“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.