Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation & Political Control

[concernie]

Very interesting thesis from author E. Michael Jones.

[concernie]

quote from the book:

If morality is a form of repression, then reason is repressive, and if reason is represive, then man can become free only by becoming irrational, but once he becomes irrational, the only thing that drives him to act is his appetites, his impulses, and his passions. But once man is driven by his passions, he loses all control of his actions. Thus freedom of this sort, as the ancients rightly saw, becomes a form of slavery. Those who advocate freedom of this sort are promoting, whether they understand it or not, a form of social control because the motive for action which previously lay in reason has now been replaced by the stimulation of passion. Those who control the stimuli now control the stimulated. The purpose of transgressive imagery is social control. Those who relinquish reason are controlled by their passions, which are exploited financially and politically by those who control the flow of transgressive imagery. The people who profit financially from promoting the imagery contribute to the election of those who will protect it poltically, and so a form of political control evolves from a system of financial exploitation. —E. Michael Jones, Libido Dominandi Sexual Liberation and Political Control, St. Augustine's Press, South Bend, Indiana, 2000, p. 265

[cliffy1]

If morality is a form of repression, then reason is repressive, and if reason is represive, then man can become free only by becoming irrational, but once he becomes irrational, the only thing that drives him to act is his appetites, his impulses, and his passions.

Right off the bat, his argument falls on its face. Morality is not reason. everything that follows the opening line, just drags his poor reasoning further into the gutter. Morality is imposed, either by religion or culture. What is morally acceptable in some cultures is sin in others. Since Christianity has been the dominant religion in the west, we tend culturally, to have adapted their moral codes. As Christianity loses its grip on our culture and as other religions have been introduced, the moral fabric of our society is shifting away from those of yesterday.

For good or bad (another religious concept that is shifting) more and more people are moving away from religion. Some people just can't handle change. Whine about the good old days of repressive religious control. Change is the only constant in reality and those who cannot or refuse to change will probably eventually get run over by it. Better to learn how to swim in the stream than cling to rocks.

[concernie]

Based on your relativist point of view, Cliffy1, how can you absolutely say that morality is not reason? Wouldn't that constitute an absolute? You blast Christianity for being absolutist but then introduce your own absolutes in opposition to it. I don't get it.

[concernie]

The book is centered on the following thesis argued by St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430 Anno Domini)

The good man, though a slave, is free; the wicked, though he reigns, is a slave, and not the slave of a single man, but — what is worse — the slave of as many masters as he has vices.

Jones illustrates how this has been systematized by elites and used in the area of sexuality since at least the time of the Marquis De Sade, who, incidentally, was a member of Weishaupt's Bavarian Illuminati in the late 18th century.

[zensiert]

If morality is a form of repression, then reason is repressive, and if reason is represive, then man can become free only by becoming irrational, but once he becomes irrational, the only thing that drives him to act is his appetites, his impulses, and his passions.

Right off the bat, his argument falls on its face. Morality is not reason. everything that follows the opening line, just drags his poor reasoning further into the gutter. Morality is imposed, either by religion or culture.

My morals evolve from logic and reason. As in, I examine the world around me, and analyze it using logic, reason and the resulting marginal utility of any action to base my morals off of. As such, the majority of them are in line with legally and politically imposed morals (via laws), but others are in complete opposition. My morals have no basis in either culture or religion -- especially not religion! To base your morals off of any Abrahamic religion is like approaching an unrepentant sex addict for advice on abstinence: you're gonna end up getting very bad advice.

[concernie]

Documentary claims father of the sexual revolution, Alfred Kinsey, was a pederast and scientific fraud.



Rockefeller says feminism was funded to destabilize West, increase taxes

[TMixer]

Morality is reason.

How many people go against society's current morals despite the consequences? Tons
How many of those feel somehow morally justified in doing it? Most

If it was imposed they would not be able to justify the act even to themselves. They reason it out with their personal morals and act on their decision.

I don't know how that isn't reason.

[WTTG]

But-but didn't God give man free will?

Edited to expand on my question.

From the OP video

1:00:18 " . . . dominating other people . . .."

And this:

http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~alatus/phil1200/ ... ivism.html

Moral Relativism and Objectivism

1. Moral Relativism: The view that what is morally right or wrong depends on what someone thinks. (To which the claim that opinions vary substantially about right and wrong is usually added.) We can think of this position as coming in two flavours:

(a) Subjectivism: What is morally right or wrong for you depends on what you think is morally right or wrong, i.e., right or wrong is relative to the individual. The 'moral facts' may alter from person to person.

(b) Conventionalism: What is morally right or wrong depends on what the society we are dealing with thinks, i.e., morality depends on the conventions of the society we are concerned with. The 'moral facts' may alter from society to society.

Moral Relativism has become an increasingly popular view in the latter part of this century. Why?

A couple of possible reasons: (i) The Decline of Religion: Religion seems to offer the possibility that morality was independent of us. With a turning away from religion there seems to have come a certain amount of doubt about the possibility of objective morality. As Dostoevsky famously wrote "If God doesn't exist, everything is permissible".

But does it make sense to say that if there's no God, there's no such thing as morality?

Not really. Think back to the Euthyphro problem. What we saw in thinking about it is that it's not as though believing there is a God makes it obvious why some things are right and others are wrong. If we join Euthyphro in saying that God loves the things He does because they are good, then we are saying that things are good (or bad) independently of God (and so, presumably, independently of whether God exists or not).

(ii) Observing Cultural Diversity: Most of us are aware that the world contains many different cultures and that some of those cultures engage in practices very different from our own. Some people, notably the anthropologist Ruth Benedict (1887-1948), have argued that given all this diversity, we should conclude that there is no single objective morality and that morality varies with culture.

Is this a good argument for moral relativism?

Again, not really. First of all, we might dispute whether there is really as much diversity of belief about morality as folks like Benedict say. But even if there is, notice that it is a mistake to conclude based upon differing opinions about morality, that there are no facts about morality.

Imagine this argument being offered approximately 500 years ago: "There is widespread disagreement about the shape of the earth. Some people say it's flat, others say it's spherical, some have even suggested it's a cube. What can we conclude, except that there is really no fact of the matter about what the shape of the earth is?"

The lesson to take from all this is that, while moral relativism might be a correct theory, if it is, it isn't for either of these reasons. You need to do more work than this if you want to be a moral relativist. In particular, you need to confront:

2. Moral Objectivism: The view that what is right or wrong doesn’t depend on what anyone thinks is right or wrong. That is, the view that the 'moral facts' are like 'physical' facts in that what the facts are does not depend on what anyone thinks they are. Objectivist theories tend to come in two sorts:

(i) Duty Based Theories (or Deontological Theories): Theories that claim that what determines whether an act is morally right or wrong is the kind of act it is.

E.g., Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) thought that all acts should be judged according to a rule he called the Categorical Imperative: "Act only according to that maxim [i.e., rule] whereby you can at the same time will that it become a universal law." That is, he thought the only kind of act one should ever commit is one that could be willed to be a universal law.

(ii) Consequentialist Theories (or Teleological Theories): Theories that claim that what determines whether an act is right or wrong are its consequences.

Utilitarianism is the best known sort of Consequentialism. Its best known defender is John Stuart Mill) (1806-1873. Essentially, utilitarianism tells us that, in any situation, the right thing to do is whatever is likely to produce the most happiness overall. (The wrong thing to do is anything else.)

Who's right here? That's clearly a very difficult question to answer. But here's what we can conclude: it's intellectually lazy (and perhaps false) to say 'morality is all just a matter of opinion'.

[Philosophy 1200] http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~alatus/Intro.html

[cliffy1]

Then there is the spiritual practice of tantric sex:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RloBQPFd8Ps

It is North American Christian morality and its repressive views of sexuality that has caused such a perversions that we see toward sexuality today. You don't see those kinds of perverse attitudes in Europe of Asia. Sex can be a spiritual union between the yin and yang of humanity, but western religion has stolen the concept from us with their concept of sin. They think that for Christ to have been perfect, he could not have engaged in sexual union with a woman (or man). But the man was all about love and what better way to express love than through the proper use of sexuality?

[concernie]

Then there is the spiritual practice of tantric sex:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RloBQPFd8Ps

It is North American Christian morality and its repressive views of sexuality that has caused such a perversions that we see toward sexuality today. You don't see those kinds of perverse attitudes in Europe of Asia. Sex can be a spiritual union between the yin and yang of humanity, but western religion has stolen the concept from us with their concept of sin. They think that for Christ to have been perfect, he could not have engaged in sexual union with a woman (or man). But the man was all about love and what better way to express love than through the proper use of sexuality?

Christianity represses sexual perversion, not sex itself. Don't misrepresent it. Sex is Holy when it is done in righteousness.

Sex can be a spiritual union between the yin and yang of humanity, but western religion has stolen the concept from us with their concept of sin.

Christianity never borrowed anything from the dualistic yin and yang concept. Calvinism did, but was heresy anyway.

[WTTG]

Back to the OP video.

At 0:03:37 - Jones describes a situation where an invading military took over a country’s television stations, and then used them to broadcast only pornography while they imposed a curfew and positioned snipers. Except, there was a station that was able to broadcast an explanatory disclaimer on how the military had taken over the stations and they were the ones responsible for the broadcasts. So, why did the military choose to broadcast pornography? Was it because they were trying to bring freedom to the people they’d taken over? No, it was because they were trying to enslave them with pornography.

At 00:08:04 – He further explains how the pornography is supposed to act as a distraction from the fact that you’ve been invaded, because you’ll only be interested in watching pornography. “. . . and it’s pretty clear that that’s the military application of pornography.”

So Jones seems to be saying, you lock people up, put a gun to their head, put pornography on the tube, and that’s supposed to distract them from their situation and get them hooked on pornography so you can use it to control them from then on.

Have I got that right?

[Nebula]

Christianity represses sexual perversion.

I suspect that's an erroneous statement. I suspect so called Christians are well represented in all forms of sexual perversion.

[WTTG]

Back to the OP video:

At 0:03:37, Jones cites Israelis vs. Palestinians (as in my previous post) with the Israelis using pornography as a form of military control, and at 00:09:52 he says, “. . . (in America) the battle is basically between the Catholics (anti-porn) and the Jews (pro-porn as a form of freedom).”

So, if I have this right, is he implying if you come out against porn you may be branded anti-Semitic?

Hey, maybe answered my own question as I go through this.

At 0:45:46, Jones says, “As I said, the battle over obscenity was a Catholic – Jewish battle, but the battle over birth control was a Catholic – Protestant battle. That was the WASP ruling class epitomised by the Rockefellers.”

So it seems he might be saying to be anti-porn and anti-sexual-revolution may mean you’ll be branded as a Catholic. I wonder if I've got it right this time?

No!

0:54:00 “ . . . we have no constitution that functions in the absence of moral people. So in a sense we’re all different Protestant, Presbyterian, Baptists, Catholics, whatever, but we all accept these certain moral principals because they are the principals of the natural law. Well, that got changed. . . . during the Sixties.

0:56: 57“ . . . everyone is born with unruly passions, and you have to spend your lifetime using reason to control them . . .”

But-but, didn’t he just say something like we’re all born into a morality that accepts the principals of natural law?

But then, maybe his point can be well taken if we ask ourselves if we have been hurt personally by the sexual revolution, and, if so, how, and how would we feel if we told someone about it.

[concernie]

Back to the OP video.

At 0:03:37 - Jones describes a situation where an invading military took over a country’s television stations, and then used them to broadcast only pornography while they imposed a curfew and positioned snipers. Except, there was a station that was able to broadcast an explanatory disclaimer on how the military had taken over the stations and they were the ones responsible for the broadcasts. So, why did the military choose to broadcast pornography? Was it because they were trying to bring freedom to the people they’d taken over? No, it was because they were trying to enslave them with pornography.

At 00:08:04 – He further explains how the pornography is supposed to act as a distraction from the fact that you’ve been invaded, because you’ll only be interested in watching pornography. “. . . and it’s pretty clear that that’s the military application of pornography.”

So Jones seems to be saying, you lock people up, put a gun to their head, put pornography on the tube, and that’s supposed to distract them from their situation and get them hooked on pornography so you can use it to control them from then on.

Have I got that right?

Jones' book isn't really about pornography. It's more of an historical book that follows the timeline of sexual liberation from the 18 century to today. It's 662 pages. But, no doubt, pornography is huge today as it relates to the sex lib revolutionary movement. Pornography as an addiction is an established fact. It is said to be as powerful as narcotics.

At 0:45:46, Jones says, “As I said, the battle over obscenity was a Catholic – Jewish battle, but the battle over birth control was a Catholic – Protestant battle. That was the WASP ruling class epitomised by the Rockefellers.”

This is historically accurate. It's well documented.