Where the modern sexual freak show comes from

October 29, 2015 § 49 Comments

It is actually rather difficult to get regular, salt of the earth human beings to stop believing in objective reality.  But nevertheless, when you look around at the modern sexual freak show, you can see that it is a result of lots of ordinary human beings denying the existence of an objective sexual reality which transcends subjective human perceptions and preferences.  I could give examples, I suppose, but things are so perversely surreal there is simply no need.

Getting regular salt of the earth people to stop believing in reality takes generations of inculturation.  It requires introducing anti-realism into their everyday lives in a basic way which involves their constant participation: through a pervasive process in which opting out is simply not reasonable or even possible for most people.

This could never have come about through sex on its own, because sex is too private a thing.  But most men simply cannot isolate themselves from the world economically.  There has to be food on the table and a roof overhead.

Which is why when the Diabolical decided to introduce and cultivate anti-realism broadly throughout human society, he did not choose sex as his entry point. The destruction of sex and marriage was a strategic achievement: a prize, not the race itself — a prize which could not have been achieved without centuries of preceding indoctrination in economic anti-realism, with usury at its center. Combined with a moderate liberalism riddled with plenty of unprincipled ‘common sense’ exceptions as the public creed, centuries of anti-realist indoctrination of everyman in his immersion in economic life set the stage for the present freak show.

§ 49 Responses to Where the modern sexual freak show comes from

  • Elspeth says:

    Jeez Louise, Zippy! My email overfloweth with your thought provoking and interesting posts! My brain runs to keep up, but you are on a roll, sir. I appreciate your perspective. This:

    This could never have come about through sex on its own, because sex is too private a thing. But most men simply cannot isolate themselves from the world economically. There has to be food on the table and a roof overhead.

    Which is why when the Diabolical decided to introduce and cultivate anti-realism broadly throughout human society, he did not choose sex as his entry point. The destruction of sex and marriage was a strategic achievement: a prize, not the race itself — a prize which could not have been achieved without centuries of preceding indoctrination in economic anti-realism, with usury at its center.

    Never would have considered it if not for reading here. Good thoughts, and it makes sense.

  • Kidd Cudi says:

    Much more convincing. Merits consideration.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    I take it as a matter of faith in revelation that greed, lust, and idolatry are of a piece. The places in the Bible which warn against idolatry are surrounded by passages warning against greed, miserliness, usury, and lust; and vice versa. Sometimes the headings of such sections have been labelled by the translators as “miscellaneous”; which I think is misleading because there is, to me, an obvious implication that error in one of these ways leads to error in another. Here the connection is explicit:

    “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s.”

    But it seems to me that your theory that there is a one way path from usury to sexual freak show did not occur in one direction, and also that you have given undue credit to salt of the earth people. Though, I could be misunderstanding who you mean by that; whether you mean Regular Joe, or you mean those who are Jesus’ salt of the earth.

    How far back does this particular conspiracy go? I am ready to cosign on “all the way back to the Genesis”, but I read you to mean something else in particular; the Jesuits, Lombards, the Enlightenment, Victorian Era, Turn of the Century, whathaveyou. Do you have a specific time-range or influence in mind?

    The evidence, as far as I can tell, is that neither the freak show nor usury are particularly modern and have frequently (perhaps always) been widespread plagues of mankind. (My understanding of usury is different from you, but I don’t think it matters for the purposes of this discussion as long as we both agree that charging illicit interest is objectively evil.)

    Now that I think about it: It seems to me that your idea of modernity is itself very modern.

  • Svar says:

    Sometimes things can morph into the opposite of what they once were. One example of a realist organization going from reality to unreality would be the Freemasons. The original masons were a Scottish Jacobite fraternal organization and when that organization spread to the Continent and Latin America, it became a Jacobin organization. In America, otoh, it’s just a fraternity for older men with the mission of drinking and with the side-habit of charity.

    I guess my point is regarding this: “Combined with a moderate liberalism riddled with plenty of unprincipled ‘common sense’ exceptions as the public creed, centuries of anti-realist indoctrination of everyman in his immersion in economic life set the stage for the present freak show.”

    What I’m trying to say is that the Traditional Conservatism of the Paleoconservatives (who are truly conservative not right-liberals like the Trotskyist NeoCons) looks to the American founders like Washington, Jefferson, and Hamilton in the same way that the Romans looked to Romulus and Remus and the ancient Anglo Saxons looked to Hengist and Horsa (as did the founders of America did themselves). While the Founders were steeped in a moderate liberalism like that of Edmund Burke and not the radical Enlightenment ideals of Thomas Paine and Alexander Voltaire, the fruits of many of these moderate Classical Liberal founders ended up being quite right-wing such as the agrarian, nativist and isolationist views of Jefferson, the protectionism of Andrew Jackson, and the nationalist views of Hamilton. It’s these views that form the worldview and political platform of the paleoconservatives who are truly an authentic right-wing tradition within America.

    Of course you and the European right wingers (like Spengler, Evola, Schmitt et al) are completely right in that the free-market liberals (19th century liberals and modern libertarians) and Marxist differ only superficially as they are both equally economically reductionist. Neither libertarianism nor neoconservativism (which is basically a Americanized, war-mongering version of Trotskyism) are a part of any genuine Right Wing tradition.

    We do however have an authentic American conservatism.

  • Zippy says:

    Cane:

    But it seems to me that your theory that there is a one way path from usury to sexual freak show did not occur in one direction, …

    Every discussion of historical narrative and cause is necessarily a simplification/generalization. The map is not — cannot be — the territory.

    …and also that you have given undue credit to salt of the earth people.

    Keep in mind that I did not suggest that it is difficult to convince ordinary people (people who have to work to live, as opposed to academics, politicians, and slackers like me) to sin. I suggested that it is difficult to get ordinary people to stop believing in objective reality.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    I wrote “It seems to me that your idea of modernity is itself very modern.”, but perhaps it would have been clearer for me to write: It seems to me that you have a modern view of the temptations of sin and human nature; that they are different just now.

  • Svar says:

    “Now that I think about it: It seems to me that your idea of modernity is itself very modern.”

    Cane Caldo brings up a good point. You can ask 10 men what modernity is and get 14 answers. What is modernity according to you Zippy? To me, it’s the world after the Industrial Revolution which was such a drastic change from the previous technological advances (the Neolithic Revolution, the Bronze Age, the Iron Age) that mankind has had a very maladaptive way of deal with it.

  • Zippy says:

    Cane:

    It seems to me that you have a modern view of the temptations of sin and human nature; that they are different just now.

    Not at all. My post isn’t about some historical vector where people became more fallen or more likely to sin. My post is about a historical vector which led ordinary people to embrace metaphysical anti-realism.

  • Svar says:

    ” My post is about a historical vector which led ordinary people to embrace metaphysical anti-realism.”

    Is this a unique situation in the history of mankind?

  • Zippy says:

    Svar:

    Is this a unique situation in the history of mankind?

    Some people disbelieve in change; others don’t believe in anything but change.

    I believe that we’ve got hundreds of millions of abortions worldwide, nation-state sanctioned ‘gay marriage’, and health insurance companies paying doctors to do transsexual surgeries while refusing to care for people with terminal illnesses. Just as a couple of off-the-very-top-of-my-head examples.

    So yes, there are at least a few nontrivial things about the current situation / freak show which are unique to our time.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    Zippy:

    Keep in mind that I did not suggest that it is difficult to convince ordinary people (people who have to work to live, as opposed to academics, politicians, and slackers like me) to sin. I suggested that it is difficult to get ordinary people to stop believing in objective reality.

    Sure, but you also wrote:

    Getting regular salt of the earth people to stop believing in reality takes generations of inculturation. It requires introducing anti-realism into their everyday lives in a basic way which involves their constant participation: through a pervasive process in which opting out is simply not reasonable or even possible for most people.

    This could never have come about through sex on its own, because sex is too private a thing. But most men simply cannot isolate themselves from the world economically. There has to be food on the table and a roof overhead.

    Which is why when the Diabolical decided to introduce and cultivate anti-realism broadly throughout human society, he did not choose sex as his entry point.

    In other words: Ordinary people have fallen into widespread sexual sin (the “modern sexual freak show”) because their ability to recognize objective reality has been compromised; specifically through an institutional prison-and-torture scheme of and by usury. Right?

    I understand that the map is not the territory. It remains that you clearly stated that there was a specific conspiracy to attain a specific prize of corrupting human sexuality.

    I also understand that you’re not talking about sin. (That’s my boggle, citizen.) The implication is that anti-realism is the source of the sexual freak show, and therefore by strong implication that people are in fact more likely to sin. If that’s not true, then the idea of a show that is distinctly modern and distinctly freak</i (but not distinctly sinful) is misleading.

    My post is about a historical vector which led ordinary people to embrace metaphysical anti-realism.

    Let me ask it this way: When did the first modern Winston Smiths (distinct from the previous Winston Smiths) live who were made to cry “I love usury!” for the specific purpose of creating a sexual freak show?

  • Zippy says:

    Cane:

    In other words: Ordinary people have fallen into widespread sexual sin (the “modern sexual freak show”) because their ability to recognize objective reality has been compromised …

    Not sexual sin in general, but the specific character of the modern anti-realist sexual freak show, yes. Are you suggesting that there is just nothing whatsoever unique about the modern sexual revolution at all? Because I definitely disagree with that.

    It remains that you clearly stated that there was a specific conspiracy …

    I’m pretty sure that I didn’t use (and would not have used) the word ‘conspiracy’; so I’m not sure you actually know what it means.

  • Svar says:

    I guess you can say that things always change but the root causes always stay the same.

    It was King Solomon who said that there is nothing new underneath the sun. The same sort of poz we see today was around in Rome, Persia and other great civilizations. Rome had all sorts of queer emperors towards the end, I remember a few homosexuals, a proto-tranny/transvestite/woman-wannabe, and a horse-banger off the top of my head. Caesar was their last hope and we know what happened to him.

  • Zippy says:

    Svar:

    Are you adopting the position, then, that the current modern sexual revolution has nothing whatsoever unique about its character? It is all just the same old same old?

    If that is the case then I’m not sure what I could possibly say. My lying eyes don’t agree.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    (I am very sorry that I have to go to work just now.)

    Zippy:

    I’m pretty sure that I didn’t use (and would not have used) the word ‘conspiracy’; so I’m not sure you actually know what it means.

    I didn’t mean to malign or cast aspersions. Plot would work just as well.

    Are you suggesting that there is just nothing whatsoever unique about the modern sexual revolution at all? Because I definitely disagree with that.

    I’m suggesting I don’t know, but more importantly that it seems very possible that the uniqueness is the depth of paint.

    I am thunderstruck to contemplate the sexual freaks of Sodom, (The open rape of a woman on a porch–to death–because they couldn’t rape a man?) or the regular immolation of live children to Moloch. We don’t see those “paints” now, but are they differently underneath?

  • Zippy says:

    Cane:

    Plot would work just as well.

    Well, no, not really; not if you are saying that I was postulating some human plot or conspiracy. That would be a misreading of my post.

    I do believe in the demonic, but for the record I don’t actually have a strong position on whether this was some actual demonic plot or simply the unfolding of human history.

    …it seems very possible that the uniqueness is the depth of paint.

    I am perfectly willing to let folks use their own lying eyes to determine whether there is or is not any specific difference in character between the modern global sexual revolution and various historical accounts of specific events and persons in specific places. If your impression is that this is all just the same old, same old – despite having eyes to see and a mind to think similar to my own – then I don’t think I could say anything to disabuse you of it.

  • Svar says:

    “Are you adopting the position, then, that the current modern sexual revolution has nothing whatsoever unique about its character? It is all just the same old same old?

    If that is the case then I’m not sure what I could possibly say. My lying eyes don’t agree.”

    I myself am not sure. Back then your average everyday Romans were committing acts of contraception and abortion and the old Greek sin of pederasty was making a comeback. Then just like now, most people weren’t chopping off their bits in a desperate bid to be something they’re not.

    In what ways is the modern sexual revolution different?

  • Svar says:

    ” I don’t actually have a strong position on whether this was some actual demonic plot or simply the unfolding of human history.”

    My position is that the demonic plot has already been implemented when the World-Serpent tempted Eve and indirectly Adam. Everything we see now has that event as it’s root cause.

  • Zippy says:

    I often encounter people who say “hey, it is just the Fall, sinners gonna sin — nothing to see here, move along”.

    Again, I don’t really have anything to say to those folks, and I’m not sure why they even comment on my posts.

  • Svar says:

    No, I am not pushing a certain viewpoint, I’m asking you a question. In what ways is the modern sexual revolution different?

  • Zippy says:

    Svar:
    I consider that line of questioning too ludicrous to spend my time entertaining it.

  • Svar says:

    No I am 100% serious. I really want to know the differences between the sexual chaos today and that of previous ages. As in, how are they different qualitatively? Is it the origin of the modern sexual revolution? (I don’t know what you consider it to be) The degree of the chaos?

    I know that the modern sexual revolution was a product of the machinations of the Frankfurt School which lends credence to the view that it was a manmade conspiracy (which doesn’t rule out direct demonic involvement in the least).

  • Zippy says:

    I was 100% serious in my previous comment too.

  • imnobody00 says:

    @Svar

    I am not Zippy but I think he could agree with me about the explanation below (maybe I am wrong though)

    I guess the modern sexual revolution has a nominalist root that was absent in ancient debaucheries, where people had a metaphysical realism.

    Examples abound. People are not men and women. In fact, there are not two sexes but as many genders as people want to believe.

    Fetus are not human beings. A man who thinks he is a woman IS a woman (even if he has a penis) and you can’t say otherwise because you are evil if you don’t agree.

    Two homosexuals committing sodomy is a marriage and so on and so forth.

    The features of nominalism are evident 1) universals are only names. So a marriage is whatever we want to say marriage 2) There is no trascendent standard and categories. (such as two sexes) 3) The will (rather than reason or reality) is the rule to judge all things. So, if I think I am a woman, I am a woman

  • Svar says:

    So basically you’re saying that you think today’s sexual revolution is different but everyone should just know why it is so because it’s just that obvious that it doesn’t need explanation or proof of why this is obviously so.

    You’re the only one making a concrete claim that you are apparently absolutely certain about here and your response to anyone asking for elaboration is basically the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming “I CAN’T HEAR YOU! I CAN’T HEAR YOU!!”

  • Svar says:

    “I am not Zippy but I think he could agree with me about the explanation below (maybe I am wrong though)

    I guess the modern sexual revolution has a nominalist root that was absent in ancient debaucheries, where people had a metaphysical realism.

    Examples abound. People are not men and women. In fact, there are not two sexes but as many genders as people want to believe.

    Fetus are not human beings. A man who thinks he is a woman IS a woman (even if he has a penis) and you can’t say otherwise because you are evil if you don’t agree.

    Two homosexuals committing sodomy is a marriage and so on and so forth.

    The features of nominalism are evident 1) universals are only names. So a marriage is whatever we want to say marriage 2) There is no trascendent standard and categories. (such as two sexes) 3) The will (rather than reason or reality) is the rule to judge all things. So, if I think I am a woman, I am a woman”

    Okay, that explains alot. In your opinion, where does this root begin? Cultural Marxism is the obvious culprit here but what about Bolshevism and Classical Liberalism? These last two types of liberals did mostly adhere to a sort metaphysical realism regarding things like men and women and homosexuality with a few exceptions. I’m not seeing an obvious correlation beyond the fact that Cultural Marxism is Bolshevism turned away from issues of class and towards issues of sexuality and other non-class issues, basically a union between Freudianism and Marxism.

  • Zippy says:

    Svar:
    In the first place, whether ancient Rome was or was not exactly precisely the same as now or not is entirely irrelevant to the thesis of the OP. The suggestion that someone in the ancient past got just exactly the same kind of cancer as the current patient is completely beside the point of a causal account of how the current patient in fact developed cancer.

    In the second place, I really actually don’t have anything to say to someone who can’t tell any qualitative difference between the present world and ancient Rome. There just aren’t any words that can help bridge the gap.

  • vishmehr24 says:

    “All that could be denied would be denied”-Chesterton wrote a hundred years ago. And thus truisms would be converted to dogma.
    A truism is a common-sensical truth that is accepted by virtually all.
    Such as two men can not marry.
    But the moderns deny this truism but the Church affirms them still and thus they become dogma. (A dogma is a truism that has been denied).

    So, this is clear enoughThe modern world denies a host of truism that were never denied. There was always sin but it was known as sin.

    How does usury figure into this–is more hard to say. Another possible candidate is the transvaluation that occured in 18c with greed being recognized as a social good.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    Zippy:

    If your impression is that this is all just the same old, same old – despite having eyes to see and a mind to think similar to my own – then I don’t think I could say anything to disabuse you of it.

    Why are you being ornery? For someone who especially hates misrepresentation of what you have said, you are too free in committing it yourself. Immolating children to Moloch and openly raping strangers to death is not “same old same old sin”, and I didn’t present it as such. That was my point. Really awful sins–including sexual freak shows–aren’t peculiar to modernity. If you didn’t get that it’s not because I’ve failed to grasp the evil of our times, but because you have failed to grasp ancient ones.

    We should all rely on our lying eyes, but while our lying eyes have seen some of the modern sexual freak show, they did not observe any of the ancient ones. So it is not the case that anyone of today’s lying eyes can unfailingly compare and contrast now with then. We need our minds. That’s why I asked you the question you have refused to answer.

    And for a person who hates mind-reading over the Internet… You have not read my mind, and you don’t know what may change it. Things move strangely in here. My suggestion (as the owner of my mind) is to answer my question about when you believe this particular introduction and cultivation of anti-realism (by humans, demons, or the unfolding human nature, and which led directly and strategically towards the prize that is the modern sexual freak show) began.

  • Zippy says:

    Cane:
    That (some) human beings have committed terrible atrocities throughout all of recorded history isn’t actually news to anyone. And that all human beings have sinned throughout all of recorded history is also not news. So carrying on as if it actually were news to anyone is actually rather insulting to my intelligence and the intelligence of my other readers, and comes across to me (whether intended to or not) as polluting the discussion with deliberate failure to get the point.

    … answer my question about when you believe this particular introduction and cultivation of anti-realism (by humans, demons, or the unfolding human nature, and which led directly and strategically towards the prize that is the modern sexual freak show) began.

    It is always difficult to pinpoint specific origins in the history of wicked ideas, but many would trace the roots of anti-realism to the nominalism of William of Ockham.

  • … health insurance companies paying doctors to do transsexual surgeries while refusing to care for people with terminal illnesses.

    Satan has a sense of humor

  • Elspeth says:

    I had a thought, which in fact isn’t my thought but was ripped off from man.

    It seems as if there is a debate here between whether things are markedly worse so far as the human condition goes, or whether it’s simply a question of “New look! Same great taste!”

    I think it is most likely both. It’s true that there is no temptation such as which is common to man. But also, there is no question that scripture teaches that the closer we get to the end, the worse mankind will get. I believe Paul said (I’m a KJVer): “Men will wax worse and worse.” This indicates that there is a scale down which we are sliding.

    Homosexuality, for example, was only recently removed as a bona fide mental illness and even the most pagan faiths understood that marriage was a man-woman deal for procreation and certain things were abnormal. In fact, if I remember my history correctly, the more economically comfortable a culture was, the more likely you were to see the restraints thrown off. The dark nature of man seems to come out of hiding on a mass scale when the two lowest levels of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs are satisfied.

    So at the risk of sounding like I’m talking out of both sides, both arguments have merit but Zippy’s seems to fall into line best with what we know about the merging of history and human nature. I am reminded of what Spurgeon said concerning the “conflict” between free will and God’s sovereignty:

    The system of truth is not one straight line, but two. No man will ever get a right view of the gospel until he knows how to look at the two lines at once. I am taught in one book to believe that what I sow I shall reap: I am taught in another place, that “it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.”

    I see in one place, God presiding over all in providence; and yet I see, and I cannot help seeing, that man acts as he pleases, and that God has left his actions to his own will, in a great measure.

    Now, if I were to declare that man was so free to act, that there was no presidence of God over his actions, I should be driven very near to Atheism; and if, on the other hand, I declare that God so overrules all things, as that man is not free enough to be responsible, I am driven at once into Antinomianism or fatalism.

    That God predestines, and that man is responsible, are two things that few can see. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory; but they are not. It is just the fault of our weak judgment. Two truths cannot be contradictory to each other.

    It seems that this is a similar “conflict”, whether the sin nature of man can grow worse while being of the same original essence.

    For future reference Zippy, I need ask: Is this a manosphere blog?

  • Zippy says:

    Elspeth:

    For future reference Zippy, I need ask: Is this a manosphere blog?

    I leave it to others to categorize my views and my writing. My blogging activities involve interactive expression and development of my personal views and understanding of various subjects in which I take an interest. I have no policies other than that, as my blog, I reserve the authority to do with it as I see fit.

  • Zippy says:

    Elspeth:

    It seems as if there is a debate here between whether things are markedly worse so far as the human condition goes, or whether it’s simply a question of “New look! Same great taste!”

    I actually think that is irrelevant to the subject of the OP, because people are reading a claim that things are uniquely worse than they have ever been into the OP.

    That claim comes from inside their heads though, not my actual words. Pointing out the cause of this disease in this patient isn’t a claim about other cases of disease in other patients. Pointing out the cause of this war isn’t a claim about other wars.

    Folks are extrapolating from the haecceity of my claim to other things that I have not actually said, at least in the OP, though I may have allowed the misperception of some commenters to distract me in the comments.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    Zippy:

    Thanks for answering my question.

    Pointing out the cause of this disease in this patient isn’t a claim about other cases of disease in other patients. Pointing out the cause of this war isn’t a claim about other wars.

    Makes sense to me. This is where an (at least vague) demarcation of histories becomes a useful way to show that you are talking about this patient, but not that patient; this war, but not that war. There is a lot of overlap in wars, strategies, and combatants.

  • […] you buy the premise that the current progressive freak show is a product of metaphysical anti-realism, and that popular metaphysical anti-realism is a result of pervasively practiced anti-realism in […]

  • Zippy says:

    To be fair to Ockham, it may be worth mentioning that what I term anti-realism may (at least according to authorities on Aristotle) extend all the way back to Aristotle. I have been told numerous times that human artifacts are not substances strictly speaking but are merely the projection of human perceptions and preferences onto collections of accidents. If that is a correct reading of Aristotle then it is an at least Paleozoic form of the kind of anti-realism that I reject, since in my view no actual property is fully reducible to nothing but a projection of human perceptions and preferences onto a collection of accidents.
    Of course that could be an unfair reading of Aristotle. But I expect that anti-realism has been around in at least a nascent form for all of human history. What is unique about the present age is that Everyman has been convinced to adopt anti-realism as his unspoken presumptive metaphysic.

  • vishmehr24 says:

    “human artifacts are not substances strictly speaking”
    What is a substance?

  • Zippy says:

    vishmehr24:
    An Aristotlean substance is a hylemorphic unity of matter and substantial form, or something like that. Substances are distinguished from properties (which proceed from a thing’s substantial form but are not themselves its substantial form) and accidents, and especially from artifacts made by human beings. Substances have intrinsic meaning; artifacts (on this account) have only the meaning that human beings assign to them. Ed Feser’s book Aquinas contains a good short introduction, and I have discussed/debated the subject with Ed Feser both here and at What’s Wrong with the World.

  • vishmehr24 says:

    . “Substances have intrinsic meaning;”
    Take the substance “water” for instance. What intrinsic meaning does it have?
    I do not get the connection to “meaning”. To me a substance is a thing that acts by itself.

  • Zippy says:

    vishmehr24:
    You’d be better off asking an expert on Aristotleanism about the meaning of Aristotleanism. I was asked by Cane Caldo where, historically, metaphysical anti-realism qua bad idea comes from. I proposed Ockham’s nominalism and even possibly the Aristotlean account of artifacts as non-substances.

    Whether anti-realism with respect to artifacts is an accurate understanding of Aristotle’s thought, or just a fairly obvious error which misconstrues Aristotlean thought in a way in which it is easy to misconstrue, is something I’m happy to leave to experts on Aristotle to explain.

  • […] did not put usurers and sodomites into the same circle of Hell by […]

  • […] and expectations tend to drift away from reality over time and across generations; although this does take some doing. So eventually liberalism comes crashing into hard […]

  • […] to find it troubling that the pinnacle of everything they been taught to value seems to be base perversion: that human dignity has come to mean defining people by their sexual deviancy, and compassion […]

  • […] strong views about intellectual property.  Modern understandings of property and commerce are so perverse, immoral, and unreal that it seems rather likely that at least some of what IP law sanctions, […]

  • […] I keep waiting for their heads to explode.  But I am always impressed by the ability of human beings to cling to manifestly incoherent nonsense when it means they can have whatever kind of sex they want to have, with whomever or whatever they like. […]

  • […] When philosophical anti-realism invades the domain of property, the distinction between persons and property disappears.  This erodes the distinction between persons and objects in spheres beyond property and ownership. […]

  • […] This is of course an incoherent mess prone to producing mass slaughter and other degeneracy when it crashes into reality: a doctrinal mashup of contradictory nonsense defended by the modern political monoparty with motte-and-bailey equivocation.  A liberal sovereign delegitimizes his own authority, and the authority of his peoples’ traditions to protect and enforce what is substantively good, and adopts a philosophy of quantitatively maximizing choice independent of whether those choices are or are not substantively good.  In practice this takes all of the things people really care about off the table, since the things people care about most tend to be controversial and often controverted.   What remains is the pervasive presence of disgusting and dehumanizing options. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Where the modern sexual freak show comes from at Zippy Catholic.

meta

%d bloggers like this: