Sex and the Religious-Left

[Gary Childress]

I believe that this phase of polyamory and 'Femdom' comes naturally after post-great war victories. When Empires defeat their main rivalry (America and USSR beat Europe in the 1940s), then a period of 'Liberalism' occurs: sex, drugs, rock'n'roll, non-stop parties (1960-1999). Woodstock are examples of these Celebrations and Victories. The "problem" is, however, that the party doesn't last forever. And the Boomers don't realize this, even while they're dying-out. Their children, Gen X, Y, Z, were all instructed and indoctrinated with these 'Liberal' values, and are convinced that the "good times" will continue forever.

Is there some kind of problem at hand when people aren't out fighting wars? Is the enjoyment of life a problem?

[seeds]

...polyamory and 'Femdom' comes naturally after post-great war victories. When Empires defeat their main rivalry (America and USSR beat Europe in the 1940s), then a period of 'Liberalism' occurs: sex, drugs, rock'n'roll, non-stop parties (1960-1999). Woodstock are examples of these Celebrations and Victories.

Baloney!

The Vietnam war was raging at the time of Woodstock, and part of the underlying theme and spirit of Woodstock was to demonstrate (perhaps naively) that peace, love, and universal brotherhood is what humanity should be pursuing, instead of war and killing each other.

So, no, Woodstock was not an example of celebrating war victories, indeed, quite the opposite.
_______

[Wizard22]

Is there some kind of problem at hand when people aren't out fighting wars? Is the enjoyment of life a problem?

Yes, I believe so. Humans, and animals in general, have a 'problem' with eternal peace, or peace in general, because life-instincts are evolved to handle high-stress environments and surviving death.

Peace is the exception, not the rule.

[Wizard22]

Baloney!

The Vietnam war was raging at the time of Woodstock, and part of the underlying theme and spirit of Woodstock was to demonstrate (perhaps naively) that peace, love, and universal brotherhood is what humanity should be pursuing, instead of war and killing each other.

So, no, Woodstock was not an example of celebrating war victories, indeed, quite the opposite._______

I disagree seeds...my WWII grandparents and many others, explicity forbode or warned their children from joining the Army and going to fight in foreign wars after WWII, resulting in the generalized 'hippy' and 'free-sex' movements.

They are direct consequences and subsequent events of the post-WWII Victory.

Their attempts to "Liberate" Sex from Conservative, Traditional values, are still going strong today, although their damage is apparent and undeniable now.

[Wizard22]

Also, the Vietnam War was very contentious, because it represented what many Conservative Americans were conflicted with: Imperialism.

This created a split in the Conservative-Right-Republican Party, which resulted in the "Neo-Conservatives", who wanted, instigated, and explicitly funded foreign wars.

Are you a Neo-Con, seeds?

[Iwannaplato]

Also, the Vietnam War was very contentious, because it represented what many Conservative Americans were conflicted with: Imperialism.

I'm sure there were some Conservatives who were against the war, but Conservatives in general were vastly more prowar than the Left and even liberals. And Conservatives voted for neocons after the war much, much more than the Left did. Of course any Liberal candidate getting near the White House will have ties to the Neo Cons - with H.Clinton being one not merely having ties to it. But if we're going to pretend that Conservatives didn't support center neo-con candidates like Reagan and the Bushes, then we are in fanstasy land. You want a simple history, a binary history, like we're in Lord of the Rings with the Left as Mordor and Conservatives as the Fellowship of the Ring. Utter binary nonsense, where you don't have to notice the incredible responsibility Conservatives have for the situation we are in also. It sure as shit was not Conservatives shouting at Imperialism in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s. There may have be some quietly hating it, and a few writing about it. But in general that word was used in criticism by the Left.

But, Hell, let's just sweep anything uncomfortable under the rug.

[Wizard22]

Also, the Vietnam War was very contentious, because it represented what many Conservative Americans were conflicted with: Imperialism.

I'm sure there were some Conservatives who were against the war, but Conservatives in general were vastly more prowar than the Left and even liberals. And Conservatives voted for neocons after the war much, much more than the Left did. Of course any Liberal candidate getting near the White House will have ties to the Neo Cons - with H.Clinton being one not merely having ties to it. But if we're going to pretend that Conservatives didn't support center neo-con candidates like Reagan and the Bushes, then we are in fanstasy land. You want a simple history, a binary history, like we're in Lord of the Rings with the Left as Mordor and Conservatives as the Fellowship of the Ring. Utter binary nonsense, where you don't have to notice the incredible responsibility Conservatives have for the situation we are in also. It sure as shit was not Conservatives shouting at Imperialism in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s. There may have be some quietly hating it, and a few writing about it. But in general that word was used in criticism by the Left.

But, Hell, let's just sweep anything uncomfortable under the rug.

Are you American?

Lots of Conservative-Right, along with the Liberal-Left, were against Imperialism. These are considered the "Classical Liberal" Republicans and "Moderates". They are also the "Small Government" types who got trampled by the Evangelicals under the W. Bush Presidency. Libertarians were a small sub-section of that.

Neo-Conservatism came to prominence because 1) they were driven by the Israel/Zionist movement, 2) they were ex-Trotskyites expulsed from Eastern Europe, and 3) they feared a world in which America was not the absolute, undeniable, world military power.

[Alexis Jacobi]

It's not even necessarily the "Dissident-Right".

Here's Pearl Davis:

I believe that this phase of polyamory and 'Femdom' comes naturally after post-great war victories. When Empires defeat their main rivalry (America and USSR beat Europe in the 1940s), then a period of 'Liberalism' occurs: sex, drugs, rock'n'roll, non-stop parties (1960-1999). Woodstock are examples of these Celebrations and Victories. The "problem" is, however, that the party doesn't last forever. And the Boomers don't realize this, even while they're dying-out. Their children, Gen X, Y, Z, were all instructed and indoctrinated with these 'Liberal' values, and are convinced that the "good times" will continue forever.

But Westerners are finally waking-up and coming to the realization, that the Party was over two decades ago, and the Dark Times are coming.

...they're already here. The Boomers (like Hairball here), are a perfect representation of somebody who lives in the past, lives in the 90s or 00s, ignorant and blind to what's already been happening, or happening right now.

I had never heard of Pearl Davis and I find her presentations quite interesting. If by saying that Pearl Davis, though working in an area of challenging the range of choices women make and can make because of the support our culture gives to them, is not necessarily coming from a defined Radical Right or defined dissident and traditionalist position, I can agree (I only watched the video you submitted and a few others).

It seems she is working an angle of common sense in regard to such crucial issues as the lack of marriage solidity; the issues that arise when large percentages of women end up single and alone because their marriages fall apart (not to speak of the loss for men). From what I gathered she is questioning with a scathing focus the degree to which young women -- speaking generally -- are not thinking through the choices they are making when they are motivated by short-sighted advantages they can enjoy when young and sexually attractive.

I do not know if she is interested in examining these social problems, that are so consequential, with an attempt to trace the causes that have led to the present -- and I think fair to say *disastrous* situation -- for our culture, but it is obvious that she has found a large audience for her casually-delivered and somewhat extemporaneous monologues on these topics.

And I think that I could go along with you in saying that she is not working from a defined ideological position of many of the (quite intellectual and studied) exponents of Radical Right Dissidence (like Alain de Benoist, Jonathan Bowden, Greg Johnson and many others I could list). However, what she is doing, and what she is saying, is certainly part of a trend that has developed in the last decade (since I began paying attention). I think it is important to identify what that movement is and why it is developing and also where it will tend.

I had written:

Those who pay attention -- I wager that no one of those Terrible Opponents who write in these threads does -- to current events know that there is developing, and there has developed, a political and cultural position that is hard to categorize but let's call it Dissident Right for the sake of simplicity.

The view I have is that -- here I only comment on the denizens of this forum -- most of those who come out strongly in a mechanical and reflexive opposition to the ideas and perspectives you present (shotgun style), and also in opposition to much of what I think and write, do not and cannot see and identify the *crisis* that we are in. It is as though it does not show up on their radar of concerns. Flash and Sculptor for example can do nothing else but *bark* their opposition by screaming *Nazi!* (it really does resolve to this) but they do not seem to have a position of actual values that they are working with.

Gary has a somewhat more clear, and also common sense position but has no interest at all in examining the present conflicts and problems through a more holistic lens. So for example he does read Chomsky, and give assent to his views, but when challenged to examine the ideas of Renaud Camus (on the demographic changes being engineered on European nations and his own beloved France) Gary's mind snaps shut. And though Renaud Camus is so far on an opposite side of anything that could be called fascistic of Nazi-esque, nevertheless his discourse, even before it is heard and thought through, is associated with the same Ontological Malevolence that is referenced when the Nazi-emblem is blazoned. These are reflexive mental habits that have been instilled in us all through what can only be called PR-propaganda and cultural engineering.

Therefore, one important element here is a movement that begins a process of reverse-engineering. And the confrontation of what Tomislav Sunic calls Liberal Rot, and I call Hyper-Liberalism, by people who are really only just beginning to get their ideas clear.

This is an important factor. We are all *victims* of mass social engineering by powerful economic powers, concentrations of capital, and by elites with specific ideological positions, and very importantly by decades of Marxist agitators and activists, and it is when this is realized and brought out into the light for examination that one -- an average person -- can begin to examine the destructive consequences of the trends we are trying to identify.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The Vietnam war was raging at the time of Woodstock, and part of the underlying theme and spirit of Woodstock was to demonstrate (perhaps naively) that peace, love, and universal brotherhood is what humanity should be pursuing, instead of war and killing each other.

So, no, Woodstock was not an example of celebrating war victories, indeed, quite the opposite.

I have a few thoughts on this theme. My views have been influenced by a book that had a strong effect on how I see things: The Spirit of the Sixties: The Making of Postwar Radicalism by James Farrell.

His view is that a good deal of that spirit originated in Catholic Personalism. The so-called Ban the Bomb Movement that developed postwar is an example. Their opposition to the atomic bomb could only have been based on a sane anti-war and anti-mass annihilation platform. And when the roots of the movement are examined you find that people like Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin (Liberal Catholic radicals is the only way I could describe them) were very influential. Catholic personalism calls for a re-humanization of society and culture and for this reason tends Left, if the Right is in support of the existent power-structure and also the war-machine (as they would have and did call it).

There is no way that I can see to avoid understanding the intense degree to which such Personalism, and indeed Christian value and Catholic value, influenced the Sixties Movement. To see this you only need to examine a few (out of hundreds) of the popular songs -- such as Get Together and I Am the Light of this World.

Within American culture, and the American Experience, and if we are going to refer to a mass neo-religious gathering like Woodstock, I think we'd have to see it as a manifestation of The Great Awakenings:

The Great Awakening refers to a number of periods of religious revival in American Christian history. Historians and theologians identify three, or sometimes four, waves of increased religious enthusiasm between the early 18th century and the late 20th century. Each of these “Great Awakenings” was characterized by widespread revivals led by evangelical Protestant ministers, a sharp increase of interest in religion, a profound sense of conviction and redemption on the part of those affected, an increase in evangelical church membership, and the formation of new religious movements and denominations.

When you examine the fundamental philosophy of the Hippies you will not find a strict, doctrinal Christianity -- indeed you’ll find something radical and subversive to that in many ways -- but you will certainly find a sort of spirit or value-set that cannot be described as anything but Christian.

So, no, Woodstock was not an example of celebrating war victories, indeed, quite the opposite

Now comes the hard part: understanding how it is, and why it is, that Sixties Radicalism was also, along with some glorious and moving Personalism, a wild and brazen effort by inexperienced youth to break down established categories and to defy and oppose authority and structures of authority. What turned me around (in relation kto understanding this) was Robert Bork's book Slouching Toward Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline:

In this New York Times bestselling book, Robert H. Bork, our country's most distinguished conservative scholar, offers a prophetic and unprecedented view of a culture in decline, a nation in such serious moral trouble that its very foundation is crumbling: a nation that slouches not towards the Bethlehem envisioned by the poet Yeats in 1919, but towards Gomorrah.

Slouching Towards Gomorrah is a penetrating, devastatingly insightful exposé of a country in crisis at the end of the millennium, where the rise of modern liberalism, which stresses the dual forces of radical egalitarianism (the equality of outcomes rather than opportunities) and radical individualism (the drastic reduction of limits to personal gratification), has undermined our culture, our intellect, and our morality.

I believe that at least on some levels the view I have could be seen as similar in some ways to that of Iwanaplato. I do not think we can, and indeed we should not, see things through forced or artificially constraining binaries -- though these are convenient. I will say that we face, and beyond all doubt, dramatic and very real moral crises and crises of value and definition of value.

There is no easy way out of this.
____________________________

For fun: "Let's Split".

A curious fact: You always have to attract and seduce the women first. In a way this doubles back to what Pearl Davis is now working against. She is trying to show how women, and their own best interests, are not being served by some modern processes and trends.

Finally, consider the thesis of Sexual Suicide by George Gilder (reviewed in Kirkus Review). I will only say that Gilder was prescient and the perspectives in this review seem to me short-sighted and opinionated (typical of that date and time):

SEXUAL SUICIDE
BY GEORGE GILDER NOV. 1, 1973

Sure as night follows day Women's Liberation was bound to precipitate a male counterthrust and Glider's is as provoking and maddening a polemic as any we've encountered to date. He may not know it, but he shares a good many feminist views, in particular his contention that male sexuality -- when not harnessed and subjugated to the "long-term rhythms and perspectives" of the woman -- is a wayward, transient hit-and-run phenomenon of hedonistic opportunism and impulse.

Gilder asserts categorically the sexual superiority of women ("males are the sexual outsiders and inferiors"); in fact he has very little good to say about his own sex -- left to their own devices men are asocial, predatory and dangerous to society. But the conclusions he draws from all this are not only startling but downright perverse. Using a smattering of idiosyncratic anthropology, he concludes only traditional monogamy can save the man; and marriage is the bedrock of Western Civilization. Ipso facto, Women's Lib and its goals -- abortion on demand, child-care centers, equal pay for equal work -- will be the ruination of us all.

Anything that takes the woman out of the home will add to the male sense of redundancy, impotence and rootlessness; take away his age-old role as protector and provider and he will turn to drugs, pornography, marauding, rape and killing. "The steady erosion of the key conditions of male socialization" which we are today witnessing will cause general social disintegration. As a symptom of the masculine identity crisis this is a very poignant book. As a critique (brief) of the shallow shibboleths of Open Marriage it's right on. But the remedies for male anomie which Gilder proposes (in all seriousness) would return women to abject dependence, barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. Which is about as reactionary a non-solution as we can envision.

[seeds]

Also, the Vietnam War was very contentious, because it represented what many Conservative Americans were conflicted with: Imperialism.

This created a split in the Conservative-Right-Republican Party, which resulted in the "Neo-Conservatives", who wanted, instigated, and explicitly funded foreign wars.

Are you a Neo-Con, seeds?

According to Wiki, a neoconservative in simple terms is...

• Left-Liberal political movement in the United States advocating an aggressive, interventionist foreign policy. Neoconservatism (often shortened as neocon) is a form of American conservatism that emphasizes an aggressive American foreign policy.

Does the space cadet (me) in this video...

https://youtu.be/bVbpHy4nncA

...look and sound like a "Neo-Con" to you?
_______

[seeds]

The Vietnam war was raging at the time of Woodstock, and part of the underlying theme and spirit of Woodstock was to demonstrate (perhaps naively) that peace, love, and universal brotherhood is what humanity should be pursuing, instead of war and killing each other.

So, no, Woodstock was not an example of celebrating war victories, indeed, quite the opposite.

I have a few thoughts on this theme....

...For fun: "Let's Split".

Isn't it interesting how a film released in 1969 (Easy Rider) clearly shows the American societal gene pool from which the modern day Trumpian "Maga-Movement" arose.

Indeed, if the Trump supporters on this forum want to see how relatively sane people view them, then all they have to do is look at the good ol' boys in the restaurant in that YouTube clip you provided and there they are.
_______

[Alexis Jacobi]

Indeed, if the Trump supporters on this forum want to see how relatively sane people view them, then all they have to do is look at the good ol' boys in the restaurant in that YouTube clip you provided and there they are.

The MAGA Movement is better associated with the Northern workingman. Seeds, did you ever see this clip? I have posted it a few times over the months.

Note: I am voting for Trump. I could of course explain my reasons . . .

[seeds]

Indeed, if the Trump supporters on this forum want to see how relatively sane people view them, then all they have to do is look at the good ol' boys in the restaurant in that YouTube clip you provided and there they are.

Note: I am voting for Trump. . . .

I've always enjoyed reading your posts, AJ, because you seem to be well read and, especially, because you are an excellent wordsmith.

Now I realize that you probably couldn't care less about what I am going to say here,...

...but, unfortunately, now that I've witnessed you saying the quiet part out loud ("I am voting for Trump"), I will never be able to not see a huge scarlet letter T as a watermark on the page behind anything you have said in the past, or will say in the future.

Personally, I feel that all politicians are lying, self-serving narcissists who cannot be trusted.

However, for you to openly support promoting the lyingest, most self-serving and narcissistic of them all - Donald Trump...

(which some people actually believe is the freakin' Anti-Christ, for cryin' out loud - https://youtu.be/SQN7y5I9poc )

...to the highest and most powerful political position in the country (if not the world),...

...taints your ideas, and theories, and beautifully written prose with the stench of being offered by someone whose judgment and powers of discernment are highly questionable.

Now, to be clear, that's not to say that Donald Trump isn't the right person for the job.

No, because as I stated in a thread back in 2016, just a few days before he was elected in his run against Hillary Clinton...

...as far as this bizarre “reality show” of an election is concerned,...

...unfortunately, at this point in time in what I and many others believe is just a short prelude to the impending and seemingly unavoidable collapse of the economy and social order, I don’t think it matters that much who becomes president.

In which case (and sadly speaking), because America seems to be morphing into a caricature of its own greed and narcissism, then what better person is there to represent this awful caricature than Donald Trump?

And in reference to what you stated above, I suggest that as we see a person like Trump rising to the peak of American politics...

(kind of like pus rising to the head of a boil )

...we are in essence witnessing the slow but inevitable workings of karma as the U.S. is about to reap the returns of that which it has been sowing around the world over the last six or so decades.

_______

[Alexis Jacobi]

I will vote for Trump not because of some virtue in him, but more because he represents a movement which, I hope (but doubt) might confront the entrenched political establishment.

[Dubious]

Note: I am voting for Trump. I could of course explain my reasons . . .

What I would do instead is to put Putin's poodle on a plane, dump him in the middle of the Atlantic, and hope there are a lot of hungry sharks nearby...all the reasons profusely supplied by Mr. Trump himself.