lose wait and want to eat cake at the same time and then you have an internal struggle – is what inspired my Dividualist nickname. Where is that individual i.e. the indivisible person that individualism was supposed to be about? We all basically have a big arguing parliament inside our heads, sometimes one faction wins, sometimes the other.
But fine, maybe that is precisely what freedom is. With addiction, one faction keeps winning all the time and the other tries various kinds of therapies in despair.
Which means willingly getting someone else addicted is not a literal violation of the libertarian NAP and yet in practice very much a hostile, aggressive, evil act anyway.
But fine, one could still be a libertarian as long as one makes an exception for a few chemicals who have their mysterious “physically, not psychologically addictive” properties. But once we figured out even gambling is addictive? And it is so because of dopamine spikes? And porn, for example? And food? That basically means FUN is addictive, all, any and every kind, because dopamine plays a role in all of them. So easy to lose our inner freedom, it seems. And thus libertarianism and all that makes sense only in a limited way only in some cases.
You guys are saying Christians figured it all out like two kay years ago?
If you’ve never read Irving Babbit, you might like him. He calls this internal struggle “the war in the cave.” St. Paul called it the conflict between the “law of the spirit” and the “law of the members” (or “the flesh”).
Have you read the slaughter of cities?
No, I haven’t. I used to read his Culture Wars magazine, and got a small sample of the argument there. Doesn’t he basically describe the deliberate creation of a mass society of atomized individuals?
Yes. Also the creation of white people as an ethnic group outside of the American south
Yes. Also the creation of white people as an ethnic group outside of the American south
Could you elaborate just a bit more on this Josh? Do you (or Jones that is) mean the idea of “white people” came from the American south?
The subject of white people is something I wish I could have heard Zippy (RIP) elaborate on more. If I recall correctly he was admittedly not formed enough in his thinking to elaborate on it more, but he mentioned somewhere or other that “whites” as a conglomerate of people are a tailor-made ethnicity (if it could be called that) for advancing liberalism.
I might like to look into Slaughter of Cities, but I’ve not read anything of Jones before, and the general consensus here that his books are in need of editing is intimidating to one like me, who has great difficulty picking out salient points in the best of edited books.
I just hopped over to Zippy’s to see whether I could locate anything about white people to remind me better of what I’m referring to, and found this. Maybe Josh (assuming it’s the same Josh) is more than capable of elaborating where Zippy left off.
Same Josh. Basically white is a negative identity that basically meant not Black. Not that continental racial groupings don’t help us make sense of the world, but they were never a substitute for ethnicity which naturally includes shared language, religion, and generally a shared understanding of the proper way to live.
The slaughter of cities is essentially about the intentional destruction of ethnic communities. Displaced peoples were given subsidized mortgage insurance and other carrots if they moved into suburban neighborhoods that were segregated along the southern system of black and not-black. Italian, Irish, Lithuanian neighborhoods stopped existing. There’s even some crazy stuff in the book about studies finding that people who lived on intersections had more friends, so housing developments with cul du sacs were favored by planners. Also houses had to be a certain distance from the street and had to include driveways and garages in the front, killing front porch culture. So people lost their ethnicity and became “white” which is not an ethnicity but a lack of ethnicity. People encultrated by their radio and later television.
People often develop a shared identity when they are under attack. It is significant that the word European was first used when the Moslems invaded Europe in the eighth century. The word Europe was much older, but the peoples of Europe began to call themselves Europeans when an outsider tried to kill them all.
Thanks Josh (and JMSmith)
‘whiteness’ is sufficiently explained as a simple corollary of the melting pot idea: a new mixture is formed.
Regarding Dr. Jones: I agree that he certainly does need an editor; I read “Libido Dominandi” last year; by the time I reached the end, I felt I had read the same book four or five times. He probably is basically a one-man shop, so I forgive him. I’m currently reading “Barren Metal”, and feel that it is at least twice as long as it needs to be. Also, it’s filled with typos of various kinds. Still, he’s a great and courageous man; he turns 71 this year; I wonder who will replace him when he goes.
I liked his early books, which were published by Ignatius Press. I wonder if he left them or they left him.
Gay homophobe= hypocrite
Liberal feminist that still admires toxic masculinity and enjoys it in the bedroom=kinky and open minded
Pingback: Cantandum in Ezkaton 27/01/19 | Liberae Sunt Nostrae Cogitatiores
I read Libido Dominandi and The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit about a year ago, I think. They’re both well documented and well referenced as I recall. But you are right, Jones does need a good editor. He has lately taken to writing shorter books discussing various sub-plots(?) contained in the chapters of his larger works. They are available on Kindle. I haven’t read Barren Metal as yet, and Zippy once mentioned a book of his called Modern Degenerates, which I haven’t gotten around to reading either. I plan to read both titles at some point.
I liked Degenerate Moderns and Dionysos Rising. The third in that series seemed like a misfit.