The Role of the Sexual Revolution In Leftism

Leftist revolution goes back to the late 1800’s, peaking as a political phenomenon with the Russian Revolution and the aftermath of World War I. It continued making political changes up through the New Deal in the USA, but through all this time did not attempt to change much sexual mores or family life. Beyond women getting the vote, feminism wasn’t much involved. It was assumed people would have much the same family and sexual life as they had before. Communists regarded homosexuality as a kind of upper-class decadence, which it largely had been until that time.

Neither at that time were racial issues particularly important. Communists got the idea of using blacks as a fifth column in America but black empowerment didn’t become a primary leftist issue- in terms of anticolonialism in the Third World and civil rights in the US- until the 60’s.

Much of what leftism and liberalism today consists of the sexual revolution, sexual liberation, and feminism, all of which also date mostly to the 60’s. There was some of this in the 1920’s, as described by E. Michael Jones in “Degenerate Moderns” and in Weimar Germany. This was not widespread and mostly limited to the upper classes, who had pretty much done what they wanted anyway.

I believe these two things- the massive disruption of society caused by black empowerment and feminism, and the sexual revolution and associated libertinism such as illegal drug use, are closely connected, and that the sexual revolution was offered to the white masses as a distraction of their communities, religions and families.

In part, these things were part of the leftist revolution itself. Sexual liberation for women freed them from the control of men. Women have been strong supporters of leftism since they got the vote, so they were due for a reward. Gay sexual liberation was also a reward. Gays have long been beloved servants of the urban elite, particularly its women, as servants, hairdressers and dressmakers. Not all women wanted this, but many did.

The bulk of the non-elite white population was in a terrible position at this time. Blacks were ethnically cleansing them out of their communities, forcing them to move to suburbs where they were isolated. Their religion and culture was ridiculed in the new television media. But the suburbs offered something the city neighborhoods had not- privacy and anonymity.

People could now engage in sexual behavior that had been socially proscribed before. With women at work, there was no one watching who came and went. People could drive their cars to places away from home to meet others in bars or buy pornography. With the introduction of the VCR people could watch pornographic movies at home. Drugs could be consumed without neighbors being able to smell, see or hear.

Consumer goods certainly helped anesthetize the population, but people had consumer goods in the 50’s. People now spent a great deal of time and effort looking for sex, much more time than actually having sex. For ages people had alcohol to numb themselves, but now they had marijuana as well, with less side effects, stimulants like cocaine and amphetamines, and psychedelic drugs. Not all people did this, but plenty did and with divorce no one was freed of the need to search for new sexual partners.

Part of the bargain of Western leftism has been to provide material prosperity to the masses in return for quiet obedience. This is coming to an end. Sexual libertinism shows no sign of ending, and there is little sign anyone wants it to. People living in cramped apartments and driving old cars can still spend a lot of time looking for sex and will still be atomized individuals dependent on and not inclined to challenge the state.

Whites are addicted to individualism and libertarian libertinism, promoted as capitalist ideals by people like Ayn Rand. The individual consumer and libertine is not and never has been the basis of a functioning society. The peak, and then decline of the Roman Empire are recalled. Rome lasted a long time with a high level of degeneracy, but even as it was crumbling from without from barbarian attacks it was collapsing from within with the advent of Christianity.

Should whites accept these social and sexual norms? It’s hard to believe they should, as what is called “traditional morality” has been practiced by virtually all people at all times through history.

If one is going to oppose the system, one must resist its blandishments, its distractions and anesthetics. Traditional sexuality must be maintained. No “hookups”, preferably no sex outside of marriage. Early marriage and childbearing with men as the head of the family. No homosexuality accepted. No pornography. No illegal drug use. No excessive use of alcohol. Avoidance of trash entertainment including video games and spectator sports. All these things are distractions with no healthy purpose other than to numb you and encourage you to accept your lot. Healthy families and communities are our great strength and resource and the best way to resist, and they start with healthy personal behavior.

Few people want to or are willing to do this, even people who strongly profess a conservative, traditional moral system like evangelical Christians. The immorality, irresponsibility and preference for feminist standards by most “Christian” women is a constant lament of the Christian manosphere. Catholics barely even pay lip service, and liberal Protestants have formally abandoned them. The only place this seems to hold true is among Mormons. Moslems keep their women locked down, but Moslem men seem to have a high degree of sexual immorality, aimed at other people’s women of course.

We have been offered a kind of freedom that is really slavery. But we don’t have to accept it. Do we have the strength to refuse it?


About thrasymachus33308

I like fast cars, fast women and southern-fried rock. I have an ongoing beef with George Orwell. I take my name from a character in Plato's "Republic" who was exasperated with the kind of turgid BS that passed for deep thought and political discourse in that time and place, just as I am today. The character, whose name means "fierce fighter" was based on a real person but nobody knows for sure what his actual political beliefs were. I take my pseudonym from a character in an Adam Sandler song who was a obnoxious jerk who pissed off everybody.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to The Role of the Sexual Revolution In Leftism

  1. Heil Hizzle says:

    I was at “Mother Jones” today reading an article about how over-the-counter contraceptives do not encourage promiscuity, despite the rhetoric of evil racist tea-partying Todd Aiken-types. What I found amusing was that MJ published a graph showing the rates of out-of-wedlock sex by race, in order to show no measurable jump between promiscuity pre-pill and post-pill. What they inadvertently did was show the disparities between races, a perfect bell curve with whites the least promiscuous, Hispanics in the middle, and blacks doing their usual best to destroy themselves and everyone around them. You see, it has gotten to the point where even when they lie, they can’t help but let the light of the truth shine through.

    Speaking of which, if maniac cop Chris Dorner had ever so much as farted within 1,000 meters of a Republican, how many articles would we be reading which placed emphasis on his manifesto and the “climate of hate” engendered by racist Tea Partiers and Sarah Palin? My guess is Andrew Sullivan would have written about ten thus far.

    Like you, I have the masochistic habit of reading these Leftist sites. I’ve been stopping in on an almost-daily basis at MJ, waiting for them to have one article about Dorner. Still nothing but Sandy Hook, thus far.

    • Dorner is close to impossible to explain. A black liberal who goes beserk- after a dispute with a lesbian. He said the department was racist, but attacks blacks, Latinos, Asians and lesbians in writing and kills a black, an Asian (possibly part black, she looks it) and I’m guessing at least one and possibly more of the police officers he shot and killed were minorities. Hardly any white people involved at all- except th homeless guy who got his ass kicked by the dyke, I think he was white.

      Pretty soon there will be no white people involved at all, just a beautiful rainbow of people fighting with and killing each other. There was a riot between black Somalis and US blacks at a high school in Minneapolis yesterday, but I’m sure that will be whitey’s fault too.

      • Heil Hizzle says:

        Well, Breivik’s beef was with Muslims, and he killed white people…admittedly white people who brought the Muslims to Norway, but white people nonetheless. I’ve engaged in a few transgressive toasts to Breivik (which I now regret), so I can’t really fault the Negroes for extolling what they perceive to be an avenging black angel warring on their behalf.

      • They don’t realize Dorner never gave a shit about anybody but Dorner. He was totally fine with being a member of the evil racist LAPD until they kicked him out. And one of the first people he killed was black, not in the LAPD, and had never done anything to him.

        Breivik was right in that the real problem was not Moslems but the Norwegians who brought them in and used them to keep down other Norwegians. In all cases the real bad guys are white.

  2. fnn says:

    Yockey could already see the outlines of the forthcoming Sexual Revolution coming way back in 1948:

    …The “chief fount” is Hollywood, which “spews forth an endless series of perverted films to debase and degenerate the youth of Europe” after having successfully destroyed the youth of America.[7]

    Concomitantly “a vicious literature” promotes the “destruction of healthy individual instincts, of normal familial and sexual life, of disintegration of the social organism into a heap of wandering, colliding, grains of human sand.”

    The message of Hollywood is the total, significance of the isolated individual, stateless and rootless, outside of society and family, whose life is the pursuit of money and erotic pleasure. It is ot the normal and healthy love of man and wife bound together by many children that Hollywood preaches, but a diseased erotic-for-its-own sake, the sexual love of two grains of human sand, superficial and impermanent. Before this highest of all Hollywood’s values everything else must stand aside: marriage, honor, duty, patriotism, sternness dedication to self to a higher aim. This ghastly distortion of sexual life has created the erotomaia that obsesses millions of victims in America, and which has now been brought to the Mother-soil of Europe by the American invasion.[8]

    …Hollywood-feminism has created a woman who is no longer a woman but cannot be a man, and a man who is devirilized into an indeterminate thing. The name given to this process is “the setting from” of woman and it is done in the name of “happiness,” the magic word of the liberal-communist-democratic doctrine.[9]

  3. Ryu says:

    Good article. There is an answer: PU or pick up. I haven’t seen you at any PU sites. The secrets of PU allow a man to get as much cheap sex as he would like.

    Oversupply cheapens value. Too much sex has strange effects on the minds of men. There is an excellent movie to see this with your own eyes. Mutiny on the Bounty with Marlon Brando. These white men find a bunch of island girls in Tahiti and turn into pleasure seekers.

    • I’m familiar with the PUA sites. The trouble with this si these guys are spending so much effort on getting sex. The way of nature is to get a wife when you are young after a brief courtship and have a family with her, thus freeing your time to do productive things, not spending years and years going out to bars all the time looking for sluts. Whether you are successful or not- some of these guys are, I think most are just blind pigs- it’s a huge waste of time, effort and emotional investment. Ideally family formation has the support of society. If you are a guy who can’t afford to get married, getting a girlfriend is better than constantly looking for new sluts.

  4. Brandon says:

    Good post friend…as well as your comments….and Breivik

  5. spandrell says:

    Traditional morality is bottom up though. We don’t have a theoretical framework to convince people to stop destroying themselves. Traditional marriage today is not necessary for survival anymore, so why go back? Today people are depressed silly, but traditional family is also really annoying. Indian or Chinese migrants come for strong families, but they mostly chose individual degeneracy once they come here.
    People are weak. I don’t see how you could fight back. Not without some religious revival.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s