Sweet Land of Erotic Liberty, Of Thee I Sing

“‘No, I am not weak on transgender,’ Milley replied. ‘I just don’t care who sleeps with who.’”

General Mark Milley, quoted in Susan B. Glasser and Peter Baker, “Inside the War Between Trump and His Generals,” The New Yorker (Aug. 15, 2022)

Professing not to care who sleeps with whom is a shibboleth of today’s enlightened thought.  Professing indifference to what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is another way to perform this  obeisance to the priapic god of erotic liberation.  But the sentiment behind these shibboleth is, like that behind so many modern shibboleths, profoundly retarded because the future health and happiness of our race depends on nothing so much as who is today sleeping with whom, and what those adults do when their bedroom doors are closed.

Demography is destiny in this sublunar world, and all demography is, in the last analysis, a question of who sleeps with whom and what they do when they are “sleeping.”  As an old eugenicist might have said, it would be a very queer horse farm where no one cared which stallion mounted which mare, or whether that stallion discharged its semen within swimming distance of the mare’s uterus.  Likewise queer is a society in which no one professes to care that

“Brainless numbskulls cross with opium victims; misshapen dwarves marry measly maids; insane idiots beget babies by besotted bums . . .”

And yet General Milley shows us that we are that queer society.  In the spirited words of the shameless author just quoted,

“Americans . . . of all the earth, have been the most disregardful of proper race-breeding.  In fact, since the old colonial days, we have actually imported all sorts of stuff from all parts of the planet, and taken blood of all shades up into our veins by converting the United States into a kind of procreation-pen, in which experimentation is going on, apparently with the view of observing how many different kinds of crazy creature we can turn out!”*

America has more recently effectively gelded many of its males by suggesting that they might prefer to ejaculate into a mouth, an anus, an armpit, or even, fourth-of-July-fireworks-like, into the free American air.  I yesterday quoted an old English ballad that mocked the Puritans as sexual libertines, but that did not dream that they might go so far into sexual depravity as to one day forget that Puritan rutting was essential to Puritan reproduction.

Lo in this Church all shall be free
To enjoy their Christian liberty;
All things made common, t’avoid strife,
Each man may take another’s wife,
And keep a handmaid too, if need,
To multiply, increase, and breed.

If this stanza were rewritten to describe the present inhabitants of this Sweet Land of Erotic Liberty, it would perhaps go something like this:

Lo in this Land all shall be free
To claim erotic liberty;
All poking equal, t’avoid strife,
Here man may take a man for wife,
And those who still for handmaids lust,
Plant seed where it shall dry to dust.

* * * * *

It is fitting that this Sweet Land of Erotic Liberty is defended by a man like General Milley, who is absolutely sound on an American’s Constitutional right to poke whatever, wherever, and whenever he pleases, but who is also wary of endorsing any unpopular applications of this libertine principle.  In the quote at the head of this post, Milley was assuring then President Trump that he would not put a uniform on an American who was born equipped to poke, but who had for some reason decided he was not a poker.  We may suppose that this Napoleon of our Nookie Nation was likewise, at least officially, opposed to the enlistment or commissioning of an American who was born pokable, and pokable in a place where poking can be prolific, but who had for some reason decided that she was, in truth, a poker.

It was in this principled ditch that that General Milley was for the moment prepared to die.  But the moment naturally passed, and the ditch was naturally abandoned, because a man who does not care who sleeps with whom cannot honestly care what hangs, or what formerly hung, or even what might in future hang or fail to hang, between a pair of legs.  A man who is indifferent to what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom, and who smiles on the sodomite and wanker just as warmly as he smiles on a father of five, must be likewise indifferent to what surgeons and patients do in the privacy of their consulting rooms and surgeries.  If one cannot judge a man because he regularly indulges a taste for buggery, one certainly cannot judge a man because he has chosen, with a surgeon’s assistance, to remove the instrument with which he might indulge that taste.

So here is an old song re-sung in the spirit of this Sweet Land of Erotic Liberty

My country did decree,
Erotic liberty,
Of these I sing;
Though spermatozoon died,
Blushes here sterile bride,
Yet from every mountainside
Cries of climax ring!

My native country, thee,
From procreation free,
Thy name I love;
I love thy titty bars,
Bill Clinton’s dank cigars;
Gender reassignment scars,
Below, above.

Let sex talk swell the breeze,
Make leaves fall from the trees—
Parades of pride;
Let lusty tongues awake;
Let all whoopee partake;
Spouse and priest their vows break,
No itch denied.

Our fathers’ god to thee,
Author of lechery,
To thee we sing.
Long may our land delight,
Birth control our birthright,
No proscribed appetite,
Eros our King!

31 thoughts on “Sweet Land of Erotic Liberty, Of Thee I Sing

    • The sure sign of an addict is the ferocity with which they defend their addiction, and their devotion to anyone who promises to lead that defense. Sex addictions are probably the most addicting addictions of all.

  1. The not caring position is also profoundly disingenuous. We are inundated with possibilities, ever expanding, and are expected to pay close attention to which unnatural option someone is “proud” of. Only cis normative heterosexuality is inherently shameful.

    • Quite right. We are seldom allowed to actually ignore deviant sexual conduct, although we are required only permitted to discuss it in the most euphemistic terms.

  2. A tour de force of rhetorical persuasion. There are many gems in this essay. “Nookie Nation” and “Sweet Land of Erotic Liberty” are excellent! And the song — fit for the best pages of the old Harvard Lampoon, which was the intellectual’s MAD magazine. Most enjoyable.

    Following your lead here, why not judge a man by what he eats? Surely, it is not a stretch to analogize to another often beautiful, often grotesque bodily function.

    Imagine, all the Americans who consume — in public — those disgusting factory-made, high caloric fat content and minimally nutritious fast foods in mile after miracle mile of chain restaurants. One can’t be indifferent to them if our judgment of a bevy of strangers’ privately arrived at decisions in life is essential to our own rectitude. Farm fresh meat and veg and fruit, unadulterated, plainly natural — those who consume these are worthy of our praise — wholesomeness as holiness!

    Judgment is God’s.

    • Thanks. The Left has long complained about the externalities of private industries, and not without reason. But the individual liberty so much loved by Americans is also, very often, a matter of socializing the costs of private enjoyments. I don’t have a principled answer to this problem since there seems to be no way to preserve liberty and not socialize costs. But there do seem to be outstanding cases of gluttony and promiscuity that do not deserve public subsidies.

      • The cheapest way to address externalities associated with mutants and parasites living amongst us is to physically remove them and be done with it. But the State and its defenders cannot accept that solution because it threatens its monopoly on violence.

      • That was the traditional way to deal with someone who had become more trouble than he or she was worth. Ostracism, exile, and if need be an unfortunate accident.

      • This is an important point. Thus we can see that the Lord’s destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah wasn’t simply a just punishment for their sins, but an act of mercy and love toward Lot and his family.

  3. I don’t disagree with any of this. But it is _especially_ rich coming from the highest ranking officer in the military. An institution which is legally bound by the UCMJ which has _always_ been concerned with who sleeps with whom. As an institution that takes the responsibility of assigning housing, bunks and sleeping arrangements, it cannot possibly not care.

    • The zeitgeist makes people say stupid things they don’t really believe. But if they say these stupid things long enough, they start believing them. Milley is just a successful bureaucrat in a uniform, and like every other bureaucrat, he says what he needs to say to get ahead.

  4. Perhaps the substantial degradation of the founding stock explains why no counter elite has ever really arisen. Or just that the system has been so fine tuned that even its “alpha males” like Mad Dog Mattis and Milley are so swiftly neutered that the thought of doing anything that would upset the HR cat ladies makes them urinate themselves.

  5. HHH,

    I do think that liberalism and liberal democracy along with bureaucratic culture more generally go a long way towards vitiating the sorts of manly virtues a proper counter elite would require. Liberalism makes its adherents ever more soft and squishy so that any knife stab to the system passes easily right through it.

    • Caring who sleeps with whom is very different from controlling who sleeps with whom. When I say we ought to care who sleeps with whom, I mean we all have an interest in future crops of babies being reasonably numerous, healthy and intelligent. To say that you don’t care about this is akin to saying that you don’t care if the farmers plant crops next spring. I do think it would make sense to make children less expensive for young middle class couples, and also to elevate the status of young parents in the general culture.

      • Agreed. I think the expense of children (perhaps related to urbanization and the expense and expectation of higher education) that is to blame for the demographic decline more than accepting or tolerating homosexuality and transsexualism. The former is likely responsible for the latter now that I think about it.

      • Raising middle class children is very expensive, and I think the expense is more onerous when one is surrounded by childless couples who are using their spare cash to jet off on lavish vacations. The normalization of homosexuality helped to establish the orgasm at the central purpose of “sex.” Men and women have always gotten together to give each other orgasms, but to do this without even the pretense of procreation was always disreputable. The normalization of homosexuality wasn’t the only thing that made sex about orgasms rather than babies, but equalizing homosexual and heterosexual intercourse certainly has that effect. The orgasm is what these two acts have in common. I suppose the proliferation of pornography and masturbation have a similar effect.

      • Yes but we should be clear as to what is the cause and what is the effect. People have less children now because the expense relative to average take home pay is less than it used to be. I suspect all those other issues you complain about largely follow in the wake of this.

      • I can’t believe that people decided to settle for orgasms because they couldn’t afford children. The sexual revolution and high cost of children are two different things. They obviously interact, but one is not an effect of the other.

      • I said that the cost of children is a factor, but that the sexual revolution is also a factor. These two things are certainly related, but they are not the same thing.

      • I’m saying the sexual revolution is the result of urbanization and the cost of children. I suppose one’s perspective is greatly influenced by always looking to see the sin (or shame) in everything.

      • Islamic countries are highly urbanized. Sexually revolutionized, not so much. You are in the grip of a Marxist understanding of culture as “superstructure,” a mere emanation of material relations. A revolution in material relations creates an opportunity for a revolution in culture, but it does not determine the culture that exploits that opportunity. Think of it as analogous to the way a forest fire clears the ground to be re-seeded by weeds. The fire creates the opportunity but it does not create the seeds.

      • It’s a bit of a mixed bag. Saudi Arabia and Bangladesh have shrinking demographics whereas Egypt and Pakistan have growing demographics (for example). I’m not sure what the relative urban versus rural percentages are in each country.

Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.