Libido Dominandi

Can we discuss this book?
I came accross this book after watching the video You from nobody tm. You can find it in youtube.

This book (libido dominandi) discusses how sexual liberation became an instrument of control.

So far, I've only finished reading part 1, where it more or less is just a historical review of how sexual liberation (passion) lead to chaos, which invariably made a lot of people seek a way of creating order from that chaos and particularly through the use of human passion. I think it's alright, I'm ignorant of the lives of the people the author mentions, but the part where he calls Nietszche a sexual terrorists and tries to paint him as some degenerate freak by trying to make it seem like he got syphilis on purpose is dishonesty of the same type the people he writes about in this book might be inclined to use.

That and how he likes to claim that the old morality (christian) is superior to whatever the fuck the enlightement thinkers were coming up with, but doesn't explain how.

This book could have only been written by a Christian since the question of sex is something only a Christian would concern himself with in a negative light, but to be honest the man's religiousity only hurts his point more than help it (at least for part 1, the book is a long ass read with more a little more than 1000 pages)

All in all I wish it was an atheist or a person truly neutral who would have written this (or at least someone who knows a fact about nietszche than hearsay).

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.is/WxZsU
jcpa.org/article/neo-paganism-in-the-public-square-and-its-relevance-to-judaism/
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Sex (lewd things) isnt necessary from a fedora point of view, just check star trek spock homeworld, even christians know that.

well, what I meant was that only a christian would get butthurt enough about free love to write a book discussing it negatively and thoroughly (which is a good thing because he [the writer] was motivated enough to learn and later on share what he learnt)

First, changing the subject, second, whores in this time and age are literally bioterrorists, again, from a fedora point of view, even christians know that.

According to viri and all biology books we must burn clubs to the ground.

This is a garbage Catholic faggotry readaptation of Foucault's central insights concerning "sexual liberation." If you really want to know how the (((Freudians etc))) used the 60s sexual liberation movements as control mechanisms, then read History of Sexuality, or in general become familiar with Foucault's work
yeah, pretty sure Socrates, Plato, da Vinci, a number of others were faggots, closet or otherwise. That doesn't mean they didn't do good work.


Also, I should note, that I learned the basics of mememagick years before Holla Forums by reading Foucault and other French (post)structuralists/moderists

I've had sex with almost 60 women, most without a condom, and have never had VD. niggers (and poor people) are bioweapons, not women

Well, the way the author presents it, sexual liberation leads to anarchy. Given that as the case, then a control system must arise to control people after their passions have been liberated. So far in part one, it seems that the task was to create control out of the passions themselves.

Have not read the book, but in short:

Inhibition/Taboo form the foundations of culture and society. Would "taboo" even be necessary if there was no impulse to begin with? All moral systems and commandments are just techniques of inhibition and adequate sublimation aimed at stabilizing a forming social organism (culture).

Sexuality, being one of the fundamental impulses, is thus one of the first that must be forbidden (after "aggression").

What we inhibit, finds another way out (sublimation). Sexuality into creativity, aggression into productiveness, etc. Inhibit too much and the impulse transforms into a form of sexual fetishism (orgasm is a dopamine-rush that satisfies several tensions at once. Hint hint). The key is to finding a healthy balance - enough inhibition to maintain social structure, not too much so as to over-pressurize it.

Separate the concepts of passion and love.
Love is something that includes patience, foresight, thought.
Passion is blind, groping for the closest thing at hand. Passion leads down paths that love would avoid.

The old Christian morality is superior to enlightenment, if gross happiness compared to gross misery are the comparing factors. Ask the nobles of France if the morals of the enlightenment are good, ask the poor if it gave them more bread a day, ask the French of now if a religous tolerance has led to good neighbours in the cities.

Nietszche, or anyone for that matter, who gets syphilis gets exactly what was coming. He and all who get such follow passion rather than love. Love would have him find a girl to wed and stick to her.

So much nonsense and stupidity…


Check your mind, seriously

I think anyone could agree with that, repression (or inhibition and taboo) give rise to modern civilization (at least it was necessary for it). What this book argues however, is that as repression and taboo begin to fade away, the "pillars" of society begin to crumble. Rulers don't want this to happen, so it becomes necessary for them to figure out how to control people after they've done away with the old moral system. This is the subject of the book.

E. Michael Jones is a great philosopher.

I've only scanned the book, but I've listened to several interviews with him about it, one just the other day. That's not my understanding of his argument at all. Basically, it sounds to me like his basic argument is: people will accept being poor and powerless if you let them live in a perpetual orgy


There are actually some strong "Marxist" arguments inherent in the book. For instance, he whines about wage stagnation and corporatocracy and stuff like that

i don't think that's what he's saying at all. that's traditional "repression" theory


sorry, too busy getting laid, you kissless virgin. also, not an argument

In reality they are using for a new model, people is fighting for their right to have sex, no more house, decent food or anything, from people that owned a house we are "advancing" to a lonely being that doesnt have anything, but is happy having sex with xir workgroup, basic communism.


sorry, too busy getting laid, you kissless virgin. also, not an argument


It is, i never said that women=whores, you did and it doesnt matter if i ever kissed a girl or not (ask my ex wife).

Perhaps he will make that point later on in the book. Part one discusses the French revolution and the Enlightenment

It may not be his central argument, but he does continuously point out how unrestrained passions lead to chaos, and how the illuminati tried using human passion for control (he doesn't explain how and I was actually trying to figure it out, but I think it makes sense the way you said it does: by making them content in misery).

blah blah blah, christfaggery yada yada yada. hey, go get laid while you're still young, you pussy. your future wife will thank you for all the tricks you learn. if not, then expect a NEETsoc liek me to be satisfying her while you're wagecucking away. I'll probably impregnate her on purpose just so I can laugh about you raising my child wouldn't be the first time

Just check feminists, they are fighting for passion, every day stronger untill hungry hit again, then the system will be remade, state owned workgroups with free sex like bonobos.

Stop embarrasing yourself please.

that's most of what I've heard him say in interviews. You have to watch out bc he's a fucking Catholic, so he's going to do everything he can to try to switch it all around into some defense of the ancien regime, and that's absolute garbage. That's why I said you're better off reading Foucault.

Foucault goes even further. He says that instead of "chastity" and [insert faggot shit the preachers says here] being the mental control mechanism - the "programming" that controls how you live your life - suddenly sexual liberation is. So, instead of people walking around asking themselves "have I been a good person today" and "what will god think" they are walking around asking themselves "what would my shirnk say" and "am I getting the most out of my 'sex life'" – Foucault points out that the very idea of a sex life is part of the programming. If you asked somebody previous to, say, 1960 how was their "sex life" they wouldn't even know what you were talking about, even if you go back to "decadent" times like Rome or whatever. You fucked or you didn't; you didn't have "sex lives"

that's what Foucault says anyway


is that why you stopped trying to get laid? so you'd stop embarrassing yourself?

Don't worry, I'm immune to proselytizing and to be honest I find his catholicism distasteful. I'll check out Foucault after I'm done reading this book as some post-propaganda mouthwash.

Boy, is like the parasites are speaking for you trying to get more hosts and new dna.

Sex isnt necessary, you have to control it, you are not free for having sex with everything that moves.

Jones seems alright from what i can tell. Just remember the propaganda is usually in the frame not the facts. as long as you remember that, you'll probably be fine


this post is completely incoherent, but I'll just respond by saying that when I was a young man I wanted to fuck everything and I made a pretty good job of it. now that i'm older i've set my eyes to other things (for the most part) nothing to be embarrassed about; just part of the cycle of life.

the only thing to be embarrassed about is not living

Well checking out the frame set out in the first part of the book (which goes at least for the first 160 pages of the epub i downloaded), it's basically

To me it's more a matter of having one's personal reputation be personally soiled. Kind of like getting out of college and having to deal with a bunch of debt. Why is it necessary to pay this price in order to become an active voice in public matters? Worse, some of us respond to threads and devote our lives to being puppets on a string, for nothing better than a little more of the same.

threads? threats.

Thats because of shame, user. People are shameful of some stuff and they know it, hence they use it to control you. Since they control the network, and if you want to be a part of it, they invariably need to control you, and one way to do this is through your shame.

But the only way to rid myself of shame and not be ground to dust by the order's useful idiots is to unleash military force. Dilemma.

Christianity deals with sexuality with suppression and repression, which leads to frustration and consequently "forbidden desires" and fetishes.

That's a huge point of E. Michael Jones', is that we are losing our moral force by not being good Catholics. They dangle the carrot, and most of us are corrupted by it. Then who can help us? Then we must appeal to other means, or it would seem that way from my current view.

No, but whatever you want to lie about.

For fuck's sake stop acting like you have absolutely no agency when it comes to your sexuality.

:^)
Seriously, even to this day Japanese Video Games, Anime, Cartoons, WHATEVER is HEAVILY censored in the USA due to this.
In the Middle Ages then? Wow.

Go read a history book and stop believing everything your priest vomits.

you can also reform yourself under christianity and repent, then you will be able to admit that you were once under the spell of the devil and have become a better man.

to quote jesus:i don't condemn you. go and sin no more

Idiot, in a society where every form of sexuality is taboo, to the point of having sex still clothed, of course people will have frustration.

Just act normally regarding that, you'll not have any fetish.

This sort of brilliance is what ought to be understood makes a uniquely European religion. The best part is, you can even act the part and indeed become a better man.

I'm so sick of this, enough is enough! I consider myself agnostic, but the relentless and incredibly hateful attacks on Christianity by obvious paid shitposters has really made me reconsider my stance. It's straight up suspicious how many resources are being funneled towards Christian-bashing when there's so many seemingly unrelated scandals going on that appear to be far more urgent targets for suppression. Those issues are losing crucial funding simply to spread very angry strawman rants against a religion that isn't even very influential nowadays. I'm beginning to think there's something they really don't want us to see, that's clearly connected to current events.

It turns out the lie I'd always taken for granted, the "Satanists are just sarcastically pointing out the stupidity of religious doctrine and don't actually believe in God/Satan or have serious rituals" meme has been exposed as a complete trickster fabrication. They really DO believe in the devil, and by extension the Christian God they work overtime posting online to convince us is fake and powerless. They really do go out of their way to conduct rituals and set up global syndicates with a strict and very real goal of worshipping or providing support and sacrifices to Satan. They base the way they live their entire lives, the careers they choose and devote years of study to infiltrate, their entertainment(and by extension ours), the way they spend their wealth and even what they eat on an actual legitimate belief in something they turn around and tell us is silly shenanigans with no place in the modern world. They pay people real money to spam the internet saying it's fake quackery while literally worshipping an entity that can not exist unless it is indeed TRUE.

If you believe in meme magic: guess which God, religious text, and religion has been memed harder than any other in human history? If humans do influence the direction of the world through our collective energy - as countless current year events and in fact the whole of human history strongly suggest, then perhaps God is real. This is also entirely compatible with the scientific view of a multiverse, as a certain number of universes(arguably even the majority as godless liberals often argue) would inevitably be "artificial" and have a creator or god: whether it's simply a nerd running advanced simulations in a futuristic lab of supercomputers or something more meaningful and invested in the outcome. The chance that the Christian God rules this particular universe is too strong to ignore.

We all need to open our fucking eyes and stop discounting the mountains of evidence right under our noses. Anyone using terms like "Christcucks" and "Christfags" are not one of us. We are not filled with illogical hatred, especially for those who are most in support of our agenda. Reason, not emotion, is what guides us. Always question motive and ask yourself how spreading contempt for the whitest and most based religion out there could possibly advance our cause. We need to get to the bottom of this propaganda war and ask ourselves why half the comments in every thread, even completely unrelated threads, are apparent outsiders spewing venom about something hardly even discussed here. Their hatred runs very, very deep. Why? Even when I considered myself atheist I did not share anywhere near the level of disrespect and personal offense we're seeing more and more often on this board.

WHAT ARE THEY SO AFRAID OF?

is this pasta?

the bible never taught anything as ridiculous as this

1 rule:
get married before having sex

...

Is it back in print? last time i checked it was out of stock.

I downloaded a copy off from some old ass post in 8ch. You could check on your preferred book provider/amazon.

E.Michael Jones is right about so much. But D&C 'kike on a stick' shilling is not far behind, in spite of what some important people in the older portions of the movement know (Michael A. Hoffman).

EMJ is based; here's his youtube channel.
Embed related is still the best summary of the Neocon problem that I've heard.

Christcucks BTFO

Meanwhile, most of Holla Forums views (((sexual liberation))) in a massively negative light (and rightly so), though most of them are non-christian, and spread the same overall message around freely as a more modern day "author" of sorts


Its a valid point, they took part in the same degeneracy that has corrupted and undermined western civilization, its fair to point this out. Its also fair to say that they've seen the beast from the inside and know just how tainted and foul it truly is, giving them the insight that not many have (we are exceptions, most "normies" dont view sexual liberation as a bad thing because they arent looking objectively at the whole picture, so just because WE can see the beast for what it is inside and out, doesnt mean normal people can or will, so a would-be normie going degenerate and realizing their errors and then trying to warn others is useful.. there are other fags and the like that come out and try to warn others even today about the horrors and ills that this degeneracy brings with it, they just dont have a far reaching voice and very few even listen)

How about finishing the book before giddily coming here to post about it, user.

Foucault was a sexual deviant and a fag who happened to be blessed with intellect, which he misused for his entire life, saying very little of actual import.

Libido Dominadi is best read after a thorough treatment of Catholic sexual morality as it acts as a means of "connecting the dots" so to speak, between the teaching of the Church, and the political ramifications of failing to uphold them, and the purpose behind degrading them.

Sure thing.

Fuck it I'll bite. Why shouldn't I watch porn? I have more of a problem sitting on my lazy ass all day posting on Holla Forums than I do watching porn.

...

The jew sure likes you. Better yourself, user.

You're on here now aren't you?
Vague. How?

Huh?


Stopping your addictions to the internet and porn would be the first step. How much can I advise you on how to live your life in the apocalyptic ruin of the jew's world? Well, for starters lifting weights, sports, reading, being outdoors, eating wholesome, healthy foods, spending your energy and attention in something that will make you better. Porn and shitposting will ruin your life.

You're posting here, I'm posting here. Sorry, wasn't too specific. The difference is that I can't pull the fuck away unless I'm going to collapse, which I'm not, so I will be on here for another good several hours.

I've tried working out, going for walks, reading. Always end up back here, browsing page, after page, after page. Contemplating just moving into the fucking woods honestly.

it's over 1000 pages long I'm having trouble even remembering how the order of the illuminaty is connected to the french revolution after only reading 150, i'd rather have what i have read (the information) cement itself in my mind before i keep going on, just for reference.

All repression is an enemy to freedom.

Do it. Do something, some kind of healthy action that will break you away. I know what you mean by you can't stop until you're going to collapse. You need to channel that into something positive. You really will just fuck up your life if you keep this up and spend your youth shitposting and masturbating.

If you are white, I really hope you get out of the sick cycle and become something you can be proud of. I'm working on that too, where I can truly be proud of myself. You say you can't break away, that you're always coming back here. But your will can be stronger than that, and you know it deep down. Why would you want to be a slave to your own lower tendencies? You can break out of it if you truly want to. /pol isn't even that good anymore!

I'm going to bed now, user. Best of luck.

Mad losers need to get laid, lol. I fucked over 70+ chicks bareback. I'm saving the white race, and don't even need to be cucked or tied down to do it. Christfaggots be mad, because they can't have FUN

My life is already fucked up because of my idiocy. I'm wondering if I can unfuck it, as I'm only in my early 20s and "it could always be worse." At least I'm not shooting up dope.

I don't, and I'm realizing that with age.

Best of luck to you as well and have a great night.

Here, here. Reminds me about the repentance of Oliver Wilde on his death bed. The libertines like to say it was coerced by the circumstances of his oppression, but he spoke privately with fellow homosexuals about how he had never actually loved a single man he had slept with.

Worshiping Freedom for it's own sake is pointless. Choice exists that we may choose something, which in turn limits our choices, for a choice without obligation is not a manly decision made in confidence, but a childish whim to be forgotten at one's leisure.

“The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do what they please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations which may be soon turned into complaints.” - Edmund Burke

It's quite possible that you're retarded.

Why does this LARPing faggot use youtube videos to post text? He's like a retarded Ted Kaczynski

You sound like a fucking loser who is compensating for something. Who brags about the amount of women they fuck? People with uninteresting lives.

...

...

I'm not an atheist but I'd rather not make this about myself since my inner narcissist gets giddy at the idea of telling a complete stranger about myself :^)

Parasites forcing you to have sex are real, thats a proved fact, that video is shitty as fuck, but is based on facts, your book can be the next Hamlet, but is based on opinions.

"Sexual repression" is literally a Jewish Freudian psychological invention designed to exert control over people through suggestion by implying that normal healthy socially beneficial sexuality is somehow disordered.

Read some Kevin McDonald faggot.

Enjoy being a good goy.

...

Europeans must be immune then, since procreation has all but ceased with them.

another form you can find out if you're repressed is if you're spouting 'muh virtue' while being addicted to porn

either way, even if it's not your case it was elliot rodgers and several other persons. to believe sexual repression doesn't exist or is just an invention is being naive at best, disinformative at worse.

i googled him and he's behind invader zim and that 70s show? I'm usually not one to judge a man's profession behind his philosophy. I'm in a completely unrelated to philosophy profession myself, but I'm sincerely confused.


who the hell is even talking about those animal sacrificing savages?

MacDonald*


You're either a newfag, of you willfully ignore the severe negative consequences of the "sexual revolution" on Western society. It's going to be the thing that kills us.

The sexual revolution, at the very least how it happened during the enlightenment indeed seems like a venomous ideology which lead to murder and debauchery at the hands of one man to another, and is not at all with what I'm talking about.

Sexual liberation, in my opinion, is to do what you want to do (sexually) without fear of shame or guilt. I don't mind people being educated about how being promiscuous might affect your pair-bonding abilities and your reward centers, because those are very real dangers and indeed might have us end up like the societies (if you can call them that) negros manage in their own ghettos. All in all, I believe in doing what you want to do out of love in the action, not because of guilt or even "consciousness." Anyone who does a thing not out of his own desire but of the consequences cannot be virtuous or moral, only a slave.

...

I'm convinced you're either a shill or a newfag, no one could be this stupid otherwise.

to be honest I am unfamiliar with both. What I know about EMJ I know about what he said in the video I mentioned in the OP and what little I've read in the book. To Michel Foucault I know he was a homosexual frog into BDSM and a post-structuralist which sounds like a mortally boring read.

Please, continue, you're doing a fine job of making your point, which was what again?

You don't know either Kevin MacDonald (bad goy) or Foucault (best goy). Who let this pleb in?

There's nothing to argue; you've never had any arguments to begin with.

I do remember reading the title (only the title) of "culture of critique" years ago. does that count?

Take it to /lit/, faggot

How can you spend so much time in a single thread and not learn a goddamn thing?

“The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do what they please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations which may be soon turned into complaints.” - Edmund Burke

It's quite possible that you're retarded.

First argument.


Read some Kevin McDonald faggot.

Enjoy being a good goy.

Second argument.


Third argument

lol

I read a few more pages of libido dominandi and then began playing castle crashers until morning and hourly checked this thread to see who replied


I refuted your first argument. You believe that freedom is inherently wrong because people can choose to make mistakes. Instead of experimenting you decide to let (((tradition))) dictate your behavior. In other words, you're a cuck.


blatant lie, anyone who's been up to date in the news (or being familiar with individuals who take the sex is a sin meme too far) can tell sexual repression can exist

:^)

.

"The more I debated with them the more familiar I became with their argumentative tactics. At the outset they counted upon the stupidity of their opponents, but when they got so entangled that they could not find a way out they played the trick of acting as innocent simpletons. Should they fail, in spite of their tricks of logic, they acted as if they could not understand the counter arguments and bolted away to another field of discussion. They would lay down truisms and platitudes; and, if you accepted these, then they were applied to other problems and matters of an essentially different nature from the original theme. If you faced them with this point they would escape again, and you could not bring them to make any precise statement. Whenever one tried to get a firm grip on any of these apostles one's hand grasped only jelly and slime which slipped through the fingers and combined again into a solid mass a moment afterwards. If your adversary felt forced to give in to your argument, on account of the observers present, and if you then thought that at last you had gained ground, a surprise was in store for you on the following day. The Jew would be utterly oblivious to what had happened the day before, and he would start once again by repeating his former absurdities, as if nothing had happened. Should you become indignant and remind him of yesterday's defeat, he pretended astonishment and could not remember anything, except that on the previous day he had proved that his statements were correct. Sometimes I was dumbfounded. I do not know what amazed me the more – the abundance of their verbiage or the artful way in which they dressed up their falsehoods. I gradually came to hate them." - Adolf Hitler

right, it's less refutation and more like disagreement. I haven't slept in several hours and my eyes ache and I can barely write coherent sentences.

You can get it on library genesis

Then gtfo of here and come back coherent faggot.

Jeez.

Stop replying to me then. I have no interest in your corpse-worshipping morality.

Well actually you can try and proselytize for others and teach them that touching your weenie is going to lead to 1984 or whatever.

Glad I'm not the only one who has noticed this. According to Jesus the Pharisees (who became the Jews we have today - also known as 'Talmudists', and distinct from the majority of the Israelites/Hebrews of old) are the children of the devil; they exist do his will. Mohamed believed initially that the angel that was telling him what to write in the koran was a devil- but his wife convinced him otherwise (reminds me somewhat of Adam and Eve; never trust a woman) - the Bible goes so far as to characterise the devil as one that 'masquerades as an angel of lightt' - which funnily enough is the exact description given to the angel that spoke to Mohamed (though according to the muslims it was Gabriel, not Satan - but then Satan is known for deceit, so why should we think he wouldn't lie about who he is?).

So that's jews and muslims shilling for the devil. Now what about these 'kekites'? … Well it reminds me an awful lot of all the Israelites who followed Moses out of Egypt. He goes up the mountain to get the 10 Commandments - everything is going well - he comes back and finds all the people giving thanks to false gods and idols, and claiming their salvation is due to them. Well after a long time of prayer and spiritual warfare on the part of Christians throughout the West - the enemy has finally started to be defeated, with 2016 being a landmark year for us. But now that we are winning and everything is going well, what do the plebs do? They claim some egyptian frog that represents chaos as their idol, and rather than glorifying the Creator they glorify the created.

For a long time people warned against kek and they were told it was just a joke. I'm sure it still is to some, but the devil works quickly and has already stolen many from here away. Its sad to see Holla Forums mirror the fate of the 'jews', replete with idolatry, hatred for God, disdain for morality (this thread!!), a love of evil (many seem to genuinely desire violence and bloodshed as opposed to justice now) and even self-worship. You idiots are becoming the accursed people in the exact same ways that we are told about in the Bible; making the exact same mistakes that led to God destroying Israel and Judah and cursing those people (who are now jews) forever.

christianity and judaism are all anti-nature religions.

They attack the very nature of the life giving sex force itself. How could you be so stupid as to deny that christianity promotes chastity?

What? You finally admit christianity promotes pedophilia?

Two things are not ‘all’. Learn English.
Christianity isn’t.
Nice strawman.
And reported for not even trying.

Okay, reported.

Hi, intl.

It were the primal forces of Chaos that created this world, not your Jewish demon YHWH. You Cuckstains still fail to understand that Chaos is potential manifest, not some discordian force of Evil, and its very existence is anathema to the Jews who depend on their false Order to survive. Just take a look at how they fear chaotic Nature and Nature religions:
archive.is/WxZsU
jcpa.org/article/neo-paganism-in-the-public-square-and-its-relevance-to-judaism/

I like how you cite the false Book of Exodus in your post because that very book is a perfect example of how deplorably Kikey your precious Moses and his Israelites were when they committed blood magic at the command of YHWH to kill Egyptian children. Kek and the whole Ogdoad are insulted by your slanderous, fictitious Exodus and want Jewish heads to roll because of it, and you'll be caught in the cross-fire for going against them. Many of your fellow Cuckstains will also die because they're bound to protect Israel.

Riiiiight, because homos that take viral loads every week are "free". Just like a crack addict is free.
I bet your next post will be

They're a slave to their vices.

Also there seems to be some ongoing confusion about my position. Just because I support your choice to be able to make the choice of taking aids up the ass does not mean I support the choice itself.

If you don't do degenerate shit, avoid skanky looking women, open sores, red flags, a guy will probably not catch much. His exposure is skin and a pisshole. Women have entire internal organs exposed. Women are still bioweapons, but mostly against each other.

It's one thing to understand, that realistically, you cannot control people, it's another thing to encourage and not criticize the shitty behaviors of others.

I see a lot of people saying these things, but never hold the same standards for themselves. I'm a pragmatic guy, and understand that controlling people (especially women) seems to make them act outside of their own interests out of spite.

Though, I also understand that I myself would be a hypocrite for enjoying the things I see as wrong, while criticizing others. I mean, I understand your stance (I hope) but it doesn't really go against the whole point, which is sexually destructive behavior, and promiscuity are negative traits.

People are free to do them, sure, but it doesn't make them any less destructive, repression of traits for the purpose of amplifying more desirable ones is the whole point of self-reflection and self improvement.

Eating tasty food is fine, but not repressing your urge to eat cheesecake every hour for the sake of a balanced, healthy diet is not.

fuck off faggot

foucault was a prime mover in modern colleges pushing sexual liberation, he died of GRIDS

and let me be frank, sexual liberation is only a real concern with Christians, particularly Catholics.

Pagans, protestants, and especially Foucault and his moral relativist clique are the prime movers of sexual liberation as a control mechanism as we currently know it


So did the Jews, and Adam Weishaupt, and Freud/Bemays, and etc etc


Poor reading comprehension? You prefer french obscurantists I see.

Weishaupts system of sexual control is mimicked/aped directly by De Sade

And? Nature isn't God. Are you a freemason? Or a newtonion/protestant?


Sexual liberation occurs pre-Christianity as an exclusively Pagan problem. After the death and resurrection of Christ, Martin Luther and his schism caused the rise of the anabaptists, and before that you had John Huss and his Hussites, and then Zizka dealing with the adamites/taborites and blah blah blah


Sexual liberation occurs has a direct result of
A. Jewry and Messianic politic
B. Protestants hating the Catholic Church so much they start wife swapping to defy the papists. (see john dee talking to "angels" telling him to wife swap with a friend of his)

All modern paganism is a result of cabbalism, or a bit of the Zorah.

Yeah, thats bullshit, Christianity literally teaches that looking at a woman with any degree of lust is the same as "committing adultery in your heart" Strict fundamentalists will literally torture themselves with guilt and feel as if they have sinned merely for being attracted to hot girls. Thats fucking gay, if society depends on balancing liberation with repression Christianity is definitely not the answer since it tends way toward repression. Sublimation and semen retention (even during sex, it is possible to separate ejaculation and orgasm into separate evens and orgasm without depleting any uranium, and have multiple orgasms as a male, it takes a lot of practice but its worth it) are the best ways to master your sexuality.

You sound like one of those inner city hipster faggots that try to be cutting edge and cool, but come across as a generic normie and lame.

I'm pretty sure this is out of context. The point here was that it's not possible to be free of sin, though that is some sorts of fucked up because of the implications (the implications of guild that Robert Anton Wilson speaks in "Sexual liberation, why it's feared") it's also supposed to teach that we are all very human and will need to continuously struggle during our lives here. Well I'm probably looking too deep into it.

meant to say implications of guilt*

this is how retarded you are

RAW completely missed the point. He saw the stupidity and error of sexual liberation and thought he could take the control and turn it into freedom. He couldn't, and sexual liberation will be anything but an aberration of morality.

The counter-reaction will of course, be outrageous oppression/tyranny.

also lots of dead jews going by history (probably end of Israel eventually)

fixed

boy you and foucault sure told us!

if the current generation of academia ever gets the boot, foucault will be forgotten

Literally what this entire thread is.

How can morality be balanced with coercion? If a person is not free to pick the moral choice, then can he be truly be called moral?

Also what's so bad about foucault? are you gonna use ad hom or is his book on the history of sexual liberation genuinely bad?

I'm curious because I know fuck-all about the history of sexual liberation; libido dominandi is the first work I read that talks about the history of sexual liberation

Marriage isn't coercion, sexual liberation is. Mankind was not meant to fornicate like animals, society falls apart. Unless, you equate the fundamentals of society with coercion, and then you're just some commune animal.


I look at the fruit of his work. Despite all his obscurantism, it all amounts to moral relativism. As usual, it ends predictably. He dies with no heirs, his work is used for suppression, and if he could see what he and his students would wrought, he would think "Hmm, maybe I fucked up."


It's not about the quality of his work, it's about the arguments.

I can't wrap my head around your thinking. How is sexual freedom (the choice of choosing when and how you get laid without repercussions) 'coercion'?

Do people point a gun at others telling them to fuck anything with a pulse or something?

I believe that back in the day marriage was arranged by the persons parents, deciding his or her future. That seems closer to coercion to me.

Sin and temptation. It's a christian thang, you might have heard of it.


Actually…you'd be surprised if you've ever struggled with masturbation or were socially adept with woman.


Speaking of marriage as an institution, as a family law/inheritance/business venture, that is arguable, but a different argument altogether.

Not really no. Either way the concept of sin and all that christian mumbo jumbo is just a meme to me, I don't believe in any of it and consider it all to be superstition. Don't be butthurt about this, it's just what I choose in my faith.


I've read a few papers (most of them coming from Holla Forums and the likes) and other psychological works and yourbrainonporn.com and I know that just like eating, there are good and bad habits with sex (in where the status quo promotes bad behavior), but i'm not about to tout some two millenia or so old belief because of it.

oh btw, up until recently there were repercussions.


you know, babbies.


and after birth control, the total degradation of marriage and a bunch of neets making the refusal of woman into a philosophy (and they aren't even faggots!) which results in a population bomb (see japan)

I meant social repercussions, my bad. Either way I guess the idea of social repercussions go outside the window once you figure that people having sex wildly will result in irresponsible individuals that will turn into an infected wound of the nation.

You don't have a faith. After the advent of Christianity all paganism is the offspring of Jewish cabbalism and bits n pieces of random leftover tidbits. Unless you follow a ching chong ant philosophy/religion.


and again, until today with birth control propaganda, there are enormously harmful effects of BAD sexual habits. extremely harmful. modern internet conservative reactionism (what we are) is in response to that

You don't know E Micheal Jones?

For shame OP

I thank you for understanding this, but you need to realize that it does not just hurt a nation, it hurts you.

I'm not a pagan :^)

No pregnancies either?
Has pulling out really worked that many times?

Really, dummy?

It doesn't matter what people say about you, as long as you've got a great piece of ass.

I just went to look this dude up, and wtf is he a nigger??

lol, no
when you wanted to fuck before the sexual liberation, you had to marry a girl and she had the oppurtunity to parasite you for life for giving you sex

today they do it for free and don't get anything back. They get pumped and dumped for 10 years and when they reach their late 20s nobody wants them except desperate beta cuck nice bois

political control, user.

procreation != sex

Not true. It could also have been written by a virgin.

A demon is originally just a spirit, the fact you use it with a negative slant is indicative of your Christian background. You might hate your parents or your country like some pathetic rebellious child but your lack of understanding (as well as that of Holla Forums in general these days) is tiresome. The amount of times I've seen Christians explain that jews are the enemies of God, that those who did not return to God (became Christians) were damned, disinherited and accursed - supported with masses of Scripture; is beyond count. It was in fact common knowledge 5 or so years ago. Now we are infested with atheists, pagans and revolutionaries who have no interest in preserving the divine virtues of; order, truth, justice, strength, love, purity, loyalty, self control, patience, charity and duty (among others); but instead are simply SJWs of another variety.

The funniest thing is how you all spit upon the ways of your ancestors whilst simultaneously worshiping them (as well as yourselves) due to nothing but your blood. You reject inconvenient truths, you hate all others and you worship yourselves; if you knew anything about the jews you claim to hate so much, you would realise that you are no different to them.

I haven't seen anyone champion those values who wasn't classifiable as a pagan. Certainly I've never seen a Christcuck commit to any words that were not lies born of Semitic deceit.

What don't I understand? I'm smirking hard at your "NOD AN ARGUMENT" style, while you simultaneously give no substance to your claims. You lit crit theory hipster faggots are the worst. You are thoroughly incapable of discourse that isn't late night TV snark and mockery. Can't wait to throw you black glass-wearing, skinny necked, status-striving faggots off rooftops ISIS-style when the happening occurs.


You never actually responded to any of my complaints in the greentext. How isn't greentext an argument? It's assertoric writing. Some of the lines have support that respond to several of the dipshit's posts above. Let's go through some of them to show that this was the case:

1. Foucault's eisegesis problem, which has been brought up by multiple actual historians (as opposed to interlopers like the GRIDs bath house philosopher faggot). I named at least one historian that has talked about this (Keith Windschuttle). I consider this a supported position. Not a fully fleshed out position, but still names a problem that anyone would be familiar with in hermeneutics, applies it to Foucault's philosophical and historical method, and gives a source for a better explanation.

2. The domain of cultural evolution problem, where cultural evolutionary theories are better at explaining "memes" than pomo ever will be. This is a priori true. You have two different fields with radically different methodologies and data. One – pomo – relies on subjective accounts, philosophical intuition, and politically motivated theories. The other – fields like evolutionary anthropology among others – relies on comparative data from widespread cultures and animal cognition, and at least as some semblance of running an epistemic sieve of experiments and peer assessment. I wouldn't expect Holla Forums to know this, since Holla Forums is usually garbage at explaining culture and memes. No one here has actually studied that much on recent cultural evolution post-Dawkins. Go read some actual cultural evolutionists like Joe Heinrich's The Secret of our Success, then look at any thread on memes to look at how sophomoric and behind the times this board is. Nearly everyone here focuses on meme content, when the likeliest explanation of why our memes spread has nothing to do with this (it's more likely to do with what people like Heinrich have found: status of the online right as funny and edgy, so people copy us, i.e. prestige biased transmission. As well as our ability to swarm social networks, i.e. population dynamics).

3. CDC stats on faggots. Empirically true. You can look this up yourself on the CDC site. Faggots are the key spreaders of several diseases. They are a public health problem.

4. Being ignorant of population dynamics of sexual networks and how diseases spread while claiming to know about cultural evolution, which is a big tell that the guy has no idea what he is talking about as there is a commonplace in writing on cultural evolutionary connections to epidemiology.

5. Ignoring self-refuting aspects of Foucault. This is a common philosophical heuristic: Take whatever argument a philosopher is putting forth, then plug the argument back into itself. Common enough to have an entire chapter in the recent Oxford book on philosophical methodology (ch 19 by Hajek, which also covers the history). I would say Foucault fails this heuristic. Foucault says somewhere in one of his interviews (from one of the chapters in the anthology book Power) that language is like warfare. It's always used as a weapon against others. He would have known that this applies to him as well (in fact he does say somewhere that he can't escape the discursive regimes). Fast forward after his death, and Foucault's writings sometimes underpin current left wing insanity, e.g. prison reform, where leftists go as far as abolishing prisons all together. So in effect, his own writings are a form of dominance, control, power, and other aspects used by the left. That doesn't make him right, but the inconsistency does mean that there must be more to the phenomenon than he writes about.

6. Ignoring evolutionary history. Don't really need to go into this, as picking up a textbook on evolutionary psychology or evolution itself (especially the parts on sexual selection) should tell you that Foucault is historically full of shit about sexual worrying.

I'll ignore the parts on me saying he is an internet tough guy, as that is self-evident. He is a braggart.

1/2

I guess I nailed him, and probably you. Hipster faggot strivers are like Jews insofar as they hate being pinned down and outed. Gotta love the reddit-tier MUH FALLACIES approach to argument. X is a fallacy, but I won't say why. That sounds like an unsupported argument. Telling that you focused on the non-green text as well.


You sound butthurt.

2/2