/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11689599]

What do you think of this book? I'd say it sounds like it has potential.

>Unlike the standard version of the sexual revolution, Libido Dominandi shows how sexual liberation was from its inception a form of control. Those who wished to liberate man from the moral order needed to impose social controls as soon as they succeeded because liberated libido led inevitably to anarchy. Aldous Huxley wrote in his preface to the 1946 edition of Brave New World that "as political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends compensatingly to increase." This book is about the converse of that statement. It explains how the rhetoric of sexual freedom was used to engineer a system of covert political and social control. Over the course of the two-hundred-year span covered by this book, the development of technologies of communication, reproduction, and psychic control - including psychotherapy, behaviorism, advertising, sensitivity training, pornography, and plain old blackmail - allowed the Enlightenment and its heirs to turn Augustine's insight on its head and create masters out of men's vices. Libido Dominandi is the story of how that happened.

[Anonymous No.11689609]

>>11689599
tl;dr

[Anonymous No.11689724]

>>11689609
tldr; freedom to and freedom from, etc. muh nuance

[Anonymous No.11689795]

>>11689599
If you haven't read it, read it. At least as a free pdf online (archive.org). Once you read it, read Jewish Revolutionary Spirit. It's at once the black and the white pill, so to speak.

[Anonymous No.11689811]

Don't know desu, but now that I'm reading the description it sounds like I would like it because I like mcluhan who also wrote about sexual liberation and modern political control(and thier possible connection?)

I also heard about it from the nobodytm video

[Anonymous No.11689814]

>>11689599
E Michael Jones strikes me as a resent driven maniac. All his books are about raging against Jews and the sexual revolution. I am immediately suspicious of anyone that chooses subject matter like that

[Anonymous No.11689819]

>>11689814
I think he lost an academic position due to positions he held on abortion or gay marriage. You can tell he still feels resentful about this now, but when he gets down to the ideas its usually at least interesting if not insightful.

[Anonymous No.11689821]

>>11689814

[Anonymous No.11689831]

>Libido Dominandi is the first draft of a great work. As it is, it is a failure, suffering from shoddy writing, poor research, and a wandering and inconsistent thesis. What should be an erudite and compelling polemic against the the sexual revolution—Western culture’s death knell—is an inconsistent and often unreadable mess.

>A bird’s-eye view of Jones’s thesis—that our inability to control our sexual drive has been used for the purpose of political suppression—is beyond reproach. Of course, Catholic leaders have been saying the same thing for years. Leo XIII’s Humanum Genus operates as a rough outline of the book, beginning with Augustine’s distinctions between the City of Man and the City of God, and going on to condemn freemasonry. Who know if Jones himself was actually aware of his debt?

>Regardless, Jones is not exactly marking new ground here. For this book to be worthwhile, it must function as a polemic which inspires the vanguard, and provides grist for later scholars. Dr. Jones’s work does neither. I was hoping for a traditionalist version of Das Kapital, but instead got a book that was barely worth finishing, let alone carrying into the trenches.

>First and foremost, his writing is very, very poor. The overall structure of the book—jumping from year to year, place to place, vignette to vignette—makes it hard to follow intellectual rather than a thematic elements. Given the fact that the book’s thesis is nebulous and has a tendency to change as Jones goes along (more on that below), reading the book is a major slog.

>A inquiring reader can jump to any given page to witness Jones’s lame writing. More shocking is his plain sloppiness and failure to edit himself. Just one of many many examples: On page 88, the author quotes Abbe Barruel, ending with “for men may be turned into any thing by him who knows how to take advantage of their ruling passion.” ONE PARAGRAPH LATER Jones uses the SAME EXACT QUOTE, except he finishes with the word “passions”—not “passion.” In other words, Jones repeats the exact same argument by using the same quote in succeeding paragraphs—and cannot even get the quoted material right! To call this a first draft is too kind—it is a first draft seemingly written the night before it was due! This is simply unforgivable.

>What about the research? A good bibliography may still be helpful even if the prose is abhorrent. But the bibliography of this 600-page behemoth is surprisingly spare, and utilizes discouragingly few primary sources. And from the get-go, I couldn’t help notice two noticeable absences from Jones’s bibliography: Camille Paglia and Pitrim Sorokin.

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1906990944

Has there ever been a more sustained BTFO of E. Michael Jones?

[Anonymous No.11689840]

>>11689831
>a minority doesn't uses his affirmative action degree in rhetoric to explain to the overall greatly approving majority why he doesn't like it
>wew btfoed lol!
Imagine beeing that much of a brainlet that you can't make your own mind up and blindly believe a small fraktion of negative reviews.

[Anonymous No.11689846]

>>11689840
>someone criticises daddy's book
>that means they're a minority with a diversity scholarship
what the...

[Anonymous No.11689848]

>>11689831
Unexpectedly based and redpilled

[Anonymous No.11689861]

>>11689831
Damn this user also BTFO of Pynchon

>Thomas Pynchon (b. 1937), the poetical lame visionary and hack architect often confused for a novelist, is the quintessential spiritual Baby Boomer. He is selfish, ignorant, erudite and stupid, a spiritually dead creature. The only story he has to tell is his own, and this is a story of decay; when the author realizes this fact, he rises to brilliant. When the dead man incorrectly believes himself amongst the living, the results are banal.

[Anonymous No.11689870]

>>11689846
>someone put in relation the critique I posted
>that means he's a bootlicker for said writer
Your two digits IQ is showing, Moshe.

[Anonymous No.11689874]

>>11689831
I know this is goodreads but he hasn't really given any real argument in this review, the misquote is silly

[Anonymous No.11689876]

>>11689870
>le small fraction of negative reviews! listen and believe!!!
a review being positive or negative doesn't mean anything unless you look at the content.

[Anonymous No.11690333]

>>11689861
Unironically based.

[Anonymous No.11690571]

>>11689599
it is totally legit

[Anonymous No.11691092]

>>11689599
This is better.