Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control

[Anonymous No.13346284]

by E. Michael Jones

"Thus, a good man, though a slave, is free; but a wicked man, though a king, is a slave. For he serves, not one man alone, but, what is worse, as many masters as he has vices." - St. Augustine, City of God Writing at the time of the collapse of the Roman Empire, St. Augustine both revolutionized and brought to a close antiquity's idea of freedom. A man was not a slave by nature or by law, as Aristotle claimed. His freedom was a function of his moral state. A man had as many masters as he had vices. This insight would provide the basis for the most sophisticated form of social control known to man.

Fourteen hundred years later, a decadent French aristocrat turned that tradition on its head when he wrote that "the freest of people are they who are most friendly to murder." Like St. Augustine, the Marquis de Sade would agree that freedom was a function of morals. Unlike St. Augustine, Sade proposed a revolution in sexual morals to accompany the political revolution then taking place in France. Libido Dominandi - the term is taken from Book I of Augustine's City of God - is the definitive history of that sexual revolution, from 1773 to the present.

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.13346286]

this is now a big titty thread

[Anonymous No.13346288]

>>13346284
fuck politics

[Anonymous No.13346295]

>yet he posts a cumbrained image to bait people and potentially send them on the path of ruin
sage and low IQ.

[Anonymous No.13346330]

>>13346284
I haven't read it, but I like feet more

[Anonymous No.13346333]

Michael Jones is a hack.
Nonetheless: Pic related.

[Anonymous No.13346334]

>>13346295
based

[Anonymous No.13346362]

>>13346284
Priscilla is based

[Anonymous No.13346364]

>>13346330
sniff

[Anonymous No.13346404]

>>13346284
she fucks that dog
FOIDS FUCK DOGS
FOIDS WOULD RATHER FUCK A DOG THAN YOU
GET DOGPILLED
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IQVGIHtB48

[Anonymous No.13346421]

>>13346284
Priscilla is based

[Anonymous No.13346490]

>>13346284
Priscilla is based

[Anonymous No.13346494]

E. Michael Jones is an anti-Semite and a bad scholar who willfully and knowingly associates with right-wing extremists for the sake of publicity, lending his own (minimal) legitimacy to the causes of people like David Duke and Richard Spencer. OP should be banned.

[Anonymous No.13346510]

>>13346284
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.

[Anonymous No.13346520]

>>13346510
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.

Paglia is an atheist and a feminist, but like Aldous Huxley before her, she understands conservatism better than most conservatives. Paglia knows the power of sex, and her Sexual Personae, for all its flaws, is one of the most compelling studies of sex ever created, and in Jones’s case could provide an undergirding to the larger theoretical construct. That Jones does not avail himself of Paglia’s work is a sign of weakness; it is here that Jones’s literary inadequacies overlap with his inadequate scholarship.

Let’s start here: Jones has habit of noting tacit connections between his characters rather than connecting the intellectual undercurrents which united them. This method moves along more like a conspiracy theory or a six-degrees-of-Kevin-Bacon game than scholarship. For example, in the early chapters, Jones repeatedly tries to unite the Marquis de Sade, William Godwin, Abbe Barruel. It really does not work; Jones is forced to use lame narrative devices such as speculating what Mary Wollstonecraft must have been thinking while she trudged through the blood-drenched Paris streets; speculations over how affected Percy and Mary Shelley were by Sade; huge leaps of faith over the effect the good priest Barruel had on later sex perverts. With regards to the English liberals, it is clear that Jones simply does not respect their work enough to learn it and refute it—Paglia's work would serve him well here. More than this, the idea that later sex-mongers were inspired by the Jesuit reactionary Barruel’s is largely speculation; even if it were true, who cares? There are countless secret societies; the question is why the secret societies promoting sexual perversion ended up so popular. Instead of adequately defining the relevant intellectual undercurrents, Jones is reliant on his vignettes and weak editorializing.

[Anonymous No.13346524]

>>13346520
It is Sade who Jones tries to shoehorn in most often. He suggests that the de-mastication of the Princess de Lamballe at the hands of an angry mob was in part due to the dissemination of Sade’s work. Bunk!—would Jones suggest that the sodomizing of Col. Qaddafi at the hands of Muslims was influenced by Eva Ensler? Even in his day, Sade was a literary and intellectual mediocrity. Chesterton makes the point that Nietzcheans have existed all throughout history; the only difference between those Nietzscheans and Nietzsche himself is that only moderns were so foolish as to take the man seriously. The same with Sade. He was a talentless buffoon with a rapport to the dark undercurrents of human nature; nothing he says is particularly interesting, but for the fact that Sade was able to get away with saying it was. And yet the Marquis de Sade, who for all his inadequacy as a thinker and writer, is, as Ms. Paglia says, one of the most influential figures of the past 200 years. To understand why this particular pervert was able to gain a following is a worthwhile task. Trying to understand the pervert himself is not. And anyway, the ideas proposed by Sade—that the populace must promote sexual license in order to remain revolutionary—was not actually tried until the 20th Century—but more on that below.

Paglia is interested in the intellectual undercurrents behind the sexual revolution in a way Jones is not. Even if Paglia’s assessments are wrong, she at least attempts to give a unifying idea—an overarching story rather than a bunch of vignettes. Freud once suggested his method of psychoanalysis was used to exploit his clients (Jones, in his weak style, uses the same quote countless times); when discussing Margaret Sanger, he states that her opinions about birth control resemble the statement by Freud. This is nothing but a weak literary comparison between two people whose thoughts were greatly different. What could be the jumping-off point to a sociologically-complex theory is merely lame editorializing, pattern spotting, and name dropping.

Perhaps Paglia’s absence is a bugaboo of mine. Worse is Dr. Jones’s elision of Sorokin’s work. Sorokin, a reactionary a sociologist at Harvard, charted the decay of sexual morality in the West and elsewhere and accurately described the relationship between decaying sexual morality and the decay of society as a whole. His work is all but forgotten now—Mary Eberstadt is responsible for making me aware of his books—but it’s hard to think of another academic who could provide so much grist to Jones’s intellectual mill.

[Anonymous No.13346525]

>>13346494
dilate

[Anonymous No.13346528]

>>13346524
But upon closer reflection, it becomes clear why Sorokin is not given a prominent role in this work—much of Sorokin’s analysis is so similar to Jones’s, and so much better documented and argued, that Jones can’t help suffer by comparison. For example, Sorokin actually delves into the state of marriage laws at the beginning of the French Revolution and elsewhere. From the perspective of a scholar, Jones’s elision of this topic is unforgivable. Marriage laws provide an excellent barometer of a society’s opinions about sex and the family. But again, Jones’s scant bibliography leaves his general theory with nothing but interconnected anecdotes as support.

Bad writing, poor scholarship. But how does Jones’s thesis as a whole stand up? Not all that well. Jones, in his salutary hatred for the Enlightenment, cannot draw a distinction between the Behaviorist who was truly a product of Enlightenment ideology, and Sadism, which was not.

Take the Bolshevik Revolution, the Enlightenment’s crowning achievement. In the early 20s, the Bolsheviks used sexual liberation as a cudgel against the ruling elite, and the Soviets liberalized marriage laws, decriminalized homosexuality, and in general made the nation a hotbed of sexual decadence (Jones dedicates a whole chapter to this). But as Sorokin notes (as does Jones—a credit to his honesty though not his ability to follow through with a thought), by the time Stalin came to power, sexual liberation had been condemned by the ruling Communists, with sexual immorality being seen as harmful to the nascent socialist state. In other words, insofar as sexuality had played a role in the initial overthrow of the Romanovs, the powers of sex had been curtailed by the time the Communists were solidifying their power. Most good Marxists will claim that Stalin’s plans were a betrayal of the Old Master’s conception of socialism, and that by the time of Stalin’s reforms in the 20s and 30s, the “revolution” was over. But this is self-serving; Lenin and the NEP were far more conservative, insofar that it slowed the progress of state ownership to the benefit of wealthy landowners and peasants, than Stalin’s massive land redistribution and industrialization. The revolution (tainted or not) continued into the 20s and 30s. But in readopting marriage norms and recriminalizing the perverse, by the time of Stalin’s purges, the sexual revolution in the USSR had ended.

[Anonymous No.13346535]

>>13346528
Stalin’s return to sexual conservatism saved the Soviet Union. Witness its experience in the 30s and 40s—no nation has ever been subjected to such incessant turmoil, upheaval, and slaughter. And yet the population and economic statistics in the 50s and 60s were healthy. Why was this? Because Soviet women took it upon themselves to bear and raise children. For all the drastic changes which occurred following the revolution, the women never lost sight of their sexual significance to their families and—yes—to the state. It was this commitment to sexual normalcy that saved the Soviet Union. Amazingly, it was not until the imposition of capitalism that Russian birthrates plummeted to suicidal levels.

That was Russia, but the same story played out in revolutionary France. The libertine atmosphere of the early Revolution died out quickly. By the time Robespierre rose to power, sexual liberation was not a philosophy of the ruling government. English liberals may still have held onto pipe dreams of open marriages and orgies, but the revolutionary government certainly did not. Robespierre inveighed against atheists and wantons as fervently than a pope; go to nearly any of his speeches and try to find that does not put great emphasis on public virtue. Nowhere are Sade’s perversions evident in the Terror government or its successors; truly, even the liberal madmen who composed the French government were sane enough to lock up Sade. Virtue, not sexual vice, was what the revolutionary leaders wanted from their subjects.

Was the Russian revolution an outgrowth of the French Revolution and Enlightenment? Assuredly so. But the unifying thread was a belief in the prefectability of man. Sexual liberation was used as a tool of the revolution, but not as a tool of the government. Jones seems to suggest that liberal/Enlightenment government innately desires to use its subjects sexual desires as part of its ruling philosophy. But the facts just don’t back this up. Jones’s thinking in this regard is fatally muddled.

To put it simply, Jones is not able to draw a distinction between Malthus, who studied the sexual habits of a population in order to better the material prosperity of its members, and Sade, the anarchist. Malthus is a man of the Enlightenment; Sade is a character from human prehistory. The behaviorists and eugenicists were sex rationalists like Sanger, Watson, and the Rockefellers may have had their sexual failures (Jones doles out stories of these rather too readily), but Freud, Reich, and Kinsey were clearly of another breed—modern Sadists. These two programs are not the same. The Eugenicists and birth controllers had serious, broad political programs in line with the liberal state; the Sadists did not.

[Anonymous No.13346540]

>>13346535
Sadism is not a ruling philosophy. It is innately revolutionary, but has no power to govern. Part of its attraction to the New Left is in this revolutionary character. The lament of the leftists—the true leftist, who has revolution in his blood even when he has nothing to revolt against—is that beautiful insurgencies must inevitably become ruling parties. Thus the Trotskyite calls for “eternal revolution,” desiring to keep the springs of leftism flowing. This is impossible, of course; the closest a ruling regime ever came to this was in Mao’s disastrous Cultural Revolution. Regardless, the Trotskyite knew that the key retaining Bolshevism from turning into Stalinism was this “eternal revolution.” Sade's position comes close to this: that “the revolutionary state must promote sexual license if it is to remain revolutionary and retain its hold on power.” (p. 57). Of course, this is contradictory—a state that is revolutionary is one that is by definition not holding onto its power. Sadism is the fruit of a madman; but to put Sadists in power is a death wish.

This is the fascinating question: How did the rationalistic sexual regime of the first sexual revolutionaries transform into the wholly Sadist regime regnant in all levels of American culture? How has the Sadist impulse, which is eternally anarchic and revolutionary, come to be tolerated by the ruling class?

Jones gives us little towards answering this question. Unable to differentiate the sexual rationalists from the Sadists, he gives us little as to why we are mired in our current state of insanity. Indira Gandhi and the Chinese Communists promoted birth control; this doesn’t mean they promoted homosexuality and other ghastly perversions. Yes, they treated their citizens like rabbits, but from a Benthamite perspective, they could make an honest claim that they were benefiting the welfare of their citizenry. The means may have been oppressive, but the ends were rational and utilitarian. Malthus and Sanger would approve of everything but the skin pigments.

Compare this to modern Western Europe and North America. The “heights” of sexual gratification are wholly separated from the generative act—masturbation, anal sex, oral sex, and the like—and so births fall far below replacement rates. Unsexed demons are granted the civil right to expose themselves next to children, sexually deviant men given the right to undress amongst women, and the devious sodomite is allowed to corrupt every institution and poison every tradition: Sodomites in the Church rape children; sodomites in the County Attorney’s office prosecute the Church—change the institution, repeat.

[Anonymous No.13346545]

>>13346540
The American ruling class is not subject to the worst depredations of this increasing perversion—the proliferation of prostitutes and surrogate parenthood among the lower classes shows how the sexual slavery of the poor will proceed—and yet the ruling class sends its children to schools that teach the same filth. The elder-day Rockefellers forced their sexual oppression on the sons of the poor; the modern-day Rockefellers are content to turn their sons into daughters and their daughters into whores. It is not as if the lower classes were ruled by a Behaviorist ruling class anymore; Sadism runs all the way through.

One cannot understand the modern world without having a theory of suicide. Why are we slowly and intractably killing ourselves—letting our children be mutilated, our women defiled, every institution corrupted? Malcolm Muggeridge called this the “great liberal death wish;” no closed conspiracy of Illuminati or Jew, but an open adoption of self-hatred. The poison of the Enlightenment regimented and etiolated all man’s pleasures of life, from religion to art to childrearing; enslaved him to the state. The materialist is beggared in trying to describe the effects of these changes; the spiritual wounds are captured best in our rising suicide rates; more than this in our television and pornography consumption. Of course, the Enlightenment could not help but ruin sex as well. The unitive component of sex is destroyed by latex—man is so fragile compared to women, who require the complete corruption of their reproductive organs! Sex is no longer perilous. And the one death-defying (le petit morte,), heroic act decent men could perform with regularity has been turned to a rote messiness, closer to a bowel movement than a transcendental act.

This is another contradictory truth Jones cannot grasp: The problem of the modern sexual regime is that people do not enjoy sex enough! The regime imposes great suppression on its subjects; men and women are only allowed to enjoy sex so much. It would actually be an improvement if men were allowed to follow their libidos away from latex; if they were allowed to guide their fat, masculine girlfriends away from the pill. In the West, there is no oppressive regime as in China, no forced sterilizations as in India—but of course, this would require turning those girlfriends into wives… And meanwhile Western women despise the elements of their womanhood not conducive to male pleasure. They shave their pubic hair, mutilate their pudenda, despise the effects of childbirth, and contort their maternal impulses towards serving the state—witness the army of elementary teachers, social workers, youth ministers, medical caretakers: motherhood grafted onto the technostate. If women were to assert the rights they have had since Eve, our regime would break down. Why don’t they?

[Anonymous No.13346548]

>>13346545
Libido Dominandi should be a much better work. My anticipation of it was great; I yearned for a manifesto to stand like a beacon among the ocean of dross and squalor of the modern day. What I got was a poorly written, poorly researched, poorly argued, overpriced, oversized disappointment. Some of the stories are valuable—from the number of footnotes, Reich’s work seems more essential than Jones’s—yet the book as a whole is not worth the effort. E Michael Jones is a crank; I knew him from his scurrilous and cruel assault on Michael Voris, but also his compelling radio interviews; I hoped the mettle of his work would outweigh his unpleasantness. Nope. There are nuggets hidden in these 600 pages which are useful in combating the modern regime of sexual anarchy, but I wanted a cannon.

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

[Anonymous No.13346596]

>>13346494
Those are all good things though

[Anonymous No.13346647]

>>13346286
literally sauce

[Anonymous No.13346653]

>>13346596
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.13346702]

>>13346284
Priscilla is based

[Anonymous No.13346708]

post more tits.

[Anonymous No.13346984]

Priscilla is based

[Anonymous No.13346987]

>>13346653
>>>/reddit/

[Anonymous No.13346992]

>>13346548
>Gave Lolita one star

[Anonymous No.13347003]

One of the worst books I've read. The author can't write for shit, it's awful.

[Anonymous No.13347005]

>>13346284
Priscilla is based
;/

[Anonymous No.13347014]

E. Michael Jones is a low IQ hack. I know it, you know it, everyone knows it. Just look at his arguments for existence of god, or to support his main thesis. He's an absolute joke and a buffoon. If people in this thread aren't memeing, please get help.

[Anonymous No.13347120]

Bravo OP bravo...
HOWEVER

[Anonymous No.13348105]

>>13347014
I smell something.

[Anonymous No.13348373]

>>13346284
Priscilla is based

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!uGhKtsyJoov No.13348402]

>>13346284
Priscilla is based

[Anonymous No.13348403]

>>13347014
Libido Dominandi is indeed almost unreadable. I give the benefit of the doubt to anyone as transgressive as Jones but the fucker cannot organize his thoughts.

[Anonymous No.13348468]

>>13346284
Have sex.

[Anonymous No.13348505]

>>13346992
He gave Infinite Jest 1/5. I'll cut him some slack.

[Anonymous No.13348517]

>>13348105
You must have a pretty big nose, then

[Anonymous No.13348528]

>>13346510
>Hitler was a homosexual prostitute

[Anonymous No.13348598]

Priscilla is based

[Anonymous No.13348620]

Do poltards realise that this was originally a Marcuse theory?

[Anonymous No.13348643]

>>13348620
And?

[Anonymous No.13348649]

>>13346284
>Priscilla is based

[Anonymous No.13348674]

>>13346284
Jokes on you, my mom is already dead

[Anonymous No.13348675]

>>13346284
priscilla ia based


But so are big fat tits

[Anonymous No.13348719]

>>13346284
don't know who she is but Priscilla is based

[Anonymous No.13348732]

priscilla is based love you mom

[Anonymous No.13348794]

>>13346284
who does the Priscilla in " Priscilla is based " refer to? Is it the pretty girl in the op (still)? In which case, we have a name (ka-ching!).

[Anonymous No.13348876]

>>13348105
And what do you smell?

[Anonymous No.13348902]

>>13346286
>>13346288
Based niggas

[Anonymous No.13349311]

>>13346284
So he's essentially espousing the idea that sexual energy is creative energy that builds civilization. I see a similar proposition channeled by Rollo Tomassi and nofap groups. I somewhat believe in postnut clairty so you wouldn't fuck some girl you wouldn't care about on an emotional level but the former argues against it. I don't believe all energy is solely sexual but cumming more than 2 times a day can really drain any energy in him.

[Anonymous No.13349385]

>>13346284
Fuck you Priscilla is based

[Anonymous No.13349490]

...priscilla is...based?

what

[Anonymous No.13349644]

>>13346548
>E Michael Jones is a crank; I knew him from his scurrilous and cruel assault on Michael Voris

lol fag enabler.

[Anonymous No.13349866]

>>13346494
Based and truthpilled. Bad scholar is an understatement.

[Anonymous No.13350014]

>>13346510
>Hitler is a homosexual prostitute
>according to fucking igra (no citation required of course)
>the Nazis were also "notoriously" homosexual
people really believe this garbage?
http://auschwitz.org/en/history/categories-of-prisoners/homosexuals-a-separate-category-of-prisoners/robert-biedron-nazisms-pink-hell/
https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/dachau
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/maidanek.htm
>The system grew to include about 100 camps divided into two types: concentration camps for slave labor in nearby factories and death camps for the systematic extermination of "undesirables" including Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally retarded and others.
inb4 holocaust deniers

[Anonymous No.13350086]

>>13346524
>Even in his day, Sade was a literary and intellectual mediocrity. Chesterton makes the point that Nietzcheans have existed all throughout history; the only difference between those Nietzscheans and Nietzsche himself is that only moderns were so foolish as to take the man seriously. The same with Sade. He was a talentless buffoon with a rapport to the dark undercurrents of human nature; nothing he says is particularly interesting, but for the fact that Sade was able to get away with saying it was.
>Don't take them seriously! They are dumb, trust me!

[Anonymous No.13350123]

>>13350086
Yeah lol the reviewer is a slight brainlet but he still rapes Jones

[Anonymous No.13350140]

>>13346992
He gave Crying Lot of 49 two starts, so he's redeemed in my book.
>For all the changes of scenery, for all the panoply of characters, for all the languages and toe-dips into other disciplines, Pynchon is a trite and boring author. He has little greater depth or understanding than a first year grad student trying to amalgamate all he has learned into one sloppy work. For all his attempts at eclecticism, he has no ideas. There is not atheist versus Christian, liberal versus reactionary, monarchist versus liberal, only an army of homogeneous merry pranksters. One gets the impression that this may be intentional. If Pynchon is portraying an earth filled by empty vessels, Nietzsche’s last men, so be it. But the author can’t have it both ways—the last men can’t be pitiable proles and also be expected to hold a reader's attention when allowed to digress on politics and history. More than this, if it is possible to fill a good 800 page novel with such pitiable proles, we have not yet been offered proof.

[Anonymous No.13350146]

>>13350014
Not to defend Jones’s assertions but pre-1934 homosexuality was more tolerated among Nazi party members. The SA led by gay Röhm was probably ‘rife’ with homosexuality compared to the SS led by the homophobic Himmler.

[Anonymous No.13350194]

>>13350086
no surprise the guy that hates Sade and Nietzsche is a shallow moralist
>What Humbert does to filial relations Vladimir does to the artistic novel. Humbert’s perversions are restrained to the rape of one girl and this boring, depraved novel; Vladimir’s perversions have tainted generations of readers and destroyed the novel as art, a rape far more grotesque than Vladimir had in his power to represent.
>Both are vacuous tricksters, philosophic idiots, moral ingrates. Humbert takes his leave in the “refuge of art;” Vladimir in his “love for the English language.” No justification is strong enough, no literary artifice solid enough, to hide the fact that both men are very explicitly lauding, explicating, and justifying pedophilia. Foolish readers can delude themselves as well as Vladimir and Humbert that their affection for Vladimir’s/Humbert’s prose is what drives their love. Rubbish. The sexual predator Humbert is enabled by the sexual pervert Vladimir strapping moral blinders on his readers. The justifications used by Humbert for his rape are no better than those used by Vladimir to make the rape palatable and pleasurable to his sycophants. Humbert is one of the most despicable protagonists in Western letters, and Vladimir may be the most vacuous and stupid man ever to have gained notoriety from use of the English language.
Delicious ressentiment. Still a pretty fun reviewer to read, though.

[Anonymous No.13350226]

>>13350194
>>13350086
>>>/leftypol/

[Anonymous No.13350237]

>>13350194
The funny thing is he doesn’t seem to mind Vidal’s pederasty. Or Wilde’s.
>Anyone at all surprised by Gore Vidal’s pedophilia cannot be the kind of person who ever liked Gore Vidal in the first place. The man who recognized no distinctions between sexual proclivities—or if he did, did so with a discrimination usually seen only amongst Calvinist theologians—, the man who never lacked reason to cite the fraudulent Kinsey Report, was of course a man who took yearly holidays to Bangkok with little interest in learning Thai. In a sick way, it would almost be disappointing to find Vidal was not a pederast; the licentiousness and cruelty of the man pointed him to such perversion out of logical necessity, and if he hadn’t indulged in such Oriental pleasures he would have been admitting of great hipocrisy, which is after all the only mortal sin in our United States of Ambrosia.
Based and boypilled

[Anonymous No.13350272]

>>13350194
But Humber was the one that got raped.

[Anonymous No.13350281]

>>13350237
please do humanity a favour and hang yourself by the nearest lamppost.

[Anonymous No.13350327]

Why do you guys refuse to see the Jews for what they are?

[Anonymous No.13350338]

>>13350327
/pol/ is dumb and you must dissociate from anything that might seem /pol/ related or you will be seen as dumb by your peers and lose pseud cred.

[Anonymous No.13350400]

>>13350338
Pol is plenty retarded yes, but they're right on the Jews, once you see the truth it's kind of hard to ignore, you know?

[Anonymous No.13350404]

>>13350400
you're pretty dull anon

[Anonymous No.13350462]

>>13346284
Priscilla is Based

[Anonymous No.13350498]

>>13346284
>Like St. Augustine, the Marquis de Sade would agree that freedom was a function of morals.
>Sade, "lel it's all relative, your morals make you do good, mine make me do bad, but it's not bad. It's my morals"
The way the devil deceived Eve was by making her question what God said and His reasoning as to why he said it. Similarly, this lie falsely says everyone has their *individual* morals, thus, they are only slave when they go against their own wishes.

Keep in mind, this is all a matter of predisposition. Because for a greater majority of people, by embracing moral relativism makes it easier for them to make morally wrong decisions and to feel justified. Because they are their own authority on what is right and wrong, even when tempted to do something society would view as wrong. Whereas if they believed in objective morals, they wouldn't be relying on themselves as the authority to say one thing is good to do and another bad, but instead on that authority of *another* who is higher than themselves, the God's Word for example.

It's a model of objective universal morals which applies to everyone versus a model of subjective individual morals, where no one is wrong in their actions. It's easy to see which one would yield better fruit for the vast majority of people in the long term.

Now bare in mind, this is all a matter of predisposition. Because for a greater majority of people, embracing moral relativism makes it easier for them to make morally wrong decisions and to feel justified. Whereas if they believed in objective morals, they wouldn't be relying on themselves as the authority to say one thing is good to do and another bad, but instead on that authority of another, the God's Word for example.

Also interesting to note that the moral relativist model really requires a reliance on affirming yourself where as the objective view of morals means rejecting your self.
One view would more easily lead someone further down a path of the flesh and their impulses controlling them, but someone under the other system, of objective morals, rejects their impulses as a justification for their actions, thus rejecting themselves in a way that is profoundly different than the other, and thus relies on a system outside of themselves.

[Anonymous No.13350508]

>>13346284
Priscilla is based

[Anonymous No.13350516]

>>13350498
I reject objective morality as a truth claim. Prior to this I was a Catholic moralist but found the worldview untenable.

[Anonymous No.13350595]

>>13346284
Priscilla is based

[Anonymous No.13350965]

>>13346284
Priscilla is based

[Anonymous No.13350989]

>>13346284
Priscilla is based.
You coon

[Anonymous No.13351002]

>>13346284
i want to see that chicks tidds so bad breh :(

[Anonymous No.13351082]

>>13350516
Interesting. I guess my only question would be why you found it untenable? It seems logical to believe that objective morality comes from the Creator of the universe. I'm going to go out on a limb and ask that if before you rejected objective morality, did you first lose faith in Christ as God?

That's sort of seems like another subject, but it is married together because one points to the other. Once someone views creation without a purposeful Creator who designed everything, it does have an impact on how we view morality. Gives us the ultimate authority etc.

Also, look up objective morality articles by Catholic Answers and C.S. Lewis because they both have some compelling points for objective morality.

[Anonymous No.13351094]

>>13346548
>I yearned for a manifesto to stand like a beacon among the ocean of dross and squalor of the modern day.

this guy is such an affected homo, exactly what you would expect from a "reactionary" who writes long reviews for goodreads. you might as well be reviewing metal albums or videogames, dork. Wow, 4 stars for War and Peace! Now here we have a sophisticated gentleman who can say that yeah, it's good, but not quite a 5 star Chicken Burger Supreme if you know what I'm saying.

he's probably right about this book though, I tried to get into it and had to quit because its shit.

[Anonymous No.13351120]

Priscilla is based

[Anonymous No.13352000]

Priscilla is based

[Anonymous No.13352007]

>>13346284
open bobs

[Conchobar No.13352008]

>>13346284
Priscilla is based

[Anonymous No.13352196]

>>13346284
Priscilla is based

[Anonymous No.13352477]

>>13346284
Priscilla is based.

[Anonymous No.13353484]

Priscilla is based

nigger

[Anonymous No.13353627]

Can we talk about the book and not Priscila?

[Anonymous No.13353978]

>>13353627
why do you hate your own mother so much, anon?

[Anonymous No.13354225]

>>13346548
This is a very good review.

[Anonymous No.13354257]

>>13348643
Just funny that rightards bitch about >muh cultural marxism while being 40 years behind in plagiarising cultural marxist ideas.

[Anonymous No.13354790]

>>13346284
Priscilla is based

[Anonymous No.13355404]

>>13346284
>Priscilla is based

[Anonymous No.13355705]

>>13346548
That's a good review, but guy hates Jones too much. Book is still good, though.
Also, the eugenist and the sadist are the same person.

[Anonymous No.13356036]

>>13346284
Priscilla is based

[Anonymous No.13356169]

just read sloterdijk

he does all this way way better

[Anonymous No.13356176]

>>13350327
>what jews are
>literally scapegoats

i think i do see

[Anonymous No.13356181]

>>13346548
>Look, I posted it again!

[Anonymous No.13356213]

>>13346286
>t-that's not fair! I had time now, time to read that fag OP's post and skim this thread. I might have even made a post of my own! it's not fair! it's not fair! now I must jerk off to this big tiddy biddy

[Anonymous No.13356901]

>>13355705
>Book is still good, though.
Why?
>Also, the eugenist and the sadist are the same person.
You misunderstand the meanings of the terms. There may be, but is not necessarily, overlap within individuals (i.e. somebody with a totally vanilla or non-existent sex life can be in favor of eugenics)

[Anonymous No.13357011]

>>13356901
Read the book. The reviewer cherrypicked some rightfully retarded things, but there is much more content in it. Many things of what he said Jones also agrees with. He just wants to vent his rage for whatever reason.
Jones shows in his book on the examples that he picked that almost all eugenists were sexual deviants. Even if that's not true, sadists and eugenists intertwined between themselves very much and denying that relation is stupid. See Kinsey and the Rockefeller Foundation if you want a major example. It's the basic premise of the book so it's chock full of it.

[Anonymous No.13357285]

>>13346494
>anti-Semite
look rabbi, I posted it again