Sex has been part of that struggle, the medium of dominance and degradation by which biological development has slowly progressed. But we have now reached the point where what formerly helped us advance now threatens to pull us backwards.
Modernity’s power has revealed the deeply problematic nature of sexuality, whilst boosting its power to override all else in our natures. But, more than this, the hygienic and antiseptic qualities of modernity have facilitated ever greater perversions that have emphasized the essential filthiness of sex, an aspect of humanity that, in St. Augustine’s famous phrase, finds its seat between faeces and urinam. To feel strong sexual desire is therefore to feel no disgust – or even the opposite of disgust – for that which is most disgusting, namely the vile wastes of the human body and the cloacal orifices.
It is no accident that the Cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School, disappointed by Old Marxism’s reluctant proletariat, attempted to co-opt the idea of “sexual liberation” as a new revolutionary force. Herbert Marcuse in Eros and Civilization (1955) and One-Dimensional Man (1964) attempted to reboot revolutionary potential by recasting history from a class struggle to a fight against repression of our sexual instincts.
“Polymorphous sexuality” was the term which I used to indicate that the new direction of progress would depend completely on the opportunity to activate repressed or arrested organic, biological needs: to make the human body an instrument of pleasure rather than labor. (Eros and Civilization)
With the Swinging Sixties getting into full flow regardless of the putrid outpourings of Marxist intellectuals, this may have seemed a forlorn hope, after all, Marcuse’s call for throwing off sexual repression was hardly taking place against a backdrop of Victorian prudery. “What sexual repression?” you could well ask, in the era of the mini-skirt, the pill, and the funky afro.
Herbert Marcuse “getting down” with the sisters.
But, in reality, framing revolutionary discontent within terms of sexual alienation and satisfaction was a deft move, as sexual desire on its own can never fulfill any human being, leading those who follow its path down an endless route of frustration, both for the sexual underclass – those denied the delights of the sexual plenitude they see all around them – and even the sexual overclass, pushed ever deeper into perversion by their jaded sexual palate. The Left, in this way, masterminded a state of constant frustration and tension that is one of the few life forces still flowing into their movement.
But while the inherent degradation and filthiness of sexual desire has an obvious utility to a movement like the Left, to those on the Right it is different story.
Within the confines of a rounded human identity, and blessed by traditions and social standards that purge it of its uglier aspects, we may recognize and even celebrate its former utility and its present necessity. However, within the context of modernity, sexuality is increasingly an adjunct of degeneracy and human degradation, a area of false novelty and inversion, where intimacy involves going well beyond the basics of the missionary position between sanctified partners, which itself is even stigmatized as a sexual turn-off.
The dominant sexual aesthetic in our age – and one that poisons all sexuality even that grounded in Christian lifestyles – is revealed by the collective sub-consciousness of free online porn. Here a premium is placed on the fucking of strangers (unless incest porn), often with an element of rape or willful acceptance of abuse; not to mention interracial sex and a confusion of orifices and organs (and genders) – cocks penetrate anuses, cum is squirted over faces and shared between mouths. The subtext is that the high is made low, the low made high, and all is equal to everything else.
It is easy to find a scapegoat for such degeneracy in the Jews, who are, once again, heavily over-represented in an industry associated with moral decline – but part of the problem is inherent in the nature of sexuality itself and our fundamental biological design.
One of the core principles of biological design is efficiency. This is sometimes best served by giving certain organs multiple roles. The mouth is used for breathing, eating, and communication. Now it also has a fourth erotic use – to kiss – and more recently another one beyond that, namely as a sexual toilet, if the “porn-consciousness” of the West is anything to go by. But while this is one example, such multiplicity of function runs throughout our biological and psychological functions. As for our actual sexual organs, they have the misfortune of doubling as our “waste disposal” department.
Actual tentacle porn.
Such “doubling up” is a common feature in many creatures, but the conjoining of sexual reproduction and toiletry function is not so by necessity. Other arrangements that separate them are possible, and can even be found in nature. For example, cephalopods, such as squid, reproduce through the use of hectocotyli, essentially sexualized tentacles that transfer spermatophores to the female’s mantle, essentially part of her head structure. In human terms this would be like pleasuring or impregnating a woman by chuckling her under the chin or stroking her earlobe.
While there are those both on the Right and Left who believe it is our main task to accept and follow the dictates of nature, there are also those on both sides who don’t. A considerable part of the Left has, for much of its history, been dedicated to rejecting what was formerly seen as “natural.” A classic example has been the “gay liberation” movement, where the Left started off advocating for the acceptance of what even it believed to be aberrant, on the basis of the formula “from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs,” with sexual aberration viewed as an inferiority to be carried like any burden by the healthier part of society.
In recent years, the Left has managed to refine its position on this issue, making the case that homosexuality – and indeed any sexuality – is simply natural. The dominant trope here is “born this way.” Perversion is thus elevated to a form of nature acceptance.
One way to interpret this change is to see it as a loss of ambition by the Left, a realization that it can’t define or change reality but can only dig it up and uncover it in all its gruesome forms, which must then be embraced and accepted like so many grubs and creepy crawlies dug up from among rotting vegetation.
Conservative sexuality: an awkward stand-off.
The Right, because of its veneration for tradition, has long been seen as the ideological tendency most in line with nature, although this has also involved a lot of repression and disciplining of natural lusts and desires. The Right has represented an awkward stand-off between the biological facts of nature and their social expression/repression. But such an attitude is problematic in modernity and may even be unworkable, generating growing hypocrisy, compromise, and obfuscation as coping mechanisms.
This is already clear in the degree to which Conservatives have accepted gayness. The awkwardness of such “holding positions” may also be a reason why Conservatives are susceptible to charges of “Cuckservatism,” a heavily sexualized term that highlights the element of willful blindness that feeds into so many aspects of the Conservative viewpoint.
A true Rightist position, however, has to embrace modernity and reality, and deal with sexuality with brutal honestly. This does not mean embracing its ugliness, as Leftists do, in a vile spirit of letting it “all hang out” and gruesome equivalence. Instead it requires arriving at a true consciousness of human sexuality that unflinchingly maintains standards concomitant with a noble and aspirational concept of humanity.
There are several key points that such a consciousness should include, which I will list for convenience:
- Human sexuality is irretrievably linked with much that is deeply demeaning, both in terms of biological function – “inter faeces et urinam” – and psychological function. In particular the feminine urge to be sexually dominated and even abused is an attribute that is unworthy of a creature that seeks agency and self respect.
- Nature should not be equated with perfection, and this particularly refers to sexuality. In religious parlance it is our “original sin,” but, even without religion, it is an ugly and flawed part of our nature.
- To change nature should be regarded as a positive. After all we change the natural environment to suit our interests and modify our bodies in various ways. We should think of sexuality in similar terms. If we could cure homosexuality, for example, it would be best to do so. But why stop there?
- Sexual behaviour as it exists today is inconsistent with an elevated sense of the human being.
- Thanks to various scientific advances it is now possible to create human life without recourse to such behaviour and even to control such behaviour. The ability to decouple human sexuality from our biological reproduction is nascent.
- This means that it is now possible to entertain radical critiques of human sexuality, such as its ultimate abolition or phasing out as a long-term goal.
Of course, such an act of abolition, even if it came to pass, would probably take centuries, but so too would many of the greater goals of an expansive and elevated human consciousness – such as intergalactic travel and the terraforming of new planets to enable our species’ ultimate survival. Such long-termism is not in itself an argument against this idea. The only arguments against it will prove to be an attachment to present-day habits of butt sex, goat fucking, masturbation, or whatever turns you on, projected far into the distant future – a self evidently pointless goal for Nietzschean man.