w
Convene the Sanhedrin, Call the Heathen, it’s Torah Time
Luke opens with description of recently concluded Sukkot festivities: “another day with God”
1:45 Special Needs Dennis
2:30 The Pernicious Professor and our Safe American Home
4:35 Masturbation, alas.
8:00 The Joy of Abstinence
20:25 Casey and Mrs. Robinson
22:50 the “Love Map” and other insidious Jewish ideas
28:50 the “power differential” in sexual fantasy
40:00 Porn, degradation and power
43:05 Mike Enoch and the New Yorker
57:45 Singapore and civic nationalism
1:05:15 Where are the Jewish apologists?
Luke asks where are the critiques of the alt right from great Jewish minds. He cites Steve Sailer: there are no incentives for introspection of this sort by Jews.
There’s also no will on the non-Jewish side to demand it. As I said to Luke, we on the right would benefit from a coherent, objective critique of our movement by an outsider. Maybe that’s another reason.
But mostly white America, as a group without an identity (an anti-group), doesn’t demand it.
Considering the legal status of Jews in Europe, Napoleon convened a “Grand Sanhedrin” compelling Europe’s rabbis to present themselves and answer a set of 12 questions. Some of their answers on trickier questions were described by one anti-Semitic thinker as fine examples of Talmudic obscurantism:
Is it lawful for Jews to have more than one wife?
Is divorce allowed by the Jewish religion?
Is divorce valid, although pronounced not by courts of justice but by virtue of laws in contradiction to the French code?
May a Jewess marry a Christian, or [May] a Jew [marry] a Christian woman? or does Jewish law order that the Jews should only intermarry among themselves?
In the eyes of Jews are Frenchmen not of the Jewish religion considered as brethren or as strangers?
What conduct does Jewish law prescribe toward Frenchmen not of the Jewish religion?
Do the Jews born in France, and treated by the law as French citizens, acknowledge France as their country?
Are they bound to defend it? Are they bound to obey the laws and follow the directions of the civil code?
Who elects the rabbis? What kind of police jurisdiction do the rabbis exercise over the Jews? What judicial power do they exercise over them? Are the police jurisdiction of the rabbis and the forms of the election regulated by Jewish law, or are they only sanctioned by custom?
Are there professions from which the Jews are excluded by their law?
Does Jewish law forbid the Jews to take usury from their brethren? Does it forbid, or does it allow, usury in dealings with strangers?
Reconvene the Sanhedrin. Let’s have a conversation.
1:08:28 Normies don’t understand what the Mike Enoch New Yorker article is all about. Casey says Enoch’s dad comes off as a jerk. The old man is tragically pozzed, whatever the case:
On Sunday, after he got home from church, he saw that a relative had e-mailed him a YouTube link. He clicked on it: his son and David Duke, standing shoulder to shoulder. “It turned my stomach,” he said. “Until that moment, I had imagined that, whatever had caused him to go down this path, it could somehow be reversed, and he could come home again.”
Enoch’s dad is suggesting he’s disowned his son, or at least that he doesn’t expect to speak to him again. Seems a tad extreme, but that’s the last we hear of it.
1:14 Thomas Paine’s Age of Reason
Pederasty
Vimeo is airing a documentary about gay Hollywood grooming that can’t find a distributor:
AN OPEN SECRET. Official PG-13 version. Copyright Esponda Productions LLC #AnOpenSecret from Matt Valentinas on Vimeo.
Climates of Cluelessness
Political hate creates its own “climate” or “environment” according to those protesting (and reporting on) the seemingly endless acts of racist terror, many of them not proven hoaxes, occurring on college campuses.
There’s irony in how the actual physical environment of the American university, itself a product of that demonic white supremacy (Steve Sailer has pointed out recently the American college campus is an architectural innovation of that whitest of supremacists, Thomas Jefferson), are being progressively turned into the sort of hostile, dangerous environment angry blacks and allies saw in the earlier calm.
Spiked Online on an ambitious black anti-scholar who held her Northwestern school hostage one year:
I arrived in Portland on a hot Sunday afternoon on the day before classes started. I walked across one of the pedestrian bridges that spans the school’s 28-acre canyon and sat down at a picnic table in the quad. Students sat eating lunch on tables nearby, chatting excitedly about the new school year, a few of them barefoot. A stream of corgis and their owners strolled by on their way to the annual corgi parade. In the old student union, a dozen students were folk dancing to the same scratchy recordings I’d heard decades ago. I began to doubt what I’d heard about Reed. This couldn’t possibly be the nasty place described in the alumni letter.
Reed College has an excellent reputation (for the time being) and a beautiful campus. Northwestern summers are ideal: not too hot, no humidity, lush green and long northern days. Another irony is the weather brings out the protesters, whose outrage would not doubt be dampened the moment their hoodies were, if they took to the streets in grey, mossy winter.
The Evergreen State College in Washington State was overtaken by a black tranny (eventually bestowed with the title of “presidential equity adviser” by the conquered school) at the head of a gang of adoring lesbians like something straight out of a John Waters movie. The weather was perfect, conveniently for the professor holding class in a nearby park on the advice of campus police.
Remarkable how all these enclaves of white supremacy and black terror look so calm, outwardly. It’s always been this way. This was thirteen years ago:
…after visiting Claremont Colleges to check out one of those false flag attacks (a liberal feminist professor trashed her car, then told the FBI it was likely committed by her white male students) that are such a commonplace on contemporary campuses:
Another advertised: “Queer Dreams and Nightmares: What is it like to be a student at the Claremont Colleges? Student panel discussion addressing the current climate at the 5-Cs, both academically and socially.” This was part of a conference entitled, with that profusion of punctuation that is the secret fraternity handshake of post-modern academics, “[Re]Defining a Queer Space at the Claremont Colleges.”
It was 72 degrees with a gentle breeze blowing, so the climate seemed okay to me, but a flier on Pitzer bulletin boards made the local idée fixe a little clearer: “Diversity and Campus Climate: You are invited to participate in a discussion about campus climate.”
Presumably, when one of these places is convulsed by the latest poc/sjw tantrum, underneath they are placid, calm, Frisbee-friendly places.
As for Evergreen, that small school was founded in 1967 on an economically progressive model–a place where kids with some smarts but no money could get an education–that if administered properly could be providing useful college educations to one genuinely underrepresented group, working class white guys, with a better payoff for society, I suspect, than the countless poc identity-studies majors that are lugged along by their schools like chimeras. I remember thinking that at least, when I first learned of the school through the controversy.
But of course white guys are The Problem and thus pretext for the various humanities programs that exist like prospectors descending on the institutions and professions in multicultural America now in what Steve Sailer calls the “scramble for America”. Back at Reed, Spiked reports on the white guy who got in the way:
Hunter Dillman agreed to meet me on campus before we went to lunch in a barbeque joint a few blocks away. He was 6’2”, drove a beat-up black pickup and had pale blue eyes and blond hair parted in the center. He was eager to talk to somebody who wanted to hear his story in detail, somebody who didn’t believe he had simply fucked up his freshman year. He told me his father was a construction worker who owned a farm and raised cows and chickens on the side. Hunter had taken four advanced placement (AP) science courses his senior year, getting all fives, and planned to get a degree in chemistry.
Dillman was run off under the usual race-baiting duress when he spoke out of turn, which is impossible to discern, exactly.
Long ago the precursor to the EEOC argued employment discrimination left vast reservoirs of black talent untapped, this concept was
captured in the workaday concept of “underutilization,” a term that Vice President Lyndon Johnson and his associates on the PCEEO had rather casually accepted as early as 1961…
This assumption, reliant upon the prior assumption talent is equally distributed, was eventually developed into the rationale for affirmative action and disparate impact
But the distance between the vague notion of underutilization and a conscious theory of proportional representation was politically vast in the fall of 1963.
The concept was necessitated by too many discrimination cases being dismissed for having no merit. The commission was an “ineffectual agent of social change”. A dearth of talented blacks showing up individually necessitated what would eventually become known as disparate impact, arising from
…a growing conviction among fair employment activists that the individual complaint model’s deliberate due process in determining was irrelevant to the root problem of “institutional racism.”
In the newly evolving view of institutionalized racism, individual intent was at best a secondary consideration. Instead, employment discrimination should be defined and attacked statistically as a differential, rather than traditionally as an invidious and injurious act of prejudice. Its measure was simply the gap between the white and minority employment rates.
Lovely environments denounced as hellscapes, mediocrity praised as talent. It goes on and on.
Conformity is Good, Apathy is Great
The New Yorker has published an interesting and dangerously close to fair profile of Mike Enoch of The Right Stuff broadcast.
Enoch:
Enoch:
“If you’re a liberal, you’ve never thought twice, you’ve never reconsidered, you’ve absorbed what you were taught in the government schools and by the TV.”
A liberal now is simply someone who has stopped thinking about certain things. For him a set of settled questions form the basis of his quasi-religion. All we know about sex and race we learned by 1973, at which point the collective liberal brain was freeze-dried while taking in an episode of All in the Family.
This is normal. We aren’t biologically conditioned to a life of perpetual questioning of social and religious convention. A society made up entirely of conformists would become stagnant and implode; one made up entirely of individual free-thinkers would become chaotic and explode.
The average person and society both need the hard ground of unquestioned and broadly accepted fundamental beliefs concerning the nature of life and Man. It would be madness if every single individual was a moral free agent to his last, a skeptic of all to the end.
An apolitical and conformist population is a virtuous one–if they are given a sane social order in which to conform. If you have what we have now that virtue of the mass is turned against itself, just as that individual liberal, eager if oblivious conformist, is a victim of his own blind, dumb virtue.
Knowing What the In-Crowd Knows
Via Luke Ford, a young man’s experience with powerful gay men:
The complete contempt gay men had for other gay men in that era was stunning. If you were a self-identified homosexual in the industry, the assumption was you had no qualms about being used and sleeping your way to the top. You wouldn’t get as much blowback as straight women, and there was no risk of getting pregnant. But the downside was, back then, that you had to accept a public identity of a highly paid whore, one of the thousands upon thousands of gay men with low self-esteem wanting to overcome their lack of masculinity by making it big in entertainment. [bold added]
Sodomy’s probably been with us the whole time, but “gay” is a very new identity. In our last Torah Talk Casey the Classicist pointed out the unique nature of “gay”: the first pathology transferred into a social and political identity. Its nature is unprecedented and absurd. It’s also unquestioned.
So nobody really knows where this ends. Homosexual Americans now constitute a nation with the nation, like everyone (except the white core of the Nation). As a group, as a part of their political movement of normalization erasing the age-old restrictions on them, they are expanding their ranks.
Despite the biological determinism that is the central tenet of the movement (“born this way”), evolution would seem to be opposed to homosexuality. I suspect homosexuality has only survived because until very recently it’s been practiced by bisexuals–men attracted to men but marrying. If that’s true, the creation of a homosexual identity suddenly creates a crisis for homosexuals; the necessity to “closet” oneself is gone, and more and more gay men and lesbians will gravitate away from marriage.
In a state of prohibition recruitment is probably a necessity–“pederasty begets pederasty”–but after emancipation it conceivably becomes a matter of life and death.
Normalization itself steps into the breach. It is now an option: respectable, presented as glamorous, attractive, heroic even. In the chaos of the post sexual revolution, with the cads, lesbianism and general alienation decimating the ranks of available women, the always adaptable male has this bitter option.
He has more and more options in fact, thanks to the “trans rights” movement. Any young man stranded in his masculinity can now, he’s told, abandon it.
But these new converts, there to buttress numbers and supply fodder for the Narrative, are a problem. They are overwhelmingly disturbed psychologically, and they’ve always been disdained, to say the least, by other gays. Likewise the poorer, younger and especially more effeminate gay man: the “twinks” and “marys” exploited and abused in a way curiously similar to the way a straight lech like Harvey Weinstein exploits women. With more political impunity, of course: imagine the power he wielded, clad with political correctness.
Indeed, if the greater levels of promiscuity in homosexual life can be attributed to the fact there are no women in the role of discriminating regulator, but all men on the prowl (as I think undeniable), the greater cruelty (I suspect) with which powerful gay men treat other gay men is likely attributable to the same thing: the lack of women. It’s easier for a man to abuse a man: the prohibition against it is less severe, the weakness of a man lacks charm and inspires disgust.
There is no real gay identity; it is a rickety construct.
Convention is a Cult
Evangelical Christianity surged in the wake of the Sixties, providing a home for that decade’s first casualties, and others. By 1976 it was mainstream enough that liberal Jimmy Carter could claim it without harm (there was a bit of snickering, I recall, as well as at the new term “Born Again Christianity”).
At the time in my old neighborhood if someone turned up in this state he was viewed with horror. The transformation–early on, destined to wear off in most cases–was such that it seemed to leave little of the “old” person behind.
That it was often the more dissolute who found God in this way made the change all the more jarring. Suddenly an overnight spiritual wonder appears, all enthusiasm and warmth as he declares you hell-bound for your degenerate ways–and he knows all about it, having been there last week.
But that nauseating sense of alienation, sometimes from close friends, came to mind reading this New Yorker article about doxxed alt-righter Mike Enoch:
Billie wondered aloud how to tell their friends and family about Mike E. “What do you do?” she said. “Send a letter to your cousins—‘Haven’t spoken to you in twenty years, hope you’re doing well, and, oh, P.S., our son’s a Nazi now’?” She worried that people would wonder what she and Mike, Sr., had done wrong as parents. “Everyone wants it to be simple, to know who to blame,” one of Mike E.’s relatives told me later. “But lots of kids have parents who get divorced when they’re young. Lots of white kids have difficult personalities. They don’t all become Nazis.”
A few people around town had already heard the news, mostly through Facebook, and some of them were talking about Mike E. as if he had been abducted by a cult, or tied down and injected with a serum of pure hatred. Other people assumed that there must be some key biographical fact—a chemical imbalance, a history of abuse—that would neatly unlock the mystery. But Mike E.’s conversion was more quotidian than that, and therefore more unsettling; somehow, over time, he had fallen into a particularly dark rabbit hole, where some of the most disturbing and discredited ideas in modern history were repackaged as the solution to twenty-first-century malaise.
“Racists” are the new child molesters, somebody has written elsewhere (I can’t find it). That’s the deliberate work of generations. But there’s the little problem of the truth. It’s easy to hold child molesters in low regard. The Narrative groans under the stress of contradicting reality even as the net dehumanizing “racists” is cast ever wider. Yet still, it holds somehow. Mike E could have robbed a bank and caused his family less embarrassment.
Way back when I endured entreaties from converted friends, and sat through those awful born-again sermons, what I could never shake was my resistance to the story of Christ as Messiah. I could see the value of belief, but I could not believe this. For me at the center of my alienation from my born-again peers was this idea that I found incomprehensible–that Jesus suffered on the cross for my sins.
That sense of alienation–I suspect–was there for most people, for the same reason: the converts believed something crazy. People didn’t say this. The average person was nominally religious, even if he didn’t practice. He said he believed in God. He appreciated the church. He appreciated and understood the need for moral order and saw the church’s role there. But, again I suspect, he secretly saw the convert’s obsession with Jesus on the Cross a little, or a lot, crazy.
Conventional, publicly enforced views on race are approaching the mythical, that is to say objectively they could be called crazy.
So the “racist” alienated from his family now is a sort of inversion of the zealot alienated from his family then. The latter was a source of concern because he was seen as believing crazy things. The former is a source of concern because he’s seen as not believing crazy things.
And, per one of my pet crackpot peeves, widespread belief in the Resurrection demands no disbelief in the realities of the world we inhabit. I don’t mean to belittle it when I say it is harmless. Whereas the widespread belief in Equality demands just that. It has implications in every aspect of life, everywhere, always, that depend on its truth. Its failure is evident in every aspect of life everywhere, always. Jesus is benignly absent, and Christians see their relationship to him as “personal”–that is private. Contrast that with the demands of Equality now, which intrude further into the private sphere.
The Christian’s profession of belief is ritualized and set aside from from the worldly. Thus the mythology of Christianity is benignly absent from the practical. Marxism has sought to absorb everything from agriculture to mathematics, of course. Christianity might have felt threatened by scientific discovery, but it never saw the need for such as a Christian agriculture or physics.
The problem with the new civic religion is it’s all worldly. If we could perform some ritual sacrifice to Equality and get on with our lives, it would be harmless.
This is why political correctness is far more severe than religion as it’s been practiced in the West. Galileo, whose discoveries upended conventional and biblical interpretations of the natural world, had defenders even in the Church. The narrative of equality allows no such equanimity because it can’t survive it. It can’t survive it because it’s a lie.
Two Goys and a Jew
Good Torah Talk with the irrepressible iconoclast Luke Ford and Casey the Classicist. Prominent guests next week.
0:15 Sukkot.
2:15 The subject today, Andrew Joyce’s essay, The Alt Right and the Homosexual Question.
3:05 Luke opens talking about Dennis Prager’s essay from 1989, Judaism, Homosexuality and Civilization:
When Judaism demanded that all sexual activity be channeled into marriage, it changed the world. The Torah’s prohibition of non-marital sex quite simply made the creation of Western civilization possible. Societies that did not place boundaries around sexuality were stymied in their development. The subsequent dominance of the Western world can largely be attributed to the sexual revolution initiated by Judaism and later carried forward by Christianity.
This revolution consisted of forcing the sexual genie into the marital bottle. It ensured that sex no longer dominated society, heightened male-female love and sexuality (and thereby almost alone created the possibility of love and eroticism within marriage), and began the arduous task of elevating the status of women.
8:10 Is heterosexual marriage the basis of society?
14:00 Sexual rage and its role in society.
16:05 Dennis’ sexual rage. White Sharia Now.
18:20 More Prager.
It is probably impossible for us, who live thousands of years after Judaism began this process, to perceive the extent to which undisciplined sex can dominate man’s life and the life of society. Throughout the ancient world, and up to the recent past in many parts of the world, sexuality infused virtually all of society.
Human sexuality, especially male sexuality, is polymorphous, or utterly wild (far more so than animal sexuality). Men have had sex with women and with men; with little girls and young boys; with a single partner and in large groups; with total strangers and immediate family members; and with a variety of domesticated animals. They have achieved orgasm with inanimate objects such as leather, shoes, and other pieces of clothing, through urinating and defecating on each other (interested readers can see a photograph of the former at select art museums exhibiting the works of the photographer Robert Mapplethorpe); by dressing in women’s garments; by watching other human beings being tortured; by fondling children of either sex; by listening to a woman’s disembodied voice (e.g., “phone sex”); and, of course, by looking at pictures of bodies or parts of bodies.
There is little, animate or inanimate, that has not excited some men to orgasm. Of course, not all of these practices have been condoned by societies — parent-child incest and seducing another’s man’s wife have rarely been countenanced — but many have, and all illustrate what the unchanneled, or in Freudian terms, the “un-sublimated,” sex drive can lead to.
Prager is right but in the West chastity and sexual morality arise from the same evolutionary pressures that shaped other behaviors. In the West Christianity developed into a relatively strict sexual morality because of the people adopting it, as of course is true for its other aspects.
20:50 A Surviving Remnant.
36:45 Betrayal as an aspect of American life.
39:00 Shouting Africans.
41:30 The amazing turnabout of the AIDS narrative.
46:20 Bad news in the War on Frapping.
49:55 Our senior masturbation correspondent Casey reports on Harvey Weinstein.
1:26:15 Aunt Mary Wants You. The problem of homosexual recruitment.
1:28:48 Luke riles up the powerful.
1:31:40 Paddock’s motivation.
Speaking dead of the ill
Hugh Hefner went with neither a bang nor a whimper, but an exhausted meh. I confess I haven’t the heart to read any of the boilerplate fill-in-the-name send-offs that collect like plates of food brought to the mourning family–which is supposed to be us–when one of these “icons” passes.
A boomer’s fate is to age out of this world to an unending series of such requiems for “pioneers” who “broke boundaries” and “ignored the rules” (as if this is inherently good).
The long-ago routed objections to sexual liberation aren’t even brought up to mock now.
Neither are the original arguments on its behalf ever revisited.
The arguments for sexual liberation are forgotten in the post-coital haze like smooth reassurances of a seduction. They’re frankly a little embarrassing now. Sexual mores were born of nothing more than neuroses, sexism and Freudian angst (this was taken to be proven by science) went the line; their removal would return us to a natural, healthy state.
But we now know Freud was a fraud who made no account of biology and evolution.
That is to say, the liberation we celebrate is based on a pack of lies.
The objections to the sexual revolution–that it would destroy the family and create misery–have been borne out. But the Freudian presumptions still hold cultural sway, and the objections are discredited there still.We foisted a fait accompli on future generations.
This is a pattern in progressive movements: witness civil rights’ journey from fight for equality to microaggressions, safe spaces and cultural appropriation.
Hefner was a pimp, and when he started out that was an insult. As much as anyone else he contributed to turning that phrase and the practice into a joke, even a boast. We are to congratulate ourselves on having lightened up regarding the trafficking of women, as well as sexual disease, parental abandonment, infidelity, the ever-shrinking world of the perverse.
Ross Douthat dared go there:
Hef was the grinning pimp of the sexual revolution, with quaaludes for the ladies and Viagra for himself — a father of smut addictions and eating disorders, abortions and divorce and syphilis, a pretentious huckster who published Updike stories no one read while doing flesh procurement for celebrities, a revolutionary whose revolution chiefly benefited men much like himself.
Hefner’s shtick was outdated from the start, a sophomoric and immature aesthetic of cool, decked-out in all the latest from the previous decade and wading obliviously into the water ahead of the tsunami that was the Sixties. The magazine printed quality authors who wrote quality articles, but had no editorial personality; the liberal consensus of the moment was the magazine’s. A glossy, technical marvel with no character and a whiff of obliviousness.
In mainstreaming pornography it led the way culturally; ever since it’s followed the trend.
Hef’s James Bond vision of an encompassing lifestyle, rich in pleasures, gadgets and consumer goods, failed utterly, of course. He was fashioning a “brand” before the concept was created (I think), and that brand failed even as the magazine rolled on.
So the venereal became venerable. The mansion and Hefner enjoyed a sort of resurgence in later years, owing to the ironic condescension of such as Howard Stern. When the mansion was featured on Entourage it was too perfect, the lineage from obscene parent to mediocre spawn too direct.
Hefner would follow the same failed course he plotted for his generation, as described by Roger Devlin in his Sexual Utopia in Power
A man’s sexual utopia is, accordingly, a world in which no such limit to female demand for him exists. It is not necessary to resort to pornography for examples. Consider only popular movies aimed at a male audience, such as the James Bond series. Women simply cannot resist James Bond. He does not have to propose marriage, or even request dates. He simply walks into the room and they swoon.
The entertainment industry turns out endless unrealistic images such as this. Why, the male viewer eventually may ask, cannot life actually be so? To some, it is tempting to put the blame on the institution of marriage. Marriage, after all, seems to restrict sex rather drastically. Certain men figure that if sex were permitted both inside and outside of marriage there would be twice as much of it as formerly. They imagined there existed a large, untapped reservoir of female desire hitherto repressed by monogamy. To release it, they sought, during the early postwar period, to replace the seventh commandment with an endorsement of all sexual activity between “consenting adults.” Every man could have a harem.
Sexual behavior in general, and not merely family life, was henceforward to be regarded as a private matter. Traditionalists who disagreed were said to want to “put a policeman in every bedroom.” This was the age of the Kinsey Report and the first appearance of Playboy magazine. Idle male daydreams had become a social movement. This characteristically male sexual utopianism was a forerunner of the sexual revolution but not the revolution itself. Men are incapable of bringing about fundamental changes in heterosexual relations without the cooperation—the famed “consent”—of women. But the original male would-be revolutionaries did not understand the nature of the female sexuality.
In helping set loose the sexual revolution he of course helped strand countless men left out of the bacchanal. The magazine promised to lead them to a sexual utopia of never-ending delights–while they engaged in the lonely, pathetic act of masturbation. It was, fittingly, jacking them off the whole time with this con. Now, all that’s left is the masturbation, literal and figurative. The lesson of Playboy isn’t that sexual liberation is freedom, but that it is a prison.
To the extent the average American male took him seriously he was ill-served, but Hefner managed to create that utopia for himself. He championed it his whole life. And its yield was a long dotage of drugs, pornography, mental illness, cuckoldry and masturbation.
His life was a testament to the stupidity and destructiveness of the life he celebrated.
Torah Today: Sexual Utopia in Power
8:30 Jewish stories from Luke
11:50 Casey: What is the nature of religious authority?
13:40 Where have the miracles gone?
Here Casey has come upon a problem outlined in Dostoyevsky’s The Grand Inquisitor (an anti-Pope short story within The Brothers Karamazov; I parodied it here). A powerful Bishop rejects a returned Christ, because He’s been silent too long.
“There are three Powers, three unique Forces upon earth, capable of conquering for ever by charming the conscience of these weak rebels—men—for their own good; and these Forces are: Miracle, Mystery and Authority” the Bishop says. In His long absence Christ has abdicated His authority to the Church. He can’t just come back now and wreck the program! The Bishop dares condemn Him for withholding miracles and demanding man come to Him of free will in His absence:
“Thy refusal to come down from the cross when people, mocking and wagging their heads were saying to Thee—’Save Thyself if Thou be the son of God, and we will believe in Thee,’ was due to the same determination—not to enslave man through miracle, but to obtain faith in Thee freely and apart from any miraculous influence.”
15:30 Dumb movies. Casey mentions a Dumb Comedy out there, written by Jews. How is it intelligent people make such dumb crap? Luke, ever the cruel Jew, points out the dumb stuff is for the goyim. Jews don’t partake. Furthermore, I would add (and rue), it’s the dumber Jews making dumb culture perverting our dumber goys, while the smart Jews get to keep their hands clean. The Jews are siccing their dummies on us. Witness Seth Rogan, a sort of Jewish on Twitter:
The NFL isn’t the only institution that’s become a malicious force. Take a knee, Hollywood.
18:30 We are all Masters of our Domain here.
19:00 Luke marvels that the goyim aren’t actively masturbating and doing drugs as he speaks to us.
21:10 Thank God we’re off the subject and talking about Roger Devlin’s remarkable essay, Sexual Utopia in Power
Luke quotes from it:
A man’s sexual utopia is, accordingly, a world in which no such limit to female demand for him exists. It is not necessary to resort to pornography for examples. Consider only popular movies aimed at a male audience, such as the James Bond series. Women simply cannot resist James Bond. He does not have to propose marriage, or even request dates. He simply walks into the room and they swoon.
The entertainment industry turns out endless unrealistic images such as this. Why, the male viewer eventually may ask, cannot life actually be so? To some, it is tempting to put the blame on the institution of marriage. Marriage, after all, seems to restrict sex rather drastically. Certain men figure that if sex were permitted both inside and outside of marriage there would be twice as much of it as formerly. They imagined there existed a large, untapped reservoir of female desire hitherto repressed by monogamy. To release it, they sought, during the early postwar period, to replace the seventh commandment with an endorsement of all sexual activity between “consenting adults.” Every man could have a harem.
Sexual behavior in general, and not merely family life, was henceforward to be regarded as a private matter. Traditionalists who disagreed were said to want to “put a policeman in every bedroom.” This was the age of the Kinsey Report and the first appearance of Playboy magazine. Idle male daydreams had become a social movement. This characteristically male sexual utopianism was a forerunner of the sexual revolution but not the revolution itself. Men are incapable of bringing about fundamental changes in heterosexual relations without the cooperation—the famed “consent”—of women. But the original male would-be revolutionaries did not understand the nature of the female sexuality.
We forgot about Hugh Hefner! He pioneered, represented and literally embodied the failed vision of sexual liberation–the masculine Nakba, We are all Hugh Hefner now, alas.
untethered 