Wednesday, August 5, 2015

Not so Free Love: Progressive Prudes (Redux)

It has been almost a year since I wrote this. I plan on resuming this series, which is aimed at destroying constructed narratives, but before doing so I am going back and looking at older articles in this series with fresh eyes. A great deal of this post has been re-written for additional clarification and information, but none of the original subject matter has been omitted. The section "Abortion & Racism" was merged with the feminist section, as most advocacy for abortion, and the historical use of abortion to destroy a race came from early feminists. The original post is preserved.

Official Narratives
Many conservatives -- though not all -- would have you believe that the progressive agenda includes a "sex positive agenda" as well as a "gay agenda," both of which will destroy the country's moral foundation unless the power of the state is used to regulate (or at least discourage) it. This side of the narrative has its origins during the McCarthy era, when sexual deviance -- especially homosexuality -- was lumped in with communism. There was fear that KGB spies would blackmail sexual deviants, so for reasons of state security, homosexuals and other sexual deviants were removed from their jobs. McCarthy's witch hunt ended, and America had its sexual revolution, but this side of the narrative has perpetuated into the present, thanks largely to a subset of conservatism born from normalcy bias: a return to the golden years of the 1950s.

The progressive side of this narrative is more complicated. Many progressives do support choice personally, but most fall victim to doublethink, rationalizing coercive state power as a pathway to the freedom to choose, and never realize -- until it is too late -- that the authoritarian state can never create a libertarian utopia. Progressive doublethink originates from the self-contradictory nature of collectivist thought, which rationalizes unequal treatment for all as a pathway to equal outcomes for all. Collectivists often have reasons of their own to regulate the sex lives of those they rule over, and in the past such regulation has been enforced lethally.

To understand why, it is important to understand what sexual freedom really is.

 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 anti-sexualism, anti-alcolism and other selfish behaviors -- into teenagers and young adults.

What Is Sexual Freedom?
The stereotype of sexual freedom has historically been the concept of Free Love, sexuality free of the bounds of marriage and monogamy. This is partially true: not everyone wants to marry and not all married couples want to stay within the bounds of monogamy. Where this stereotype fails is that sexual freedom is not merely the freedom to engage in unconventional sexual behavior. 

Sexual freedom is the freedom to choose who you love, regardless of class or social status, or political affiliation, or orientation. It is also the freedom to have a family, or not. It is the very core of the freedom to associate, and ultimately, the freedom to love. 

At its most essential, it is the freedom to be happy.

War Against Happiness
Love is personal. It requires you to know that person, and that person to know you. More importantly, it has to flow in two directions, which is impossible between masses of strangers. They do not know you, and they do not have your interests at heart. 

Collectivism by its very nature -- even voluntary collectivism such as a teamwork -- is less personal and in many cases, even impersonal. The solidarity between members of a community or team can be strong under the right conditions -- and is not necessarily evil --, but solidarity can never be strong as love. Collectivists, in their quest for total solidarity, attempt to raise a nation, race or proletariat to the status of a family, but even the most hardcore communist realizes that dedication to the group is secondary when the stronger feelings of love are present.
"There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent there will be no need of science. There will be no distinction between beauty and ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever." 
-- Passage from Nineteen Eighty Four
Solidarity is easy to achieve when the group is under real or perceived attack, but these moments of hate and anger are fleeting, as we are inevitably more concerned about those closest to us than the greater good. To maintain that dedication, it is important to maintain feelings of fear, envy and hatred. To do that, it is necessary to deprive the masses of emotional closeness.

Love and happiness are suppressed by creating an emotional gulf between individuals, and hate is maintained by deindividualization of all members of a (real or perceived) enemy group. Emotional separation is difficult to accomplish between adults under normal conditions, but in a sufficiently strong conflict, or under threat of an easily abusable law, one has to fear accusations of "sleeping with the enemy" or arrest under false charges. Deindividualization reduces people to the lowest common denominator (guilt by association), and makes it easy to hate and keep hating.

Masses who are lonely, afraid, envious and spiteful will instinctively seek comfort in the weak thrill of stomping a boot onto another's face.
Marxists seek to destroy the family, but destroying the family requires destroying love. To suppress love, they suppress desire, and many Marxist regimes suppress desire by de-feminizing women by indoctrination and by disallowing feminine beauty. 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 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.

The Soviet Union
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, whose regime was the inspiration for the love story at the heart of Nineteen Eighty Four.

Mao Tse Tung took things a step further, by decreeing that sex was only to be used for reproduction, but criminalizing polygamy, dating, the public display of affection, and indoctrinated the youth into believing that the very concept of love was a bourgeois 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
North Korea on its surface is a fairly sexually free nation, but in practice, the communist government still maintains tight control over the private lives of others. The government encourages couples to see each other as merely "revolutionary comrades," does not teach sex education, and pregnancy with a half-chinese child is a capital offense. In prison camps, it is a capital offense to fall in love.
8. Men and women may not be together outside the workplace. The punishment for unauthorized physical contact between a man and a woman is death.

The Khmer Rouge took anti-sexualism to the greatest possible extreme. Like Mao, the Khmer Rouge sought to suppress feminine beauty, but in practice, did not really need to simply because of the sheer scarcity of food, water and other basic necessities, as well as an exhaustive work regime. Even the mere act of flirting was punishable by death. Couples were bludgeoned together, with their bodies holding hands as a reminder of the price of unauthorized relations.

Fascism traditionally combines social conservatism with progressive economics. Instead of totally nationalizing the economy, Fascism allows a semblance of market economics to exist under tight control. Benito Mussolini envisioned that this "third way" between the free market and command economics would have broad appeal, but he -- and Adolf Hitler -- both believed that the individual is secondary to the nation.

On the surface, people who like their traditions can keep their traditions. In reality, Fascist policy does not preserve social tradition as much as it uses it as a means to an end. Like Communists, Fascists constant solidarity, and like Communists, they keep the masses angry, but the inherent strategy is different. Fascists trump up a long term, existential threat to traditions the masses hold dear, and they further motivate the masses by promising to reclaim past greatness (Benito Mussolini's desire to rebuild the Roman Empire) or manifest destiny (Adolf Hitler's Lebensraum).

The Nürberg Laws dictated that Jews were not to marry "Aryan" Germans.

To attack love and happiness, Fascists decide who can marry who, usually along ethnic, religious and national lines, and outlaw sexual acts between the indigenous peoples and "outsiders." Gentile Germans -- including members of the Gestapo and SS -- who raped Jewish women were punished under racial hygiene laws, though not for the actual rape. Fascist regimes go out of their way to forbid any interaction between the indigenous and minorities, preventing the personal bonds that would destroy the mob mentality the regime so desperately needs; next to genocide, this isolation is the key reason for the creation of concentration camps.

Feminists are highly conflicted about sex and issues related to sex, but can divided into two main camps: Sex Negative Feminism and Sex positive Feminism. Sex Negative Feminists tend to view heterosexual sex, feminine beauty, alluring advertisements and pornography, as symptoms of the "patriarchy" at best and "rape" at worst. This type of feminism peaked in the 1960s before being overtaken by the Sex Positive Feminism of the 1980s, but as made a resurgence on college campuses in recent years; Affirmative Consent Laws and attempts to ban pornography were all created by and for these types of feminists.

The "We Consent" App is designed to provide proof of consent in California. This is voluntary, but if feminists have their way, such proof of innocence may be required.

Sex Positive Feminists believe in greater choice for women, but the degree of choice varies. Prominent Sex Positive Feminists such as Margaret Sanger and Alexandra Kollanai did not believe that freedom in matters of sex, love and children extended to minorities. Margaret was also a eugenicist and did not believe that anyone had a right to have children unless they were physically "perfect."
“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).
The political machines of both types of Feminism do not consider that men also have rights; especially where children are concerned.

The Nazis and Soviets originally supported greater rights for homosexuals, but turned against them when they were viewed as an obstruction to party goals. Soviets saw love between same sex couples as detrimental to the collective and criminalized homosexual activity, with Stalin sending them to the Gulags.

The Nazis were not originally opposed to homosexuals either. Indeed, Ernst Röhm, an openly gay man, was for a time very close to Adolf Hitler -- to the point where they addressed each other as du (used only for close friends and family) instead of the formal sie; no other Nazi leader was addressed this way -- and was originally the deputy leader of the Nazi Party. When the Nazis drifted away from socialism and toward fascism, Adolf Hitler purged the Party of its original egalitarian elements during the Night of the Long Knives.
 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.
Progressive support of homosexuals is a recent phenomenon.

Collectivists 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 though they were not always enforced.

Deprivation of arousing material can be used as a political weapon. Julius Streicher, early propaganda leader for the Nazi Party, published a magazine called Der Stürmer, which was filled with sexually charged cartoons of nearly naked women being molested by Jewish men; many Germans bought it for these images as it was the closest thing to pornography under the Nazi regime, and inevitably fell for its propaganda. Der Stürmer was so effective at inciting the masses that Julius Streicher was hung, despite the fact that he had no personal involvement in the Holocaust.

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

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

Eugenics & Population Control
Since the 1970s, many progressive leaders 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 -- especially women who were rebellious or promiscuous -- with Sweden continuing the practice all the way into the 1970s.

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!

War Against Tyranny
Love is stronger than solidarity. Therefore, the most effective weapon against collectivism is the very thing they seek to destroy. This means your wife or husband, your girlfriend or boyfriend, and most importantly, your family. Do not let the state dictate the dynamics between you and those you care about. Avoid the temptation to reduce others to some vague group identity. Be not afraid of difference. Variety is the spice of life.

Author's Commentary
California's Affirmative Consent Law was the inspiration for this. In California, the progressive left, the ones who accuse the right of invading the bedroom, were doing so with a law that would not pass constitutional muster (for presuming guilt before innocence). Worse, the law sets the precedent that the state can dictate the most private aspect of your life, for whatever common good it deems.

That the progressive machine would be hypocritical was not at all surprising, but just how many Americans have forgotten Nineteen Eighty Four, Anthem, We? Even today -- as this law is copied at other universities, and as sexual assault laws are re-written to presume guilt -- many Americans continue clinging to the old narratives.

No comments:

Post a Comment