Op.
36
THE
POLITICS
OF SEXUALITY
(From
an
autobiographical journal by Christopher James)
Long
Prose
Copyright
©
2011 John O'Loughlin
____________
CONTENTS
Chapters
1-6
___________
1
I
was
always
different from others - more sensitive, careful, thoughtful,
kind,
graceful, persevering, and, above all, truthful. I
don't
deny that fate marked me out for a
unique destiny, the fruit of the tree of my various gifts and
inclinations. I have not so much as
kissed a girl in over thirteen years, not since 1971, when I briefly
'went out'
with a cuddly dark-haired girl by name of Martine.
More accurately, for three weeks, and we
didn't 'go out' except in the sense of paying twice-weekly visits to
each-other's addresses. She lived with
her parents, I remember, in a large detached suburban house with a
grand piano
in the front hall. I would play the
piano in those days and spent more time sitting in front of hers than
with
her. Don't get me wrong; she didn't
throw me out or give me up because of this.
But it inevitably saddened her.
So too, I suspect, did my
guitar-playing,
when she came to visit my humble bedsitter
and
discovered that I had more interest in music, my own included, than sex. I had an acoustic guitar in those days, an
old classical thing which someone sold me cheaply when I was still at
school
and which I carried over into my clerking adulthood (youth really, but
never
mind), despite its manifest decrepitude.
Nevertheless, I would knock a classical piece or two out of it,
obscure
Spanish masters for the most part, and Martine would be obliged to
listen to
that, together with whatever folk songs I had recently picked-up from a
Bob
Dylan or a Neil Young album. She
listened to records too of course, mainly my own, and watched a little
television with me. But the most I ever
gave her sexually, apart from a few formal kisses, was a forefinger's
worth of
tentative vaginal probing. To be honest,
I didn't really fancy her all that much, which was why I gave her up
after
three tepid, though highly musical, weeks.
To put it frankly, she was insufficiently attractive to me. I needed someone beautiful but, as usual,
beauty was a rare commodity, particularly in Sutton!
However, there wasn't much
to be found when
I shortly moved into a friend's house in another part of urban
Well, if that was my youth,
then my
adulthood is almost the reverse; for not only do I read virtually the
entire
contents of such men's magazines, but I retain them as well. So I have quite a collection developing and,
needless to say, at the expense of books, which, in any case, I
regularly
borrow from the local library in the form of hardbacks, some of them
rather
expensive ones, too! Why, my last round
of 'sublimated Vikingism', as I like to
think of such
periodic visits to the library, resulted in my gathering-in over £64
worth of
books, one of the six permissible borrowings amounting to £21 alone! Not bad for a guy who can't afford to buy
books any more. With a service like
that, you can't be blamed for regarding the purchase of books as a
habit for
fools. (There I go again, speaking
frankly, not liable to serve a publisher's best interests; never have,
was
always too much of an artist, a law unto myself!) A
great
advantage too, being required to
return the books, not having to burden one's bookcase or whatever with
additional weight. Most books are never
re-read anyway, just clutter-up the place
to gather
dust, mould, and insects. So much
superfluous matter! Merely a custom, a
bourgeois habit, to retain books, as if to prove one's literacy, show
off one's
culture, reinforce one's ego, or, worse still, justify one's
expenditure! Not easy to dispose of a book
which cost
£8-9. Easier to get rid of a paperback,
irrespective of the increases in price that have more than trebled the
cost of
classic paperbacks and classics in paperback during the past decade. I got rid of most of mine at any rate,
preferring to retain only my very favourite; though even they mean less
than
nothing to me, now that I have a budding collection of magazines and
the
freedom of the library.
From being an avid
paperback-collector in
my youth, I have become a despiser of paperbacks in my early adulthood,
my own
more mildewed and creased examples not excepted. One of these days I shall probably remove
even those few remnants of my literary youth from the bookcase and fill
up the
space thus created with new magazines, which will surely by then be
unable to
repose on the one shelf now available to them for want of adequate
space. I don't envisage any radical change
in my
circumstances, you see. Like the
prospect of a different type of accommodation with more room for
bookcases or
whatever. I am used to single-room
accommodation, with only limited space for books and things. That doesn't mean to say I like it. But unless I come into a small fortune, one
way or another, I'm bloody-well stuck with it!
Not likely to become the author of a number-one best-seller, you
see. Never went in for that kind of
thing. Always too
independent-minded and self-consciously 'the artist/thinker' to want to
write
in a commercial vein - romantic or spy or thriller or war novels kind
of thing. Hate them!
Never could read that sort of popular trash, even as a youth. Wondered how people could be so stupid. But there you are, the world was meant for
them, they flow with it, we against it.
They are democratic, like the novel genre itself when most true
to
itself. Not I!
2
Used
to
write
novels or, rather, antinovels at one time, slightly influenced by
James
Joyce and Henry Miller; left-wing kind of novels, I suppose you could
call
them. No fictions, all characters either
based on myself or on people I had once known, maybe still knew to some
extent. No plot or story-line, more
American than British,
No, my characters were more
usually
extensions of myself, variations on an autobiographical theme, you
could
say. I have never been enough of a
novelist, thank goodness, to create pure fictions, like a bourgeois
would do in
his relatively objective stance before the world. Indeed,
I
would even go so far as to say that
the better and more evolved the artist, the more he'll identify with
his work,
finding in it but a reflection of himself.
It is only in bourgeois literature that there exists a lacuna
between
creator and creations, author and fictions, as between the private and
public
selves - the former true, the latter false.
Even the petty-bourgeois antinovelist
disdains
such a lacuna, preferring, if anything like Henry Miller, to write
about
himself and/or his thoughts. How much
more so must that apply to a writer like myself, intent on producing a
radically theocratic mode of writing in the formal framework of
philosophical
literature, something a bourgeois novelist
would never do, given his atomic materialism.
I reject relativity, the lacuna between fact
and fiction. I promote a truthful
absolutism, suitable to this level of writing, the writer at one with
his
creations, the private made public and therefore negated.
I have nothing to hide from anyone,
everything to reveal. Truth transcends
the individual. I have no need of
relativities, different characters, and frictions.
Radical theocratic writing focuses on the
absolute, if not on the Ultimate Absolute then, at any rate, on the
absolutism
of the individual writer, who can invent a world of his own peopled by
his own
selves, former or current, as well as by the selves he can anticipate
(future
projections) through a process of illusional
abstraction from the truth that guides him and is his creative essence. He can also concentrate on other selves, as I
have just done with regard to Anthony Burgess.
Selves are everywhere and many, but he can absorb them into his
oneness
as an absolute writer. He doesn't even
have to get out of bed to do this.
Selves come to him in his sleep, abstractions of real persons or
imaginings of the mind. Sometimes, when
awake, he fantasizes with these abstractions, creates scenes or
romances,
becomes their voyeur or participates in their diverse proceedings. Was he the gynaecologist who had a young
woman lying naked on a high couch with her legs unconventionally forced
apart
and back by a clamped horizontal bar while he probed her sexual crevice
with
long, shiny instruments? Or was he the
young mother's infant son looking on, while the doctor forced
gynaecological
sex upon her as he slid a sopping wet gloved hand backwards and
forwards inside
her dripping trench? He was everything
and anything - father, mother, and son by turns or simultaneously. He had projected a younger father onto a
younger mother, a pre-marital coupling, and had himself slept with his
mother
in the father's role. There was no
incestuous barrier in the mind, no barrier on anything imaginative. He was totally free, within the biological
limits of his brain, to do what he pleased, whether as actor or
spectator. Free, too, to admit the moral
validity of
pornography in the supersession of fantasy
- that
old-brain/subconscious-mind indulgence.
After all, I'm no fool; I can see perfectly well the moral
superiority
of the contemplation of, say, a model in a men's magazine to the actual
indulgence of sexual fantasy. I spend
more time contemplating such models than fantasizing about either them
or
anyone else.
Indeed, outside of soft-core
pornography, I
don't really have a sex-life at all. As
I said at the beginning, I haven't kissed a girl in over thirteen
years, not
having access to anyone in particular, the move to north London kind of
further
isolating me from congenial company, making me more self-reliant,
sharpening my
taste for men's magazines, upgrading my sublimations.
Living where I do, a kind of intellectual
outsider blown in from the provinces, I was obliged, at an early date,
to
regard soft-core pornography not merely as a substitute for sex, but as
an
alternative to it, my aversion to working-class girls partly
conditioned by a
suburban background, partly by my sophisticated culture, partly even by
knowledge of my father's experience in marrying a woman - my mother -
who
turned out to be anything but his idea of compatible and whom he
quickly left,
ultimately obliging her to drag a tiny me away with her from Galway,
Ireland,
into problematic exile in Aldershot, England.
I didn't want to make a similar mistake, so preferred to keep
away from
women whom my instinct and culture told me were essentially frivolous
or likely
to be ethnically incompatible. Besides,
there were also financial constraints to bear in mind, a consequence of
officially being unemployed. In all
honesty, I couldn't have afforded to date a woman on a regular basis,
scarcely
even on an irregular one. Neither did I
want to reveal my actual position to anyone, more humiliating, I dare
say, than
would otherwise have been the case, given my literary pretensions. My secret was my own affair and I intended to
keep it so. If I had resigned myself to
voyeuristic admiration of women in the flesh, the actual flesh itself
was
taboo. A few years ago I would have said
beyond my grasp. Now I will say beneath
it. Yes, for I have come, as I intimated
earlier, to regard my soft-core pornographic indulgences of certain
men's
magazines as my sexuality, as complete and logical a
sexuality as any straight heterosexual behaviour.
I will call it a theocratic as opposed to a
democratic sexuality, supernatural rather than natural.
Supernatural? Yes, a relativity,
as in heterosexual naturalism, between model and admirer.
In natural sex a man inserts his penis into
his partner's vagina and makes love to her.
In supernatural sex, however, a man concentrates his attention
on the
vagina of his selected female model and masturbates himself to a climax
in
voyeuristic partnership. He indulges a
sublimated heterosexuality, his eyes focusing on his 'partner's' sexual
orifice
while his penis responds both to it, through his mind, and to his own
masturbation. This is why I prefer
soft-core pornography to hard-core pornography, where, by contrast,
there is
invariably a sexual relationship between models (participants), and one
is
forced into the necessarily passive role of voyeur or, more usually,
perverse onanist, one's masturbation
accessory to the actual
coupling.
For me, a one-to-one
relationship is
essential between myself and the female model, to which I make love on
a
sublimated and inevitably one-sided basis.
A supernatural sex then, as much a norm for certain people on a
given
evolutionary psychic level as natural sex is for those who live on a
lower,
more bourgeois psychic level. In fact, I
have developed a scale of equivalents between sex and politics, and I
firmly
believe that one's sexuality and one's politics should be on
approximately the
same level, that the former will to some extent condition the latter. My own sexuality I would describe as
fascistic, which accords with my Social Transcendentalist ('Social
Transcendental' would be too adjectivally parallel and therefore loose)
ideological bent, though, in point of fact, I visualize Social
Transcendentalism as post-fascist and more a religion than a mode of
politics
in reaction to Communism, the strict sexual equivalent to which would
be
late-teenage juvenile pornography, an equivalent more suited, I would
think, to
the masses than to their leaders!
Be that as it may, the
theocratic,
supernatural essence of my sexuality cannot be denied.
Sex is not simply a thing of the body; it's
conditioned by the evolutionary status of one's psyche, which in turn
conditions one's level of politics or, at any rate, ought to do. That the psyche is partly conditioned by the
nature of one's environment, I will not deny.
But other factors - temperamental, hereditary, educational,
cultural,
social, ethnic - are also responsible, in
varying
degrees, for the psyche's current status, a status which is
continuously
changing.
3
Returning
to
sex
and politics, I have come to regard male-dominated heterosexual
relations as ... liberal and their female-dominated counterparts as
conservative, both of which bespeak an atomic naturalism.
The reason I say male-dominated heterosexual
relations are liberal is that, traditionally, the Liberals are to the
left, if
only just, of the political spectrum, and it is the left wing which
suggests to
me a male bias leading, beyond the Liberal level, to antinatural
and thus, by implication, antifemale
behaviour. I am of course referring to
both Democratic
Socialism and Social Democracy, and if intermittent anal intercourse
with women
may be described as loosely Democratic Socialist, then the bisexual
alternation
between women and men by men could be ascribed a loosely Social
Democratic
significance, the sort of more radical relativity that should lead, in
due
course, to the most radical antinatural
relativity of
all - namely, the homosexuality of the Communist mind.
Ah, so there it is! If the antinatural
begins with the sodomizing of women (though one might justifiably
contend that
the male domination of women in liberal sex is the real beginning of
the rot),
then it most definitely culminates with the sodomizing of men on an
absolute as
opposed to a relative, or intermittent, basis.
And if the political rot begins with Liberalism, it most
definitely
culminates in Communism. Prior to all
that ... the natural in Conservatism, and subsequent to it ... the
supernatural
in Fascism and/or its more radically theocratic (supra-natural?)
successor - my
own Centrist ('Centerist' would, I fear, be
too
clumsy a term) Social Transcendentalism.
Before the natural, there was of course the pro-natural, a Whiggish lesbianism or lesbian Whiggishness,
and before that, or rather beneath it, the subnatural
autocratic sexuality of erotic sculpture, which was more a pagan than a
Christian affair. Hence
the
evolution
of sex from its autocratic beginnings to its theocratic
endings. Although
I
ought perhaps to
mention oral sex, fellatio suggesting a female domination, cunnilingus
a
masculine one; the former arguably Republican (in the American
party-political
sense of that term), the latter Democratic (again in the specifically
American
sense). Not that it really
matters all that much, at least not to me, since I never have a woman
to 'go
down on' - the masculine equivalent of 'giving head'.
And I wonder that if I did by any chance have
a woman, whether I would practise cunnilingus on her, given my
supernatural
bias, a right-wing tendency to allow the female element to dominate one
way or
another, as happens during the practice of my masturbatory sexuality,
in which
the voyeuristic contemplation of the woman (model), elevated to the
abstract
status of a photograph, induces frictional stimulation lower down, the
masculine side subordinated, as it were, to the higher, spiritualized
primary
stimulus coming from above. I imagine
that if I were to enter into palpable sexual relations with a woman,
she would
have to be the dominant partner, if not on the level of traditional
conservative copulation then, at any rate, on the more evolved level of
'Republican' head. Either way, a kind of
female domination would ensue, which could only be guaranteed if the
woman was
of a sufficiently-dominating nature in the first place.
I seem to recall having
fallen in love with
such a woman some years ago, though nothing came of my love since, she
being otherwise
sexually engaged, it remained unrequited.
But what a woman! The most sexy
rump I had ever seen, one of those small but highly seductive rumps
which
suggest a pear-like bulbousness when
evaluated from
the bottom up, so to speak, the lower part of it kind of hanging over
the
thigh, seemingly resting flaccidly on top of it but, in reality, jeans
or no
jeans, a most compact overall impression!
Yes, I fell in love with Sophie early-on in my clerical career
(it was
to last just six years), and I remained in love with her long after I
had
abandoned it. Doubtless she also played
a part, if paradoxically, in keeping me celibate, solitary, and
disdainful of
other women. And she was very classy,
very cultured and well-spoken. University-educated and all that, the daughter of a
vicar. Ah, how seemingly
few-and-far-between are
such women! Attractive and
intelligent! Not just a pretty face or,
worse still, an academic brain.
But I shouldn't regress like
this to such
nostalgic traps. I ceased being a victim
of unrequited love some time ago and thereafter became more of a free
man than
I had ever been ... before the emotional enslavement struck me. I began, in consequence, to hope that I would
encounter a modelling Sophie in one or another of the men's magazines
that I
regularly purchased. Never did, largely,
I suspect, because she was one of those women who are too middle class
to offer
their services in that way, the magazines in question not usually
functioning on
the plane of university-educated middle-class academics, no more, for
that
matter, than do the vast majority of novels.
Rather, a titillation for the broad
masses, the
bourgeoisie included, which people like me may or may not look-in upon
from our
'Steppenwolfian' lair.... Not that I wish
to
disparage such magazines, since, as already remarked, I derive much
pleasure
from them. But there are certain things
you don't encounter between their pages, and the type of woman I have
in mind
is one of them. I might also mention
reviews of new Modern Jazz/Fusion releases from musicians like Herbie Hancock, Chick Corea,
John
McLaughlin,
Jean-Luc Ponty, Al DiMeola,
Larry
Coryell, and George Duke.
Plenty of Rock reviews, but I grew out of
rock music some years ago and now regard it as a largely youthful craze.
Are these magazines
therefore intended
specifically for youths? It may well be,
though certain of the journalistic articles therein incorporated
suggest an
appeal to maturer tastes, particularly
where politics
is concerned. What one comes back to, I
suppose, is the desire of these magazines to appeal to as wide a
spectrum of
the public as possible, in order to remain commercially viable. After all, this is still a harsh, cut-throat
world, and you don't survive in it, least of all on a lucrative basis,
without
making some concessions to its harshness.
Such magazines are inclined to do that and, well, who is to
grumble if
they can't please everyone everywhere all of the time?
Idealism, as the British see it, is
specifically an Irish disease, one which the hale down-to-earth
Anglo-Saxons fight shy of in their
commitment to realism. Men's magazines
are, after all, in the
entertainment business, not the educative one, and Rock is probably
more
entertaining, for the broad mass of people, than sophisticated and
sometimes
pretentious Modern Jazz. I shall stick
to my idealism and leave the English, not to mention Americans, to
their
realism/materialism, including the sexual variety.
Their world is declining, but not too fast,
whereas my world is rising, if only slowly.
The theocratic ideal beckons to me through the psychic medium of
my
intelligence, and I defer to it in my writings.
Defer to it in my life as well, an absolute supernaturalism my
sexual
ideal, an ideal most Englishmen are as yet incapable of upholding, even
if they
are disposed to intermittent sublimation.
But the chances are that one day the ideal will become the rule
and the
real, by contrast, the exception - nay, a disease, to be shunned by all
right-thinking idealists. The
supernatural,
or rather supra-natural, will prevail over the natural and the antinatural, the pro-natural and the subnatural. For the
supernatural would seem to be a kind
of fascistic, petty-bourgeois precursor of the more radically
theocratic
supra-natural, National Socialism as opposed to Social
Transcendentalism, adult
pornography instead of late-teenage juvenile pornography, magazines as
opposed
to computer discs, the latter sexuality conferring a supra-natural
distinction
from the former on account of the sexual distance between adults and
juveniles,
the fact that juveniles, even when in their late teens, are not
naturally
sexual objects for adults but if, through the medium of pornography,
adults
were obliged to regard them as sexual objects, then the
resultant
sublimated relationship, focusing voyeuristic/masturbatory attention on
the
juvenile's sex (vagina in the case of females, penis in the case of
males - the
one intended for masculine appreciation, the other for the appreciation
of
women), would constitute a supra-natural sexuality appropriate, in its
radical
sublimation, to a Social Transcendentalist age and society, but only to
such an
age and society, not to the worldly present!
Of course, I can imagine the
outcry of
'pervert!' or 'perverted!' that would rush from the mouths of realists,
whether
at the bidding of a realistic demon or not ... I leave for others to
decide. And some will assert that
recourse to such radical pornography would lead to the actual
molestation of
children, never mind teenagers! Well,
that accusation I can dismiss as reflecting a realist's psychic
limitations,
while the assertion following it could just as easily be applied with
regard to
women, where the use of adult pornography obtained; though there is no
evidence
to suggest that the majority of women are any more vulnerable to rape
on that
account than they would be if such pornography had never existed. Probably the availability of pornography
reduces the number of rapes by sublimating the rapist impulse and
seducing the potential
rapist out of his sperm. Maybe, on the
other hand, there is no connection between pornography and rape,
that the man who intends to rape a woman will do so anyway,
irrespective
of whether or not he buys pornography on a regular basis.
There are any number
of possibilities here, depending on individual behaviour and
circumstances. A man may rape after
having been released from a long spell in prison; he may be drunk,
deranged,
insufficiently civilized, or derelict.
The vast majority of men never rape and will never do so. The nearest they may ever come to it will be
in the forceful, precipitant removal of their girlfriend's or wife's
clothing
for mutually-acceptable impulsive sex.
That is something which often turns the female on just as much
as the
male.
But teenagers are, of
course, a different
proposition, and I have no doubt that the availability of juvenile
pornography
on a widespread, absolutist basis would presuppose a very different
kind of
society than the one in which most people are currently living, namely
a closed
society in which children/teenagers lived apart from adults in special
rearing
and educational institutions, and adults, for their part, lived fairly
secluded, solitary lives in bedsitter-type
accommodation; a society, in other words, in which sexual coupling of
any
description was the exception to the rule - indeed, a taboo subject,
given the
absolutist integrity of that age and the availability of sperm
banks/artificial
insemination for purposes of sex-free reproduction.
It might of course transpire
that young
girls of, say, 16-19 years of age would be available on a semi-prostitutional basis at certain times for a
limited
duration, and it could be that 'sex' with such girls would constitute a
mode of
supra-naturalism. But such a procedure
would also presuppose a radical transformation in the adult attitude to
juveniles, turning the latter into somewhat disreputable, unripe human
beings
whose low spiritual standing in comparison with adults permitted of
relationships which, by then, would be considered demeaning for a
woman; though
evolutionary progress all along the line would suggest the possibility
that
men, too, would not wish to indulge in particularly strong sexual
appetites and
would accordingly be disposed to comparatively tepid relationships with
young
girls, a sexuality of petting and kissing merely, not, by any means, a
full
heterosexual approach to what, after all, might well be an
insufficiently
accommodating vagina!
Thus if kissing and petting
of adult women
was taboo on account of their equal status and more sublimated
integrity, then
a vent for such fleshy desires would remain open where juveniles were
concerned, though on a relatively low-key, tepid basis.
A large adult erect penis thrusting into a
young girl's vagina would be akin to something out of Lautréamont's
Maldoror,
with
consequences no less painful and bloody
for the child. Exceptions may arise,
but, in the main, I envisage sexual satisfaction for men - as for women
-
coming in the future through recourse to juvenile pornography - a truly
supra-natural intercourse for a radically absolutist age, such a might
arise
sometime in the twenty-first century.
Not, of course, the kind of pornography that involves coupling
or
philandering partners, since a one-to-one relationship would be
difficult if
not impossible to establish in that context, quite apart from the
initial
difficulty of getting juveniles to pose in an adult way, as though
indulging in
actual heterosexual copulation. All
relative pornography, as we may call the partner-embracing variety,
would then
be taboo, and not simply on ideological grounds but also on moral
grounds,
since encouraging sexual perversion of one kind or another, the
voyeuristic not
least of all. With a single frontal model,
vagina to the fore, there is adequate incentive for a supra-natural
copulation
of the type I have already outlined to take place, and this would
constitute a
legitimate form of theocratic sexuality - what one might call supersex, for want of a better term.
But
the
actual
pornographic spectacle of copulating couples would inhibit this
development, inducing, if not mere voyeurism, then the worse outcome of
perverse accessory masturbation, the modern form of Onan. Adult
pornography would be taboo by then in
any case, so it is unlikely that there would be much temptation for the
indulgence of this more sublimated kind of antinaturalism,
probably
a
fascistic equivalent, if the truth were known. There
is
plenty of adult medium- to hard-core
pornography about these days, and most of it involves copulating
couples.
One should, I suppose,
distinguish between
soft- to medium-core absolute pornography (if 'pornography' be the
right word
here) and this other more relative variety, the former embracing one
model at a
time, the latter ... two or more. If one
is given a glimpse of vagina in the soft-core singles pornography, the
vagina
will be clearly and openly on display in the medium-core variety,
thereby
facilitating supernatural sexuality. If
one is given a clear view of vagina and/or penis in the medium-core
couple’s
pornography, the sexual parts will be partly or deeply involved in
copulation
in the hard-core couple’s variety. One
might chart a progression, with regard to these four stages of
pornography, from,
say, a typical Penthouse
or Mayfair model of soft-core singles vaginal
exposure ... to the more overtly sexual medium-core singles vaginal
exposure of
a typical Playbirds model. Since this latter magazine embraces both
singles and doubles, one can regard it as of pivotal medium-core status
in
between the soft-core singles and hard-core doubles, since the
modelling
couples are photographed well-short of actual sexual penetration on the
male's
part, the vagina of the female model usually quite clearly displayed
and thus
not debarring supernatural masturbatory participation.
Indeed, it seems to me that
one of the main
reasons why the female model is so often photographed on top of
the male
one, in these doubles shots, is to promote maximum voyeuristic and/or
masturbatory participation, her sex more accessible, in this position,
than
would otherwise be the case, were the male on top and thus an obstacle
in the
way of the vagina, only attractive, one may suppose, to men of
homosexual
persuasion. Nevertheless, I still
maintain that masturbation induced by simulated copulation will fall
short of
true supernaturalism, being accessory to the actual coupling implicit
in the
modelling and thus, by implication, an intrusion into their
heterosexual
relativity. Still, not
so much antinatural as unorthodoxly
supernatural.
The truly hard-core
pornography, in which
the models (participants) appear to be more overly and literally
involved in
copulation, and sometimes to the extent of covering or hiding their sex
organs,
will place the viewer in a more accessory, purely voyeuristic
relationship, and
if he chooses to masturbate in response to the heterosexual stimulus
vouchsafed
him by the spectacle of coupling bodies, not necessarily very erotic in
view of
their hidden or partly-obscured sexual parts, then his act will acquire
the
status of a sublimated antinaturalism, a
sort of
perversely theocratic sexuality in between the antinatural
and the supernatural, which may well be the sexual equivalent of
Fascism.
Be that as it may, I need
not hesitate in
informing the reader, who will probably have guessed by now in any
case, that I
never indulge in such a sexuality, not having bought any really
hard-core
pornography (though I have seen enough examples of it to know what I'm
writing
about). The nearest I ever get to it is
with magazines like Playbirds
which, as
already remarked, has a medium-core status, and if I take a fancy to
any
particular model in that, whether she is on her own or accompanied by a
partner, usually one of her own sex, I make love to her on my own
supernatural,
and hence sublimated, terms. The
apparent lesbian activity of the models provides ample scope for
masturbatory
appreciation of the vaginal stimuli displayed, one or both models' sex
clearly
on view. Yet, ideally, I prefer the
single models, partly on moral grounds but also partly as a consequence
of long
acquaintance with magazines like Penthouse
and
4
Fundamentally,
pornography
has
to do with obscenity or, more accurately, with the erotic
evocation of a sexual response. Now
although most of us may not find the spectacle of a nude girl
emphasizing
either breasts or vagina or, if attention is focused on her face, the
simulation of sexual abandon particularly obscene, nevertheless there
are
people who would
be shocked or revolted by such a spectacle (not to mention the phallic
response it may be inducing), and not only among the ranks of the
elderly,
either! Certainly, there would have been
plenty of moral indignation over such, to us, tepidly erotic poses in,
say,
Victorian England, where the natural was so much more prevalent, to the
lasting
detriment of both supernaturalism and antinaturalism
alike. Were there no sexual, and hence
pornographic, connotations in most of the photographs we encounter in
men's
magazines, very few of us would continue to buy them, aesthetics alone
being
insufficiently entertaining to warrant our regular curiosity.
So a sexual element does
enter into
much of the modelling of females and thus, by implication, a degree, no
matter
how tepid, of pornographic obscenity, since, despite the considerable
evolutionary progress which supernatural sex signifies over the natural
sexual
tradition, sex can never be rendered holy and innocent, must always, in
the
very sensual nature of the subject, remain suspect and even
contemptible from a
spiritual point of view. We are not
pagans, and neither should we allow an acknowledgement of the essential
goodness of temperate nature to inhibit the growth of a supernatural
bias. Too much theological emphasis on the
Father
detracts from the Holy Spirit. Temperate
nature and, by implication, gentle sex for reproductive purpose are
good,
healthy, ordained (in a certain, if limited, sense) by the will of the
Creator. But the supernatural signifies
a higher good, the ultimate good (unless, however, one prefers to
recognize a
distinction in regard to the supra-natural), spiritual rather than
sensual, and
so demands our allegiance to a much greater extent than the natural -
certainly, at any rate, if we are disposed, in consequence of
environmental,
ethnic, hereditary, and class factors, to progressive life. For only through the supernatural, whether in
sex or art, do we draw nearer to the Holy Spirit, to the goal and
destiny of
evolutionary striving.
Yet supernatural sex is
still sex, and thus
a matter of pleasure rather than the cultivation, through meditation,
of pure
awareness, even if, in the context of pornography, a much sublimated,
intellectualized pleasure co-exists with the more sensual, brute
pleasure of
orgasm. Social Transcendentalism could
no more overtly encourage supernatural sex than Christianity overtly
encouraged
natural sex. But it would have to
acknowledge the legitimacy and inevitability of such sex, face-up to it
as a
fact of life, the least objectionable of a number of alternative sexual
practices, the best kind of sexual indulgence from a moral point of
view. In fact, one could argue that, in
turning
against natural sex, Christianity-proper, meaning Christ-centred
Protestantism,
indirectly encouraged antinatural sex and,
hence, the
gradual revolt against natural good that we may characterize as antinatural evil, the negative decadence
following upon the
heels of the positive classicism of pagan/Catholic naturalism. Even now, in the late-twentieth century, the
Catholic Church sides with the natural against the antinatural
- propagative sex against contraceptive
sex, birth
against abortion, heterosexuality against homosexuality, marriage
against
divorce, love against promiscuity, intercourse against Onan,
and so on. What Protestantism began,
Communism has since continued, and doubtless to the furthermost point
of antinaturalness!
The destiny of the truly
Catholic peoples,
and their overseas equivalents, lies less in abandoning the natural
good for
the antinatural evil ... than in
progressing from the
natural good to the supernatural good, the ultimate good, in accordance
with
the spiritual requirements of a truly
radical, post-fascist theocracy, so that the sublimation of the natural
becomes
the sexual norm and propagative
responsibility is
accordingly transferred, in the course of time, to the supernatural
realm of
the sperm bank/artificial insemination of Centrist supervision, the
utilitarian
side of sex separated from its aesthetic or pleasurable side, and the
latter
elevated, through supernatural/supra-natural pornography, to an
absolute status
in private sublimated satisfaction - the orgasmic outpourings which may
result
from this supernatural/supra-natural sexuality to be collected and
subsequently
donated to sperm banks, where they will be analysed and, if found
acceptable,
stored for future propagative use, pending
the choice
of a prospective recipient. In such
fashion the sin of Onan will be avoided,
not to
mention through the supernatural nature of the sexuality itself, the
pornography, whether adult or juvenile, owing nothing to the antinatural.
For it should not be
forgotten that much
contemporary pornography is antinatural, a
sublimated
evil as opposed to a fleshy, palpable evil, the photographic
reproduction of sodomitic intercourse
being the principal mode of this
sexual deviance, with anti-supernaturalism, or warped spirituality, the
deplorable result. As I said earlier,
the antinatural begins with the male
domination of
the female in left-wing heterosexuality.
What I didn't do then, as I now realize I perhaps ought to have,
was
clarify and define the nature of this male-dominated sexuality, with
its
liberal overtones. The same, of course,
applies to straight, or female-dominated, heterosexuality, which I
defined in
terms of a Conservative equivalent. I
dare say that some readers are still puzzling the implications of these
omissions.
However, taking what I
believe to be the
Liberal equivalent first, I shall define male-dominated sexuality as
one in
which the male 'takes' the female from behind, so that she is at his
sexual
mercy, unable to contribute any caressive
sexuality
to the act - her hands underneath or in front of her, her face turned
away from
the man, her legs knees downwards and therefore unable to curl round
the male's
back. In this belly-downwards position,
she is but a passive victim of the male's copulation which, entering
her from
behind, might almost suggest an anal violation; at any rate, it is the
nearest approach
to overt antinaturalism, bearing in mind
the
prominence of the female's rump in this position, the fact that it is
directly
exposed to the male's assault and inevitably plays a part in erotically
stimulating him. Furthermore, there is
no reason why the male should not extend his domination of the female
in this
position by simultaneously caressing her breasts from behind, as well
as
kissing and/or biting her nape, earlobes, etc.
This taking from behind,
whether the female
be on her hands-and-knees, standing upright, or flat-out on her
stomach,
constitutes the first, or loosely liberal, stage in the degeneration of
sexuality from the classical norm of female-dominated and/or balanced
heterosexuality to the most perverse manifestation of the antinatural
in communistic homosexuality - the most male-dominated lopsidedness
conceivable, the nadir of sexual decadence.
The sexual liberal may not be as evil (antinatural)
as
the
sexual radical, but he is still less than good!
He has revolted against the natural
heterosexuality of the female-dominated relationship, which I described
as
Conservative and which, contrary to superficial impressions, does not
imply the
riding of the male by the female, i.e. a kind of female copulation,
but, on the
contrary, the riding of the female face upwards by the male face
downwards - in
short, a stomach-to-stomach copulation that enables the female to
enfold the
male with her arms and/or legs and directly inflame his passion, as
required. It is as if, despite the show
of male activity, the female has ultimate control and is able, by
subtle shifts
and endearments, to modify his behaviour according to her desires. She is also free, if not subject to
approaching orgasm, to mould her lips to his and make positive use of
her tongue. She will also be able to
stimulate her
nipples against her lover's chest, his hands usually being otherwise
engaged. And she will know that the
changing expressions on her face will contribute their part to the
domination
of the male, making him a willing servant of her manifold endearments.
Well, it may be that this
kind of sex is
now out-of-date or taboo for many people, but it is still the classical
norm
wherever civilized naturalism holds sway, a right-wing atomicity
favouring the
female. Sexual decadence, by contrast,
signifies the gradual ascendancy of the male element to a point where,
at its
most antinatural,
nothing
female
remains, and only men take part.
Traditionally, this decadence was stigmatized by the denigratory
epithet 'queer', and there are still people, even in this extremely
decadent
age, who are more disposed to its employment when describing homosexual
activity in others than to the use of the trendy euphemism 'gay' - a
testimony
to the extent of the current decadence of, in the main, Western
civilization,
meaning, of course, the predominantly Protestant civilization of
nations such
as Britain, Germany, Holland, Sweden, Norway, the United States, and,
paradoxically, France - a nominally Catholic but, for many decades,
typically
Western nation (as opposed, for instance, to Eire).
5
In
the
contemporary
West, then, the whole gamut of antinatural
sexuality is permissible, and homosexuals - the most radically decadent
category of sexual degenerates, with the possible exception of child
molesters
and paedophiles generally - are entitled to a respect under the law
that Oscar
Wilde never received and would, no doubt, greatly envy them if he could
see
their activities from the other side of the grave.
Even the
Be that as it may, I want to
make one point
particularly clear - namely, that being 'bent', or antinatural,
stops
at
homosexuality, does not and cannot go beyond homosexuality except on
sublimated terms, as implying recourse to an antinatural
mode of pornography which, in a sense, is less morally degenerate than
the
actual perverse indulgence of the flesh; though whether as a successor
or an
alternative to it ... is an open question.
At any rate, I want to make absolutely clear that recourse to
naturalistic pornography does not constitute a mode of perversion, but,
on the
contrary, is the logical antithesis to natural sexuality, being the
supernatural sexuality of sublimated heterosexuality, about which the
reader
will have already learnt enough. This supersex is the truly progressive, classical,
and radical
sex of the age, a theocratic sexuality in which the emphasis is on the
spiritual, in sublimated sexuality, rather than on the flesh, as in
straight,
or bourgeois, heterosexuality. Even the
relative variety, making use of two models, is sexually valid, if more
as an
inducement to voyeurism than to actual masturbation.
Provided the sexuality being simulated is
natural rather than antinatural, we are on
supernatural territory, if only just.
There is nothing decadent about heterosexual pornography, not
even the
relative variety, but there is surely a clear manifestation of
decadence in the
homosexual, male-dominated type, whether involving the sodomization
of women or its male-centred counterpart, both of which modes of
pornographic antinaturalism must
nevertheless be accredited a superior
status to the actual fleshy violation of anuses, if only on the basis
of their
photographic sexuality, the result a sublimated evil, less immoral or
obscene
than the literal perversions, but still a reflection of sexual
decadence.
The man who makes use of
such anti-supernatural
pornography for masturbatory purposes is still 'bent', his attention
focused on
the anus - if visible - of the preferred model, whom he intends to
violate
subliminally, a more intellectualized decadence, the furthest reach -
if one
discounts the anal violation of juveniles - of the antinatural,
though
less
evil, paradoxically, than the literal fleshy violation of the
excretory organ and simultaneous degradation of the penis, whether in
regard to
women or men. The user of homosexual
pornography is more like a right-wing Communist than a Fascist, on
account of
his sublimated antinaturalism, the antinatural ever a left-wing, and hence
socialist/communist, phenomenon, but its sublimation in pornography
drawing it
closer to the supernatural - the truly right-wing fascistic sexuality
of
heterosexual pornography.
From the converse point of
view, one might
argue that recourse to hard-core heterosexual pornography, in which a
simulated
coupling forces the voyeur into an accessory position, would constitute
a
left-wing fascistic sexuality, the nearest thing, albeit still
nominally
supernatural, to the antinatural.... Not
the kind of
pornography that I use, but still morally preferable to the overtly antinatural variety, with its sublimated evil;
just as
natural sex is morally superior to antinatural
sex, a
plus as opposed to a minus.
Nevertheless, anyone who habitually indulges in supernatural sex
is
unlikely to have much time or inclination for the natural, even though
the two
kinds of sex, corresponding to conservative and fascist levels of
politics, are
not mutually exclusive.
The more a man sublimates
his sexual
instincts, the less he actually copulates, to paraphrase Baudelaire. Supernatural sex can be indulged to the
exclusion of natural sex, and the same, I dare say, may apply to the
distinction between anti-supernatural and antinatural
sex. Admittedly, such extremes will be
the exception to the rule at present, particularly in countries with a
strong
naturalistic and/or atomic tradition, but they are possible. If, in the future, a supra-natural sex,
involving juvenile models, takes over from the supernatural variety,
then the
likelihood of one's regressing to the naturalistic level will be
extremely
remote, the supra-natural being beyond the pale of natural relativity. A Fascist can become a Conservative and/or
Republican (in the American party-political sense) in his sexuality and
vice
versa, but no Social Transcendentalist could become one, since, by that
time,
natural sex would be taboo. The natural
leads to the supernatural, but the supra-natural belongs to an
altogether more
absolute part of the evolutionary spectrum!
Indeed, one could argue
that, while the
above may hold true in theory, in practice the supernatural could not
be
attained to without the antinatural coming
in-between, since the natural, pertaining to a sensual classicism, is
complete
in itself, the embodiment of a specific class/environmental ideal. Few Conservatives are ever likely to become
Fascists, since the latter politics reflects a different class-stage of
evolution - one more relevant to petty-bourgeois theocrats than to
bourgeois
democrats. You don't just evolve from
Conservatism and/or Republicanism to Fascism.
Fascism only arose in reaction to Communism and the correlative
threat
of a Marxist-Leninist take-over - in other words, after the antinatural
had undermined the natural and suggested, to right-thinking men, the
possibility of supernaturalism as the next logical step, one
necessarily
hostile to the antinatural.
Thus, as a dialectical materialist would
argue, the natural gave rise, as thesis, to an antinatural
antithesis, the fusion of which led to a supernatural synthesis, a
process
which should lead, in due course, to the latter becoming a new thesis
against
which an anti-supernatural antithesis will arise, to bring about, one
way or
another, the supra-natural synthesis of the ultimate politics and/or
sexuality.
Such a triadic logic
certainly has its
appeal, though I cannot quite reconcile myself to a synthesis arising
out of
two mutually antagonistic theses, as though they would somehow come
together
and form this new whole when, in point of fact, they are frictional and
mutually exclusive, indisposed to fusion but ever antithetical, ever
apart. You cannot derive a synthesis from
a
friction! How, then, can you expect the
natural and the antinatural,
heterosexuality and
homosexuality, to combine to form the kind of heterosexual
supernaturalism I
have been describing on previous pages?
Not for me this dialectic, nor its application to religion,
where Father
plus Holy Spirit equals Son (though there is a certain paradoxical
logic to it,
as to so much else). What I was
attempting to underline, before succumbing to this dialectical
intrusion, is
that whilst, in theory, it may appear that the natural leads to the
supernatural, in practice the latter cannot arise before the antinatural has discredited the natural and thus
indirectly
paved the way for a new, higher classicism - one centred on the spirit
rather
than on the flesh.
It is less that the
supernatural arises out
of the antinatural than as a revolt
against it, the
desire for a new naturalism now that the old one has been sufficiently
discredited by its romantic antagonist, an antagonist which, whether as
homosexuality or communism, leaves much to be desired!
Men of good will who revolt against the antinatural
evil, though not in the name of the traditional
good. Men of
sufficient intelligence and moral calibre as to perceive, amidst all
the evil
and friction, the possibility of a superior good, appertaining to the
supernatural. And
to
perceive
it precisely because
they live in the more artificial environment of the big city and
therefore
aren't disposed to naturalistic criteria, like a provincial or suburban
classicist.
The antinatural
may be evil fools, but they signify a superior evil to the pre-natural
variety;
they are more akin to perverse electrons (neutrons?) than to absolute
protons,
pseudo-electrons as opposed to the free-electron supernaturalists
who signify the higher possibility - that of a new, ultimate good - and
must
consequently turn against the antinatural
in the name
of this new classicism, either Fascist or, on the later and more
evolved level,
Social Transcendentalist, with a supra-urban bias and a supra-natural
sexuality. A direct link there may be
between the supernatural and the supra-natural, but not between the
natural and
the supernatural! The antinatural
must come in-between, and, to be sure, I find
that my own political and, to a limited extent, sexual evolution passed
through
or, at any rate, paid tribute to the antinatural,
if
from
an essentially supernatural point of view.
For although I was never a
Communist, my
'Socialism' being supplemented by a Neo-Buddhist level of
petty-bourgeois
transcendentalism, a pro-communist phase came in-between a sort of
negative Nietzschean Conservatism
(lamenting the destruction of
natural values, lamenting, like Spengler,
the decline
of the West), and a more intensely transcendental fascist phase, during
which
the national, in relation to Eire, came to supplant the international,
and the
ground was at last prepared for the subsequent leap from Irish Social
Nationalism (not to be confused with bourgeois nationalism) to
supra-national
Social Transcendentalism, and the eclipse of Socialism by Centrism, the
truly
theocratic ideological position of what I like to think of as
potentially an
ultimate world religion - a revolt, in part, against Socialism.
So Capitalism plus Socialism
does not equal
Centrism, but, on the contrary, Centrism, signifying the Centrist
(theocratic)
trusteeship of the means of production for the Truth within a Social
Transcendentalist context, emerges as a revolt, in part, against the
public
ownership of the means of production by the people.
To the extent that the means of production
are not owned by the people, the broad masses, Centrism has something
in common
with Capitalism. But no more than
supernatural sex has in common with natural sex. If
the
plutocratic ownership of the means of
production is natural, derived from the galactic-world-order of
dominion by the
strongest, then the meritocratic
trusteeship of those
means is supernatural, the bureaucratic ownership coming in-between as
a kind
of antinaturalism, that is to say
ownership by the
weak and/or stupid rather than, as with theocratic Centrism,
trusteeship by the
most intelligent. Capitalism and
Socialism, like the natural and the antinatural
in
sex, can and do exist side-by-side, as in atomic
Likewise Catholicism and
Protestantism can
and do exist side-by-side in an open society, the one naturalistic and
the
other antinaturalistic, but neither of
them could
co-exist with Social Transcendentalism in a Centrist society. Neither, needless to say, could natural sex
and antinatural sex co-exist with
supra-natural sex
in such a closed society, the upholder of a theocratic absolutism. The supernatural variety of sex can and does
co-exist, in open-society contexts, with the natural and the antinatural, not to mention the
anti-supernatural. But the supra-natural
would be above and
beyond the adult pale, and never again could adults, least of all women
(become
quasi-supermen) be regarded as sexual objects!
My own sexuality does not
extend to the
level of teenage juvenile pornography; I am quite resigned to a
petty-bourgeois
supernaturalism which, as already intimated, I did not get to from a
natural
base but, on the contrary, from a kind of indirect antinaturalism,
or
perverse
supernaturalism, in which my voyeuristic attention was often
focused on the rump of a given female model, and I might well have
imagined
myself climaxing into her rectum. This
would have corresponded to my pro-Communist phase, though, being
pro-Communist
from a transcendental point of view, I was also pro-antinatural
from a supernatural vantage-point, with regard to female models. I have never completely abandoned the
theocratic, and it is inconceivable that I ever shall, even if I were
to
acquire myself a female companion in life and became partly
naturalistic.
6
No
more
than
a few days after having written about natural classicism implying
a female-dominated
heterosexuality, it now occurs to me that I was probably wrong to
suppose the
classical should be conceived of in this way.
For today I'm a different man, in a manner of speaking, from the
one I
was then, my subconscious in sleep and conscious mind in wakefulness
having
reconsidered the contentions put forward, and now, coming to grips with
my
intellectual honesty and absolutist literary integrity, I am disposed
to offer
the reader a fresh insight - one that I touched upon but did not
expand.
(Remember about the selves within the self, the frictions within the
absolute?) I am of course referring to
the mention of a balanced sexual relationship between the male and the
female,
and surely, if anything corresponds to a classical norm, it must be
such a
balance.
Well then, how should we
conceive of it in
relation to heterosexuality? Simply, I
maintain, as implying the passivity of the female while the male
proceeds with
his copulation, the posture belly-to-belly but not necessarily
involving the
woman in overtly endearing and/or caressive
contributions. On the
contrary, permitting her no more than a vaginal response to the male's
thrusts,
as she lies fairly limp in his arms and gives herself up to the almost
contemplative experience of her pleasure. Naturally,
her
facial expression betrays this
pleasure, and she makes various complementary sounds.
But it is the male who is forcing them upon
her, sexually activating her. Only her
vagina seems to have a contribution of its own to make, in muscular
response to
the copulative thrusts of her partner's phallus.
Ah! so
a classical
heterosexuality, one that every 'good' girl or cultured lady is
supposed to
uphold. For too much action on the
female's part, too great a contribution to the sexual act, whether with
arms,
legs, hands, or tongue, would be vulgar, indeed a falling below the
classical
mean - a kind of pre-classical sexuality in between straight lesbianism
and
straight heterosexuality, the female-dominated forerunner of the
classical balance.
So now we are beginning to
understand the
nature of the classical in greater depth and can see that if it
corresponds to
a Conservative ideal, then female-dominated heterosexuality must
correspond, by
contrast, to a Whig or Whiggish ideal, the
successor
to a more overtly lesbian sexuality. For
as soon as women ceased to play a dominating role and became classical,
the way
was open for men to begin asserting their own domination, a thing they
surely
did in terms of a liberal taking of the woman from behind, the first
stage on
the road, as already described, to the eventual absolutist culmination
of this
trend in communistic homosexuality.
Of course, the lesbian and
the homosexual
extremes are still fundamentally relative, involving the participation
of two
bodies, and are thus, in a limited sense, atomic, though on the basis
of a
pre-natural and a post-natural or, alternatively, a pro-natural and an antinatural sexuality.
If homosexuality falls short of the genuinely theocratic, then
lesbianism must be above and beyond the genuinely autocratic, a kind of
autocratic relativity corresponding, in political terms, to a Cromwellian pseudo-tyranny.
Now one could argue that just as the degeneration of sexuality
from a
classical heterosexual balance went through three stages prior to the
homosexual, viz. a male-dominated heterosexuality, a homosexual
heterosexuality
(anal violation of the female), and a bisexuality (or alternation
between men
and women), so the regeneration of sexuality from lesbianism passes
through
lesbian bisexuality (the woman alternating between females and males),
a
lesbian heterosexuality (the woman riding atop the male), and a
female-dominated heterosexuality (the male on top but the female still
very
active), this latter corresponding to a mature Whiggish
right-wing sexuality, the previous stage to an early kind of
necessarily
left-wing Conservatism (so that, despite my recent rethink, what I
wrote about
female-dominated relationships being Conservative still stands, if only
with
regard to the very early Conservatives, or Tories), and the first stage
to the
original right-wing autocracy of the early Whigs, many of whom were not
partial
to Cromwellian democracy.
So it seems that we can plot
the evolution
of the pro-natural no less than the devolution of the antinatural,
and with more or less approximate political correlations, the one
leading from
early to late Whiggism via Conservatism,
the other
leading from early to late Liberalism, or Social Democracy, via Fabianism, or Democratic Socialism - the former
beginning
in a kind of Western subnaturalism of
Puritan
lesbianism, the latter culminating in a kind of Western supernaturalism
of
Communist homosexuality, the natural balance of Conservative
heterosexuality
coming somewhere in-between. And I say
'kind of' advisably, since, as already indicated, the subnatural
and the supernatural extremes must correspond to genuinely autocratic
and
theocratic sexualities respectively, viz. erotic sculpture and
pornography,
whereas the Western equivalents to these pagan and transcendental
absolutes are
rather more democratic, whether on the pseudo-authoritarian level of Cromwellian Parliamentarianism or on the
quasi-dictatorial
level of Leninist Communism, the latter no less a theocratic democracy
than the
former was an autocratic democracy, both of them distinct from the
genuinely
autocratic and theocratic extremes which, in a sense, pre- and
post-date
Western civilization.
Of course, pornography -
using that term in
a general way - exists in abundance in the contemporary democratic West. But pornographic sex is not truly
characteristic of the West, having an outsider's status akin to
Fascism, and
pornographers, or those who prefer to masturbate with the help of a
photographic
model, are still the exception to the rule, to be denigrated by the
democratic
majority as 'wankers' or 'jerks', and this
whether we
are dealing with liberals or radicals, Protestants or Socialists. For the West is essentially a democratic
civilization, a relativity in between
autocratic and
theocratic absolutes, the one pagan and the other transcendental. Even
Neither, for that matter,
could early
Indian civilization, with its highly erotic temple sculpture, a truly
autocratic mode of sexuality. How
chaste, by comparison, are the innumerable Catholic sculptures of the
Blessed
Virgin! We cannot conceive of their
giving rise to lewd thoughts or actions, even though a sculptural link
exists
with the pagan past. Sculptures are
usually single, not in groups, whereas paintings - the principal
manifestation
of democratic art - prefer the group to the individual, some of them to
the
point of excess, the canvas crammed with tiny figures, as in Bruegel. Democratic
sex and politics likewise prefer the group or, at any rate, the couple
to the
individual, and this no less in an absolute age than in a relative one. If a correlation exists between
Parliamentarianism and lesbianism on the one hand and ... Communism and
homosexuality on the other hand, then such a correlation must also
exist
between Conservatism and heterosexuality - the democratic balance of an
atomic
classicism. Compared with this
heterosexual classicism, the homosexual one is surely decadent, since
stemming,
like Communism, from the same democratic tradition.
But it does conform to a new classicism, a
new balance, the antithesis of the lesbian classicism of
post-autocratic
Parliamentarianism.
I am, as the reader will
already have
gathered, a Social Transcendentalist and, hence, a radical theocrat,
not
someone who intends to further his cause in Britain, where democracy
holds
sway, but in theocratic Eire, where it doesn't, at least not to any
appreciable
extent, compliments, traditionally, of the Catholic Church. Despite having lived for some thirty years in
One could even distinguish,
chronologically, between 'the weak' and 'the stupid', taking the former
as
applying, particularly in its bourgeois manifestation, to a liberal
democracy,
and the latter, as proletarians, to a radical democracy, 'the weak'
superseding
the rule of 'the strong' in aristocratic autocracy, 'the stupid'
preceding the
lead of 'the clever' in meritocratic
theocracy, 'the
weak' corresponding to a plutocratic democracy, 'the stupid' to a
bureaucratic
democracy, the two co-existent within modern Western liberal
democracies, the
extremism of 'the strong' and 'the clever' outside the establishment
pale,
assuming they exist at all. Certainly,
republics are supposed to be free of the autocratically 'strong', even
if they
contain elements of the theocratically
'clever', who
are more likely to be outsiders than anything else, and no less in
their sexual
preferences than in their ideological ones.
If 'the weak' are lesbian and 'the stupid' homosexual, then 'the
clever'
are almost invariably pornographic, meaning voyeuristic and
masturbatory. Yet not necessarily on too
frequent a
basis! Over-indulgence is more usually a
scourge of 'the stupid' than of 'the clever' who, by contrast, are
disposed to
moderation. And why, you may
wonder? Simply because
they perceive sex to be a comparatively low indulgence, with depressing
and
humiliating overtones. In other
words, a bum experience, both during and, in particular, after the act.
You have doubtless heard of
post-coital triste, or sadness,
and most of
you will surely have experienced it! And
worse: not simply a feeling of sadness, but a kind of headache, a
numbness and
washed-out feeling which seems worse the following morning than the
previous
night. And this no less the case whether
the flesh had been indulged with another person or independently of
another. Certainly, masturbatory orgasm
is not immune from consequences both depressing and humiliating! You might even fear that you had strained
something down there, brought about or put yourself on the road to a
hernia. Whatever the case, you're almost
bound to feel washed-out and numb the morning after.
So you recognize the fact that sex isn't only
a pleasure but, like most pleasure-inducing phenomena, something with
painful
consequences, too. Not wise to indulge
the flesh every day, then! Better to
limit such indulgences to once a week or twice a month, as you prefer.
This I do, since I'm fairly
sensible and
indisposed to the cultivation of a bum experience.
I drink wine - white as opposed to red - but
infrequently and in moderation, and the same applies
to sex. I don't smoke, finding in
tobacco the means to a depressing end. I
like to cultivate a clean feeling in my head, to get high, in the best
sense,
through intellectual or spiritual preoccupations. I
know
this has to do with me as the product
of various positive hereditary influences, not to mention a temperament
that
fights shy of vulgarity, an intellect second to none.
I am, as you may have guessed, one of 'the
clever', and thus I refrain from sensual excesses, finding greater
mental
satisfaction in the spiritual life, disliking the bum overtones of
bodily
indulgence.
But there are a whole host
of people - 'the
stupid', as we may call them - who are less well-constituted and more
given, in
consequence, to sensual indulgence. Not
only do they regularly fuck and/or wank;
they
regularly drink and smoke, to boot! Thus
they are more or less permanently enmeshed in a bum state-of-mind,
unable to
break away from it but, as if to compensate themselves
for this misfortune, only too disposed to take it for granted as their,
nay, the
human
condition. What comes out of their
mouths, as vulgarity, is but a reflection of what is in their heads as
a bum
condition, a permanent depression. We
cannot be blamed for regarding them as lower class.
The quality of their lives and minds leaves
something to be desired - at least from our more elevated point-of-view. We would not wish to drag our peace-of-mind
down to something approximating their level through over-indulgence of
the
body. We prefer being sober to drunk,
clear-headed to muggy, alert to lethargic, impressed to depressed,
'high' to
'down'.
But 'the stupid' know no
better, being
unable to appreciate and indulge in higher things, for which, after
all, one
must be clever. As I say, they take
their condition for granted or, at any rate, most of them do. For whilst a few may envy their betters, the
majority prefer to disparage and slander them in the interests of their
own
mundane integrity. We need not expect
things to change very much in this respect, over the coming decades. There will continue to be a distinction
between the clever minority and the stupid majority, the meritocratic
leadership and the democratic led.
Paradoxically, however, it is from the ranks of 'the led' that
the
candidates for evolutionary transformation will emerge, subject to
Centrist
stipulation. Yet that is a subject for
another work, and I have something more to say about sex and its
relation to
decadence, before I contemplate any such departure.
We have noted that
promiscuity is a scourge
of 'the stupid', since it results in their becoming ever more stupid as
time
passes. But such quantitative
maximization is the inevitable corollary of the qualitative
minimization
commensurate with sexual decadence of a radical degree.
For once the qualitative side of sex is
reduced, as it must be the more antinatural
practices
are supplanting natural ones, it follows, as night the day, that the
quantitative
side will be stepped-up in order to compensate, in some sense, for the
reduction of quality. In other words,
sex must be indulged in as frequently as possible to make up for the
absence of
real quality - at least, in a certain necessarily quantitative way. Sex is thereby degraded from its former
qualitative height to a mere materialist, sensual thing devoid of
emotional
commitment ('no strings'), the participants mere 'bonking' automata on
a
never-ending roundabout of lacklustre promiscuity, whether male or
female,
so-called heterosexuals or homosexuals.
Yet this runs parallel,
after all, with the
political decadence, the degeneration, I mean, from a Church/State
dichotomy to
a State absolutism, from Christianity to Communism, from the heart to
the
flesh, from a distinction between quality and quantity to a
quantitative
absolutism. If the natural are faithful
and chaste, then the antinatural are most assuredly unfaithful and promiscuous. This is the quantitative decadence. Yet, paradoxically, this trend, in rebelling
against a former norm, brings its own qualitative decadence in train,
which
results in further quantitative decadence in due course, so that the
process
gathers momentum as it heads towards the nadir of sexual degeneracy. If formerly, during the heyday of qualitative
sex, people were generally moderate in their sexual indulgences,
preferring no
more than one or two encounters a week, with the freedom of the
quantitative,
on the other hand, they are more likely to be disposed to one or two
encounters
a day, and not necessarily with the same partner, either!
But this promiscuity, whilst it may be free
from emotional attachments, is far from being free from adverse
consequences,
not only in the sense I outlined earlier ... with regard to headaches
and the
like, but in terms of the atrophying of the male's seed, the absence of
spermatic maturation attendant upon the greater frequency of the sexual
act.
For like any other seed,
sperm has to be
cultivated, and it won't become mature if subject to too frequent an
ejaculation! On the contrary, the
promiscuous sperm that enters the woman's vagina will be thoroughly
immature,
that is to say weak and ill-formed, and if conception occurs (which is
not guaranteed
in a society partial to maximum contraception, seemingly with good
reason!),
the consequence will almost certainly be a weak or ill-formed child,
indeed
someone who will subsequently become an immature adult, a veritable
cretin or
moron, for whom the only possible course of action, aside from vulgar
and
violent antisocial behaviour, will be greater promiscuity, and so on,
in a
process leading not merely to the nadir of sexual degeneracy, but to
the nadir
of racial degeneration as well - in short, to the corruption and
ultimate
destruction of the race. For you don't
breed a healthy, strong, and morally upright race from atrophied sperm,
nor,
for that matter, from mothers whose age at conception is below the
adult,
indeed scarcely above the age of consent!
If immature sperm is a
significant factor
in the production of moral cretins, it is by no means the only one! An immature female is no-less likely to
contribute to the degeneration of the race, her offspring destined to
become a
real greenhorn in adult life, or what may purport to be such. Inevitably, when the process of degeneration
is taken far enough, the race in question will either destroy itself or
be
destroyed from without by a stronger, less decadent people. Some of it may be salvageable, and in that
event interbreeding with more naturalistic, comparatively uncorrupted
peoples
will lead to a racial regeneration or, more probably, to the creation
of a new
race, morally superior to the old one.
Perhaps such a process is already under way in contemporary
Britain,
where sexual decadence is approaching the nadir of promiscuity and it
only
remains for pederastic paedophilia to be
legalized
... for it to reach rock bottom?
Probably that won't happen, at least one hopes not.
But there is no guarantee that the age of
consent won't drop further and the frequency of fornication rise to a
point
where almost anyone and anything will do for a quick 'bonk'. If emotional ties are no longer obligatory in
sexual relationships, then there would seem to be no reason why
children - boys
as well as girls - should be excluded from the ever-widening range of
promiscuity, with or without a thorough grounding in Freud. When that happens, there is arguably
justification enough for the dissolution of what remains of a
once-proud
race! Better that it should be
bastardized through interbreeding with peoples of a morally superior
race ...
than allowed to degenerate any further, assuming, of course, that it
hadn't
been killed off in a nuclear war or through enslavement to the nadir of
antinatural behaviour, AIDS running riot!
In
