Return to Main Page

Fragment on Sexual Urges

Writing this as a reminder to myself for use at a later time, and thought I would share it with the readers to get some idea of where "sexual pathology" would have to come from, and why we are litigating sexual politics and the libido at all. Some may have their own experiences and beg to differ, but I'll chime in and tie this to my work.

In the second book of my series The Retarded Ideology, I reference the "economic interests of life", based on the functions of life. Not one of those functions directly entails reproduction "in of itself", as a thing distilled from the rest of the life-form's existence. Every single interest of life, both in the economic sense and in the political sense I hope to describe in the third book, has some claim to the reproductive act, and yet, the reproductive act and its result, if it forms an offspring at all, is quite irrelevant to any interest of life. Nearly every sex act or act of intimiacy has little to do with procreation, and if the goal of the libido were an engineered device for optimal procreation, human attitudes towards sex would be far different and the glamorization of the act - the ideology around it - would be so contrived and pointless that none of the insinuations made about it would stand up to any scrutiny. Very likely, if humans saw the act and the union of men and women as a vehicle to create families, things which impede that function and all of the sentimentality would be wiped clean. The entire enterprise would be replaced with a simple agreement to mate, and the consequences of that act would be a problem for the offspring and society, which may be pushed onto the parents but, aside from the necessary biological routines, really doesn't hold the moral weight assigned to the "essence of sex" or anything we have been made to associate with it. This thinking did not require modern science, and it is very possible for the sex act among humans to be precisely this - an unpleasant but necessary step that is carried out by some calculated imperative that institutions and political society co-opted. This was the thinking of many law codes, which established family life as a matter of interest to the state, but could never "abolish the family", which has always been the long-run goal of states for many obvious reasons. No state has ever "upheld the family" or "protected traditional marriage" in any sense that might be offered when politicians pander to the busybodies who love to posture that they're responsible social agents doing the "right thing" to regulate society on their own initiative, while getting clear marching orders from the usual eugenics ghouls and their fellow travelers. This article isn't about the present obsession with legislation, since we are perfectly aware none of these people care about the law or any fictions presented about what marriage and proper sexual mores are. The right, both its moderate and extreme interests, have always drenched their political battle in lurid sexual imagery and advanced a very gay and sad parody as one of their mockeries to us. The left, for its part, has always been at heart responsive to the technological interest, and in political thinking, this has given to the left a proclivity to follow every fad put in front of it, to its everlasting shame. Today I wish to write about none of that, but instead write a piece about what the "sex urge" would even be in life, and why we're making a big fuss out of nothing.

I think there is one obvious reality that needs to be made clear - not everyone reproduces, or can reproduce. The doctrine of false egalitarianism that is central to the effort to restore slavery[1] suggests that everyone should be morally equal in all respects and placed under the same expectations, and this is very much applied to the present condition. It is then artfully conflated with "liberal ideology" suggesting that this individualism is inherent to the liberal idea of economic life at all, and so this gives rise to conceits of "the sexual marketplace" and the glorification of every angle for prostitution, enclosure, entrapment, and every other strategy of tension that could be introduced into social and sexual life. But, this doctrine of false egalitarianism only arises during neoliberalism, and it serves very particular functions. False egaliatarianism will not be the permanent status quo, but is instead a means to destroy concepts that allow standards of comparison, so that resistance to eugenics will be disoriented, confused, and scattered by habitual lying. When eugenics can rise again to the apex of society and no longer hide its name - and that time has already come in 2020 but the institutions have yet to fully codify and promulgate the new dictate - false equalitarianism will be replaced with lists of targeted groups who are undesirables, appropriate to the Hitlerite enablers who will, being what they are, conduct purges and insist everyone has to love them. A failed race and a failed society knows no other way.

For our purposes in this writing, the shit-flinging over politics is less important than what false egalitarianism overlooks - not everyone is alike, wants to be alike, or should be obligated to do the exact same things because of a "human essence" or "human right" or "human obligation". The New Testament certainly can tell its readers of eunuch born so by the fate of Heaven, and eunuchs who were made by human hands whether those were hostile or their own hands. It is then stated, in line with eugenics, that if people are "essentially different", then they must be political different, or the rules for different people are effectively arbitrary or decreed by an institutional ruling of what different "types" ought to be or should be in line with the ruling institutions' wants alone. This is silly for so many reasons. Different types of people live in the same world where moral decisions are judged, and they do not get to choose their own facts, including the facts of what they are or what they do. Those facts are not something imperiously decreed in Star Chambers or insinuated through taboos to "teach the controversy", and any such nonsense should have been viciously attacked before we arrived at this sorry impasse. What would be distinct is something very simple - there will never be "equality of outcome", yet another cowardly dodge the neocon filth used in their rhetoric gish gallop to insinuate we have to obey their fake and gay ideology. What people are and do is a different matter from what they want to do, or what they would consider morally worthwhile. In every situation, man and woman are always expected to be in control of their body. This is basic to any sense of agency or autonomy which would be a precondition to speak of ethical behavior that would be the business of anyone, and there is no middle ground on this. The first insinuation that someone "lacks agency" is an open invitation to scream for their death, and again, if we suppressed any such insinuation, always made by snide internet kapos practicing for the day they can get their Nazi on like old times, we would not be at this sorry impasse. Whether they are in control, or at fault, is another game played with false equivocation, until enough lawfare, fear, and doubt, are generated so that "lack of agency" may be declared simply by exhausting anyone's exercise of that agency, no matter who they are or what they do. There is a class of people who imagine themselves immune to this, granted absolute impunity. This always presumes proaction and a grand conspiracy forbidding anyone to say no to the insinuation, or even walk away from the absurdity of a society that encourages such behavior. If someone really did not control themselves based on some lack of moral worth, then that would be judged, but that is not what is judged here. The insinuations are always about morals that are presumed to be universal, or that someone claims a monopoly on to decide how others will live their lives. The insinuation game, and extra-legal harassment, is always intended to become a general rule, rather than a temporary expedient. The law and society long ago established protocols and expectations of how to handle "unwritten laws" regarding persons who should be protected from their own stupidity or failure, and those never had to be re-litigated. Usually, those who are so damned exercise far more self-control and concern over their body than the so-called "virtuous people" who decide what we're supposed to be and what we are supposed to like. It is an abiding rule of the cajolers that they are usually venal men and women, drawn from the lower rungs of the favored classes. Anyone of worthwhile distinction knows how odious this looks, and the true governing power of any society has always found enablers who relish in being natural slaves for such things. This is not hard to find - those of sufficient nobility need only smirk as they coach their enablers from an early age to perpetuate the Satanic cycle.

[1] I hope the reader is aware that all of these false equivocations in American discourse are aimed towards a singular goal - attacking the equal protection clause by conflating it and the concept of "rights" with as many arbitrary identities as possible, so that the concept of a protected class in any sense is transformed into an instrument of lawfare, culture war, and eventually can be abolished by calling such protected classes "hate crimes" in of themselves. If you know of that idiotic South Park episode or the entire dreck from that stupid show, you're quite familiar with the line of argument, so I will not bore you all with that. It is important here to make it clear that so much of this essentialism was designed specifically because of that language in the US Constitution, and this idea was only ever pertinent to America. Nowhere else is this seriously litigated towards such a particular end. So far as it is, identity politics has entirely concerned the German culture wars over institutions. If there is a secondary aim of this discourse in America, it is to relitigate the American expectations and intent to prevent such culture wars, by making every institutional decision a federal case, as in The Transgender Horseshit. But, the chief aim remains the elimination of protected classes, as this would be one of the major constitutional barriers to eugenics, among many other things, including legal statuses that would effectively restore the slavery institution just like old times. It is highly doubtful that chattel slavery could be restored, even if this idea is floated as pandering to the dumbest fucks of the right.

Return to Main Page