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
