Thursday, October 9, 2014

Not So Free Love: Progressive Prudes

Ever since McCarthyism and the Sexual Revolution both took America by storm, the narrative has been that the left are perverts and the right is prude. The truth however, is far less black and white. Heck, just look around the right-wing blogosphere and you will see many "rule 5" posts featuring attractive women, some not so safe for work. Conversely, many anti-pornography efforts and efforts to regulate the sex industry come from the feminists on the left. Sex-positive variants of feminism may promote today's "hookup" culture, but not all progressives are so libertine. Once progressivist movements gain sufficient political power, they often have reasons of their own to regulate the sex lives of those they rule over.

 Nineteen Eighty Four's Junior Anti-Sex League was inspired by the Komsomol (Young Communists), a youth division of the CPSU (Communist Party of the Soviet Union) that indoctrinated party values (including stances against alcoholism, smoking, and the Bolshevik belief that sex was "wasteful") into teenagers and young adults.

What Is Sexual Freedom?
Many in today's world erroneously see sexual freedom as "free love" and nothing more. The reality is that it encompasses far more than just intercourse itself. Sexual freedom means the freedom to choose who you love, the freedom to say no to an unwanted advance, the freedom to marry, and the freedom to have children.

Progressives by nature are very suspicious of individual choice, believing that without the intrusive authority of the state or the consensus of the collective, that everyone will intrinsically make the wrong choice. They are against the choice of flight or fight (self defense), they are against the choice of keeping what wealth and property you possess or giving it to charity, and they are against the right to make choices in private. It is only natural, that in the interests of the collective or national good, that they would dictate who you take as a lover, and how many children you have.
The Soviet Union enjoyed a brief period of sexual liberation after the Communist Party began its rule, but other than a handful of early feminists, the party's hardliners (including Vladmir Lenin himself) saw that sexual enjoyment was a danger to the integrity of the party, and discouraged and even illegalized sexual activities.
“Youth’s altered attitude to questions of sex is of course ‘fundamental’, and based on theory. Many people call it ‘revolutionary’ and ‘communist’. They sincerely believe that this is so. I am an old man, and I do not like it. I may be a morose ascetic, but quite often this so-called ‘new sex life’ of young people and frequently of the adults too seems to me purely bourgeois and simply an extension of the good old bourgeois brothel. All this has nothing in common with free love as we Communists understand it. No doubt you have heard about the famous theory that in communist society satisfying sexual desire and the craving for love is as simple and trivial as ‘drinking a glass of water’. A section of our youth has gone mad, absolutely mad, over this ‘glass-of-water theory’. It has been fatal to many a young boy and girl. Its devotees assert that it is a Marxist theory. I want no part of the kind of Marxism which infers all phenomena and all changes in the ideological superstructure of society directly and blandly from its economic basis, for things are not as simple as all that. A certain Frederick Engels has established this a long time ago with regard to historical materialism.
-- Vladmir Lenin, during an interview with fellow communist Clara Zetkin, criticizing a popular theory of Alexandra Kollontai, who herself felt that sexuality had to be regulated to maintain the "hygiene" of the race.
“The revolution calls for concentration and rallying of every nerve by the masses and by the individual. It does not tolerate orgiastic conditions so common among d’Annunzio’s decadent heroes and heroines. Promiscuity in sexual matters is bourgeois. It is a sign of degeneration. The proletariat is a rising class. It does not need an intoxicant to stupefy or stimulate it, neither the intoxicant of sexual laxity or of alcohol. It should and will not forget the vileness, the filth and the barbarity of capitalism. It derives its strongest inspiration to fight from its class position, from the communist ideal. What it needs is clarity, clarity, and more clarity. Therefore, I repeat, there must be no weakening, no waste and no dissipation of energy Self-control and self-discipline are not slavery; not in matters of love either. But excuse me, Clara, I have strayed far from the point which we set out to discuss. Why have you not called me to order? Worry has set me talking. I take the future of our youth very close to heart. It is part and parcel of the revolution. Whenever harmful elements appear, which creep from bourgeois society to the world of the revolution and spread like the roots of prolific weeds, it is better to take action against them quickly. The questions we have dealt with are also part of the women’s problems.”
          -- Vladmir Lenin, from the same interview.

Vladmir Lenin re-enacted many of the morality laws that were originally repealed by the communist government, and communist intrusion into private life got even more severe under Stalin. Mao Tse Tung took things a step further, by not only decreeing that sex was only to be used to birth babies, but criminalizing polygamy, dating, the public display of affection, and indoctrinated the youth into believing that the very concept of love was a bourgeois (capitalist) construct. During the Cultural Revolution, the party went even further still, encouraging and even mandating unfeminine, unisex clothing, and short hairstyles for women.

China's Cultural Revolution drastically altered the way women dressed, with the Maoist government at first encouraging, then imposing military and military-inspired uniforms.
North Korea and Cambodia went to even greater extremes still; by dictating hairstyles, clothing, arranging marriages, and shooting any couple who displayed affection or even flirted.

Wouldn't families and a positive birth rate strengthen the proletariat, or the nation, or whatever the revolutionary class happens to be? According to Marxists, no. Karl Marx and his followers considered marriage to be a capitalist arrangement, with wife and child being completely dependent on the husband.

Marxists have long sought to eliminate love between individuals. From the Marxist view, the needs of the collective come first. When a man and woman fall in love, their dedication to each other exceeds their dedication to the proletarian class. When they have a child, dedication to the proletarian class reduces in priority by an order of magnitude. Marxist regimes therefore have to suppress this dedication, in an unintentional admission to the inferiority of class-wide collectivism. To suppress love, many Marxist regimes act preemptively, through indoctrination and suppression of desire. Suppression of desire is accomplished by de-feminizing women, often by disallowing (either overtly, or simply by lack of production in planned economies) products that improve feminine beauty. Marxist regimes also ban sexually arousing martial, such as pornography and erotic literature. Sex education in Marxist regimes often drops to near-nothing, as it did in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia and North Korea. Marxist regimes also use more subtle methods, such as indoctrinating women to be completely needless of men, and to put the needs of the proletariat above their desire to attract men.
 “A woman who spent time doing such things was deemed to be selfish, shallow, and therefore not putting the good of the collective above her personal desires.” -- Anne Marie Skvarek, describing Soviet party bias against feminine beauty.
Far from being right wing, Fascists and Marxists both believe that society needs to be collectivized, but differ in their views of how a collective society can be accomplished, or run. While Marxists believe that everyone must love everyone else equally in a classless society, Fascists adopted the early feminist belief that a society is only as good as the physical quality of its members, and coupled it to what was on the surface, support for traditional marriage.

Fascist regimes may appear more tolerant of love between men and women, but they do not believe your love for your wife is above the common good of the nation (or world, in today's rule by global trade treaties and multi-national corporations). Rather than prohibit families, Fascists dictate who can marry who (the best example being Nazi regulation of marriage), and how many children they can have (modern corporatist China and its one-child policy).

 The Nuremberg Laws dictated that Jews and Christians were not to marry "Aryan" Germans.
Fascist regimes also regulate or ban "indecent" material, as such material is contrary to their view that a strong nation can only arise from regulating strict morals.

Feminists fall into one extreme or the other on sexual politics. The original feminists (other than a handful of early feminists such as Alexandra Kollonai and Margaret Sanger) viewed heterosexual sex, feminine beauty, alluring advertisements and pornography, as symptoms of the "patriarchy" at best and "rape" at worst. Sex-positive feminism originated in the 1980s to dissent against the prudism of the earlier feminists, and on the surface it appears these women buck the trend of progressivism's miserable record on sexual freedom. The reality is that both variants of feminism believe women to essentially be the revolutionary class, and that men have no say, either sexually, socially, or legally.

Fascist and Marxist regimes both put homosexuals in concentration camps. Progressive support of homosexuals is a recent phenomenon, and the sentiment is not shared by all variants of progressivism. The Soviet and Nazi regimes both started out more egalitarian than they were, with the Nazis originally being a pro-homosexual party (the Nazi party originated in a gay bar).
 Ernst Rohm, leader of the SA, was one of the victims of the Night of the Long Knives. This openly homosexual officer was one of the top leaders of the early Nazi Party. The party's attitude toward homosexuals and the trade unions changed, and Hitler needed to remove the old guard of the party.

When progressivist regimes gain absolute power, the useful idiots are always the first to go.

Progressives not only regulate the sexual and social behavior of individuals, they also regulate or ban depictions of sexual activity. Pornography and sexual literature are banned, either because it is a capitalist construct from the view of a communist, or because a strong nation depends on strict morality law from the view of a fascist. It was banned in the Soviet Union (and the law is still officially in effect, though no longer enforced), Nazi Germany and even East and West Germany banned it (until 1968 in the west, and 1989 in the east), Fascist Italy had laws against it (though not always enforced). Alternatively, it can be used as what George Orwell called "prolefeed," but porn-as-circuses is rare in real life collectivist regimes (foodstamps-and-mainstream-media is far more effective at appeasing the subjects).

North Korea, Vietnam, China, Cuba and nearly every Islamic country maintains a hard ban on pornography. Map from Wikipedia

 Progressives banning pornography is not restricted to the 20th century:

Eugenics and Population Control
The progressives' desire to micro-manage everyone to perfection would require the deprivation of both sexual and every other right.

Since the 1970s, the progressives have been pushing an environmentalist agenda. Starting with global cooling and the "population bomb," the new pretext to impose fascism has been a combination of global warming and a renewal of the population-scare. These environmental fascists blame every technologically dependent individual for having a "CO2 footprint" that contributes to runaway warming of the planet. During the past decade, political environmentalists have been openly citing China's "one child" policy as a way to curb both "runaway" population growth and reduce the amount of polluting individuals who are allegedly terraforming the planet simply by living in technologically advanced societies.

In order to impose their agenda and maintain the population "in balance" with nature, mandated abortions would not be enough; the forced sterilizations would be necessary. Not only would these be necessary, only those who have the "right traits" would be allowed to have babies.

 The Georgia Guidestones (source: Wikimedia Commons) have ten commandments engraved on them.
Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
 Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity.
 Unite humanity with a living new language.
 Rule passion — faith — tradition — and all things with tempered reason.
 Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
 Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
 Balance personal rights with social duties.
 Prize truth — beauty — love — seeking harmony with the infinite.
 Be not a cancer on the earth — Leave room for nature — Leave room for nature.

While environmentalism is a relatively new phenomenon, eugenics is not. There is a strong belief that the genes of our bodies dictate a lot of our behavior, and an even stronger belief that bad physical and social genes need to be eliminated. The progressive states of Sweden, Norway, Germany (Nazi) and even the majority of US states sterilized who was physically imperfect or socially deviant, with Sweden continuing the practice all the way into the 1970s.

Abortion and Racism
Margaret Sanger was one of the only progressives who advocated greater sexual opportunity until the branching of feminism into sex-positive and sex-negative variants. On the surface, she promoted choice, but privately, her agenda was exactly the opposite. She did not believe that anyone had a right to have children unless they were physically "perfect." She also advocated maintaining the purity of the white race, and her end game was the elimination of blacks.
“By all means, there should be no children when either mother or father suffers from such diseases as tuberculosis, gonorrhea, syphilis, cancer, epilepsy, insanity, drunkenness and mental disorders. In the case of the mother, heart disease, kidney trouble and pelvic deformities are also a serious bar to childbearing No more children should be born when the parents, though healthy themselves, find that their children are physically or mentally defective.” (“Woman and the New Race,” 1920, Chapter 7).
“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members” (Margaret Sanger commenting on the ‘Negro Project’ in a letter to Gamble, Dec. 10, 1939).

Sexual Freedom and Morality
Can a society have both libertarian attitudes toward sex and still be morally strong? The answer is yes. If parents taught their children responsibility and instead of leaving it to the state, there would be far less teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other sexual problems. If there were MORE guns, not less, there would be far less sexual crimes; an armed society is a polite society!


  1. An unconventional / conventional look at the concept of love