Tag Archives: bdsm

Dworkin, De Sade, the Right & the Left

Not long after the Abu Ghraib scandal, on a flight to Paris, I watched “Quills,” an awful and boring film “inspired by the life and work of the Marquis de Sade.” I had read Justine which I thought of as a horror novel, a perverted Steven King story, and knew some details of de Sade’s life and legend. While Quills itself was too trite to work up any moral outrage over, I began to question why de Sade was hailed as a hero by those on the “left” and the reception the film got from the “liberal” Hollywood establishment.

Wasn’t the Marquis de Sade exhibit number one of the rich preying on the poor, the aristocracy abusing the peasantry, the 1% exploiting the 99%? Wasn’t it “nobles” like de Sade who caused the French Revolution? Wasn’t it the cruely of men like de Sade which led to the bloodthirstiness of the guillotines?

I could understand a bit of taboo-breaking and a little kinky naughtiness, but Justine wasn’t that – it was horror, torture porn, and not at all sexy but instead had the same appeal as a slasher flick or body horror: you don’t “enjoy” it as much as forcing yourself to overcome your gag reflex and facing the worst, biological based fears, seems to make you stronger.

But what offended me about Quills was the complete misrepresentation about de Sade’s actual life. Instead of a wealthy and powerful exploiter of the weak and the poor, he was played as some sort of liberty-lover, a fighter against sexual oppression. The only reason de Sade himself wasn’t beheaded is because he switched sides, along with some other minor aristocrats, and joined the “rebels” long enough to save his head, and those of a few others, before the Terror ended.

Here’s the utterly absurd and completely deceptive byline for Quills:

Quills imagines the final days of history’s most infamous sexual adventurer, the Marquis de Sade. A nobleman with a literary flair, the Marquis lives in a madhouse where a beautiful laundry maid (Winslet) smuggles his erotic stories to a printer, defying orders from the asylum’s resident priest (Phoenix). The titillating passages whip all of France into a sexual frenzy, until a fiercely conservative doctor (Caine) tries to put an end to the fun, inadvertently stoking the excitement to a fever pitch. Featuring a cast that includes Academy Award® winner Geoffrey Rush, Oscar nominee Kate Winslet, rising star Joaquin Phoenix, and Academy Award® winner Michael Caine, Quills playfully turns Sade’s story into a sexy, sinister and shattering tale he himself might have written.

The scene in Quills that most sticks in my memory in that of a servant girl begging de Sade to write more “violence” so she could read it and be aroused. This is literally a reversal of reality, it’s having the rape victim beg to be raped. Whatever literary merits de Sade may have, in reality he was a rapist, a torturer, a poisoner, an abortionist and a murderer. He was John Wayne Gacy plus Jeffrey Dahmer, not Christian Grey.

And here Hollywood was making him out to be some sort of sex-positive feminist just giving the ladies what they want!

Apparently, the left has always had this attitude toward de Sade. Some choice excerpts Andrea Dworkin’s chapter on de Sade from Pornography: Men Possessing Women:

https://archive.org/details/PornographyMenPossessingWomenAndreaDworkinPdf/page/n8


The Marquis de Sade is the world’s foremost pornographer. As such he both embodies and defines male sexual values. In him, one finds rapist and writer twisted into one scurvy knot. His life and writing were of a piece, a whole cloth soaked in the blood of women imagined and real. In his life he tortured and raped women. He was batterer, rapist, kidnapper, and child abuser. In his work he relentlessly celebrated brutality as the essence of eroticism; fucking, torture, and killing were fused; violence and sex, synonymous. His work and legend have survived nearly two centuries because literary, artistic, and intellectual men adore him and political thinkers on the Left claim him as an avatar of freedom. Sainte-Beuve named Sade and Byron as the two most significant sources of inspiration for the original and great male writers who followed them. Baudelaire, Flaubert, Swinburne, Lautreamont, Dostoevski, Cocteau, and Apollinaire among others found in Sade what Paul Tillich, another devotee of pornography, might have called “the courage to be.” Simone de Beauvoir published a long apologia for Sade. Camus, who unlike Sade had an aversion to murder, romanticized Sade as one who had mounted “the great offensive against a hostile heaven ” and was possibly “the first theoretician of absolute rebellion .” Roland Barthes wallowed in the tiniest details of Sade’s crimes, those committed in life as well as on paper.

Sade was born into a noble French family closely related to the reigning monarch. Sade was raised with the prince, four years his senior, during his earliest years. When Sade was four, his mother left the Court and he was sent to live with his grandmother. At the age of five, he was sent to live with his uncle, the Abbe de Sade, a clergyman known for his sensual indulgences. Sade’s father, a diplomat and soldier, was absent during Sade’s formative years. Inevitably, biographers trace Sade’s character to his mother’s personality, behavior, and alleged sexual repression, despite the fact that very little is known about her. What is known, but not sufficiently noted, is that Sade was raised among the male mighty.

At the age of fifteen, Sade entered the military as an officer. At this age, he apparently began gambling and frequenting brothels. Purchasing women was one of the great passions of his life, and most of the women and girls he abused during his lifetime were whores or servants. Sade advanced in the military and was promoted several times, each promotion bringing with it more money.

Those leftists who champion Sade might do well to remember that prerevolutionary France was filled with starving people. The feudal system was both cruel and crude. The rights of the aristocracy to the labor and bodies of the poor were unchallenged and not challengeable. The tyranny of class was absolute. The poor sold what they could, including themselves, to survive. Sade learned and upheld the ethic of his class.

Five months after his marriage, Sade terrified and assaulted a twenty-year-old working-class woman, Jeanne Testard. Testard, a fan maker, had agreed to service a young nobleman. She was taken to Sade’s private house and locked in a room. Sade made clear to her that she was a captive. She was subjected to verbal abuse and humiliation. In particular, Sade raged against her conventional Christian religious beliefs. He told her that he had masturbated into a chalice in a chapel and that he had taken two hosts, placed them inside a woman, and fucked her. Testard told Sade that she was pregnant and could not tolerate maltreatment. Sade took Testard into a room filled with whips, religious symbols, and pornographic pictures. He wanted Testard to whip him, and then he wanted to beat her. She refused. He took two crucifixes, crushed one, and masturbated on the other. He demanded that she destroy the one on which he had masturbated. She refused. He threatened her life with two pistols that were in the room and a sword that he was wearing. She crushed the crucifix. He wanted to give her an enema and have her shit on the crucifix. She refused. He wanted to sodomize her. She refused. Sade threatened, harangued, and lectured her through a very long night during which she did not eat or sleep. Before releasing her, he made her sign a blank piece of paper and promise to tell no one about what had transpired. He wanted her to agree to meet him the following Sunday so that he could fuck her with a host inside of her.

On being freed, Testard went to the police. Sade was arrested, apparently because police interviews with prostitutes revealed that Sade had abused scores of them. Sade was punished because he had become careless in his excesses. He was imprisoned for two months at Vincennes in squalor most distressing to a gentleman. He wrote letters to the authorities in which he begged them to keep the nature of his crime secret from his family.

Sade’s abuse of prostitutes became so alarming that, within a year after his brutal treatment of Testard, the police warned procuresses not to provide Sade with women. Sade’s valet scavenged the streets for victims, some of whom, according to Sade’s neighbors, were male.

In 1768, Easter Sunday early in the morning, Rose Keller, in her mid-thirties, a German immigrant, a widow, a cotton spinner who had been unemployed for approximately a month, approached Sade to beg for alms. He offered her work housecleaning. She accepted. He told her that she would be well fed and treated kindly.

Sade took Keller to his private house. He took her to a dark room in which the windows were boarded and said he was going to get her food. He locked her in the room. Keller had waited for about an hour when Sade came to take her into another room. He told her to undress. She refused. He tore her clothes off, threw her face down onto a couch, tied her arms and legs with ropes. He whipped her brutally. He took a knife and told her that he would kill her. According to Keller, Sade kept cutting her with a knife and rubbing wax into the wounds. Keller believed she would die and begged Sade not to kill her until she could make her Easter confession. When Sade was finished with her, he took her back to the first room and ordered her to wash and rub brandy into her wounds. This she did. He also rubbed into the wounds an ointment that he had invented. He was proud of his invention, which he claimed healed wounds quickly. Later, Sade alleged that he had paid Keller to be whipped so that he could test his ointment. Sade brought Keller food. He took her back to the room where he had beaten her and locked her in. Keller bolted the door from the inside. She unblocked some of the locked shutters with a knife, injuring herself in the process, made a rope of bedding, and climbed out of the window and down the wall. Sade’s valet pursued her and offered her money to return. She pushed him off and ran.

Keller was badly hurt and her clothes were ripped. She ran until she encountered a village woman, to whom she poured out her story. Other women joined. They examined her and then took her to an inappropriate official, since the local magistrate was away. A police official called in from elsewhere took her statement. Keller was examined by a surgeon and was given refuge.

Sade’s mother-in-law, Madame de Montreuil, settled a large sum of money on Rose Keller to persuade her to withdraw criminal charges. Despite the settlement, Sade was imprisoned for nearly eight months …

In June 1772, Sade traveled to Marseilles with his valet, known as Latour. During the course of Sade’s brief stay there, Latour procured five prostitutes for Sade. Sade (in varying combinations) beat, fucked, and forcibly sodomized the women, with his usual threats of worse violence and death. He also had his valet sodomize at least one of the women and himself. In Marseilles, Sade added another dimension to his sexual repertoire: he encouraged the women to eat candies that had been laced with drugs. The women did not know what they were eating. Sade’s defenders claim that the candies were treated with a harmless aphrodisiac and something to encourage flatulence, which Sade found particularly charming. Two of the women became violently ill from the candies, had intense abdominal pain, vomited blood and black mucus. The women believed that they had been poisoned, and there is little doubt that had they consumed the quantities of the candy that Sade had wanted them to eat, they would have become deadly ill. One of the women went to the police. An investigation of Sade’s brutality with the five prostitutes — the forced flagellation, the forced sodomy, the attempted poisoning — led to an order to arrest both Sade and Latour. Sade, with Anne-Prospere as his lover and Latour as his valet, fled to Italy to escape arrest.

Sade and Latour were found guilty of poisoning and sodomy (a capital crime irrespective of force) in absentia. They were sentenced to death. In lieu of the death sentence that could not be carried out, the two men were burned in effigy.

Sade, with an end to his legal troubles in sight, intensified his pursuit of pleasure. He had a procuress known as Nanon find him five fifteen-year-old girls who were taken to Lacoste and forced to submit to Sade’s brutality. Sade’s wife was a participant in these new sexual extravaganzas. She became the prime apologist for Sade’s violence against the girls, even though, as one of them testified, Renee-Pelagie was herself “the first victim of a fury which can be described only as madness.” 3 Parents of three of the girls pressed charges against Sade, who refused to release his captives. One of the girls was horribly injured. She was sent to Sade’s uncle, the Abbe, to keep her from testifying against Sade. Renee-Pelagie did everything possible to keep a doctor from treating the girl, since evidence of bodily injury could be used against Sade and herself as well. Madame de Montreuil, perhaps to protect her daughter, joined with Renee-Pelagie and Sade to try to coerce the parents into dropping their complaints. Meanwhile, Sade forcibly kept the girls at Lacoste. They would be returned to their parents only if no charges of kidnapping were made.

Sade brought more women and girls to Lacoste. Human bones were found in Sade’s garden; he claimed one of his mistresses had planted them as a joke. Nanon, the procures s, became pregnant by Sade. Madame de Montreuil had a lettre de cachet issued for her arrest. Nanon was imprisoned; her infant daughter died at Lacoste shortly after she was born because the wet nurse’s milk went dry.

Sade was again threatened with arrest. He escaped again to Italy. The fifteen-year-old girl who had been most severely injured and had been sent to Sade’s uncle had not, in nine months, recovered from her injuries. She was finally taken to a hospital where the Sade family conspired to keep her from talking with anyone to whom she might reveal what had happened to her. By this time, the Abb6 believed that Sade should be imprisoned.

For a year, Sade traveled in Italy. He complained of being lonely. One of the kidnapped girls, still kept at Lacoste, died. Another escaped and went to the police. Against the advice of Ren6e-Pelagie, Sade returned to Lacoste. More women were procured for him. Sade kept spending money on women while Renee-Pelagie lived in near penury. He hired servants, locked them up, forced them to submit to him. A father of a servant hired by Sade tried to shoot him. The daughter signed a statement defending Sade. The authorities ordered the woman returned to her father. She was not.

Another attempt was made to arrest Sade. He hid. On being informed by Madame de Montreuil that his mother was dying in Paris, he went there. She died before he arrived, but in Paris Sade was arrested under a lettre de cachet. Madame de Montreuil had told the police Sade’s whereabouts. He was sent to Vincennes, where he was imprisoned for nearly six years. In 1784, he was transferred to the Bastille. In 1789, the people of France were near revolution. Sade rigged up an improvised loudspeaker from his cell and exhorted the people to lay siege to the Bastille. He was moved to Charenton, a lunatic asylum. On July 14, 1789, the Bastille was stormed and its warden killed. In 1790, Sade was released from Charenton along with all prisoners who had been imprisoned under lettres de cachet by the old regime.

During the years of his imprisonment in Vincennes and the Bastille, Sade wrote the body of literature for which he is best known (though his literary career did not begin in prison; he had done some writing and even produced and directed theatrical events sporadically). On Sade’s release, Ren6e-Pelagie, whom Sade had subjected to extraordinary scorn and abuse during his imprison- ment, left him and obtained a legal separation. Sade’s bitterness toward her was unrelenting. Apparently he felt that he had given her the best years of his life, which were less than perfect only because he had been maliciously persecuted. He especially blamed Renee-Pelagie for the loss of manuscripts that had been taken or destroyed during the siege of the Bastille. She had failed to rescue them, as he had demanded, and may have burned some herself. In the ensuing years, he set about re-creating the lost work. After his release, Sade also met his daughter as an adult for the first time. He hated her on sight. Early in 1791, Sade began living with Marie- Constance Renelle, to whom Justine is dedicated and with whom he had what his biographers consider a sincere, loving, devoted relationship. Sade was no longer a young rake. In prison he had become very fat, and the French Revolution had deprived him of his power as an aristocrat. Necessity, that fabled parent of invention, gave birth in a few short months to Citizen Sade.

For nearly four years, Sade walked a political tightrope. He played the role of one who had been abused by the old regime, who had no loyalties to the old nobility and was entirely committed to the new society. He made politically correct speeches, renamed streets to reflect the ideology of the revolution, and worked to keep his own property from the legitimate claims of the revolution and of Renee-Pelagie. According to his biographers, Sade’s essential humanism was demonstrated during the Terror when he was on a committee that passed judgment on the Montreuils: he could have denounced them and had them killed, but he did not. It is more likely that Sade, a consummate survivor, had understood that, during the Terror, guilt by past association could endanger his own life. Condemnation of the Montreuils could eventually have led to his own death for his having consorted with them.

Revolutionary leader Jean-Paul Marat discovered the nature of the crimes for which Sade had been imprisoned under the old regime. He denounced Sade but by mistake someone with a similar name was executed. Marat, although he became aware of his mistake, did not live to rectify it: he was assassinated by Charlotte Corday.

Toward the end of 1793, Sade was imprisoned. The charge was that in 1791 he had volunteered to serve the king. Sade insisted that he had thought the regiment in which he had volunteered to serve was Iqyal to the revolution. He remained in prison and in July 1794 was sentenced to death. The administration of the prisons was so inefficient that Sade could not be found. He was not executed. Later that same month, Robespierre was executed, and the Terror ended. Two months later, Sade was released.


It’s interesting too that Catholic apologist E. Michael Jones, in his chapter on de Sade in Sexual Revolution, paints de Sade as a leading light of the French Revolution and especially its disestablishment of the Church and aristocracy. But that’s another revesal, a similar reversal, in fact, to the left’s painting of de Sade as a revolutionary.

De Sade was a member of the Catholic aristocracy and raised by the Catholic aristocracy, and almost certainly sexually abused and tortured as a child by that same class. One can to this very day see a reflection of de Sade’s desecration of Catholic symbols like the Host.

One of the most disturbing stories to come out of the “Catholic abuse crisis” is a ring of three American priests who would befriend altar boys, demand they strip and “pose like Jesus on the cross” while they photographed them nude then “award” them with crosses and rosaries and other pieces of Catholic paraphernalia.

When one reads the brutality against priests during various anti-Catholic movements, from the Hussites to Spain in the 30s, reactionaries are quick to note a Jewish role, but always seem to forget how many of those raised Catholic participated in the worst anti-clerical atrocities.

Considering what we known of the Vatican in the Renaissance era, to the Catholic aristocracy (like de Sade) in pre-Revolutionary France, to the Catholic priests of Boston in the 1970s-2000s, it not difficult to guess where the murderous hostility by former parishoners towards the Church comes from.

De Sade is a product of the French Catholic aristocracy, ret-conned into a “revolutionary” by the new ruling class – and by apologists for the former ruling class. And now, considered some sort of hero of sexual liberty – even a FEMINIST of sorts, by the left and Hollywood.

Maybe Dworkin was right?

I’m Really Uncomfortable With The Charges Against Nxivm

So this is some sort of self-improvement scam. “Take our class on business success!” and the like. All of these things are wastes of money and many may sometimes tip over into actionable fraud.

https://www.tvinsider.com/753102/keith-raniere-denied-bail-nxivm-sex-cult-allison-mack/

But the man who started it, Keith Raniere, along with actress Allison Mack and Seagram hieress Clare Bronfman, are being charged with “sex trafficking” and running a kind of sex cult where hot women would be recruited, then branded (hot!) and have sex with the founder. I mean, isn’t that the entire POINT of doing anything? Men build houses so women will come inside the house and have sex with them. Teenage boys learn how to play guitar so teenage girls will like their songs and have sex with them. It’s why men do anything.

This guy, Raniere, is on another level. He got his hot sex slaves to recruit other sex slaves for him, in a sort of recursive pick-up artistry. Come on, that’s pretty great. Anyone who has ever had a women recruit the other gal for a threesome, or even had an ex-lover introduce you to a new lover, understands the thrill of that.

Mack, under Raniere’s direction, would allegedly recruit women into the group, force them to to have sex with Raniere, have his initials branded into their skin, have them operate under “master-slave” conditions, and would abuse them if they disobeyed.

I don’t get the “force” part. I mean, if she was holding them down while Raniere raped them, fine, prosecute and send them to jail. But I have a feeling “force” means “hey, if you want into the club you have to put out.” While is the entire point of the club. Remember those old bumper stickers from the 1970s for hitchhiker, “Cash, Grass or Ass?” Is that sex trafficking now?

The FBI became involved as five women spoke out against the group in a New York Times exposé. After Raniere’s arrest, FBI official William Sweeney said in a statement: “As alleged, Keith Raniere displayed a disgusting abuse of power in his efforts to denigrate and manipulate women he considered his sex slaves.”

What “power” did this man have over these women, really? These were attractive, intelligent and in most cases very well off upper-middle class career women. He wasn’t even paying them, it’s not like it was an employer-employee relationship. His “power” was social proof as far as I can tell.

“He allegedly participated in horrifying acts of branding and burning them, with the co-operation of other women operating within this unorthodox pyramid scheme. These serious crimes against humanity are not only shocking, but disconcerting to say the least, and we are putting an end to this torture today.”

I’m against branding and tattoos in general, but these were adults weren’t they? They wanted into a club and this was the hazing ritual. Are we going to arrest the entire military of the United States for getting tattoos as part of their male bonding?

Think about this: I could move to Los Angeles, rent a hotel room and pay a desperate 18 year old girl $600 to get anally gang raped by ten old men, film it, and distribute it on line and that’s “free speech.”

But I can’t pal around with a couple of beautiful career women to give me social proof to recruit other beautiful career women for hot threesomes and sexy initiation rites like bikini tatooing?

It’s ok to “humiliate” women as long as you film it and show it online, but it’s terrible “manipulation” to do it privately and consensually?

As far as I can tell, this Nxivm/DOS group is far more moral – far more feminist, even – than the entire Los Angeles pornography industry.

All I can say is I’m glad I’m old and settled down now, because if half of what I did in my teens and 20s, in the USA, back in the 1990s, were known, I’d be in jail, along with just about every girl I’ve ever dated and half of my guy friends too.

Now That Kavanaugh Is Confirmed All Females Must Report Immediately For Spankings

All women must report immediately to the nearest brothel to be fitted for your new Handmaiden outfits and, in our generosity, we’re going to allow you to pick out your own paddle for your maintenance spankings.

Women’s Most Common Sexual Fantasies: Group Sex & BDSM

https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-research-delves-into-sexual-fantasies-1529936957?mod=trending_now_3

Note that BDSM is in the top three most common sexual fantasies:

Dr. Lehmiller identified seven major themes of sexual fantasies. Almost all participants said they fantasize about the three most-common ones at one time or another: multi-partner sex (including threesomes and group sex); power, control or rough sex (this includes bondage and runs the gamut from being tied up to full-on sadomasochism); and novelty, adventure and variety (encompassing new activities and new settings).

especially for women:

Men and women reported fantasizing about different things, although there was more overlap than you might expect, and some surprises. Most of the men said their fantasies included an emotional element—they imagined themselves feeling desired, sexually competent and irresistible. (Women did this, too.) And women were more adventurous than Dr. Lehmiller expected they’d be: They [women] fantasized more about bondage and sadomasochism than men did (in both the submissive and the dominant roles), and they fantasized a lot about group sex (although not as much as men) and new activities.

These findings are not in the least bit surprising to a) women, b) women’s romance authors, writers, filmmakers, and pornographers, and c) men who are “successful with women.”

These findings ARE, however, very disconcerting to a) “traditional conservatives” b) “nice guys” c) “feminist men” – in other words, men who are typically not “successful with women.”

One suspects if one were to drill down, the “group sex” fantasies of women tend to involve things like “gang rape” – more grist for the “war brides” trope – and that women’s fantasies about taking on “the dominant role” is likely the exact opposite of what “politically correct feminists” would hope for – i.e., it’s not Dominatrixes dominating youthful pool boys, but what I’ve described “the switch” – really, a “reversal” that is just a slight variation on the basic “woman submitting to a powerful man” theme.

The typical scenario would be, “you’ve been dominating me all weekend, now let me get on top and show you what I can do while you lay back and relax.”

Let’s see. Sexist BDSM spanking manosphere authors, 1. Feminists and traditional social conservatives, 0.

Postscript:

A high IQ mentally ill feminist in the autism “community” in San Francisco committed suicide and in her note explained how desperate she was for a man to “protect” her from all the other men. She even wondered if it was legal for her to “trade sex for protection” while she longed for a man to take possession of her …

I hope the power dynamics of her fantasies are obvious. There are no feminists in the bedroom.

https://blog.jim.com/culture/kathy-forths-suicide/

“A Vickstrom” on Hipster Racist

Don’t you see that he’s playing mind games with you? You are attempting to have a historical debate with a man who writes BDSM porn and publishes it on his blog. Men with Hipster’s kink have very unique, and easily recognizable, personalities. Men do not normally write / read about sex since we are visual creatures (a picture is worth a thousand words, as they say). His interest in that specific kink and his desire to write about it indicates an exceptional imagination combined with a high IQ and a high sex drive: aka he’s more aggressive than average and thinks in a different way than 95% of straight men.

Have you ever noticed that he uses a Jew (Don Adams of the series Get Smart) as his avatar? That in itself is quite a giveaway into how his mind works. HR is playing mind games on a level that most straight men don’t comprehend. That’s why he calls himself a ‘hipster racist’ – he is a race conscious liberal man and as such is using a different set of tactics.

It’s also likely that he has ties to – or intimate knowledge – of intelligence agencies. Men like him are drawn to those things like moths to a flame so at the very least he has studied counter intelligence & espionage tactics. His knowledge of neocon tactics also hints at this.

You are not going to get him to make concrete statements on historical subjects (or to even show interest in them). That’s not how people like him operate.

— “A Vickstrom” Holocausting the Holocaust the Andrew Joyce Way

“No one has ever had a fantasy about being tied to a bed and sexually ravished by someone dressed as a liberal” — P. J. O’Rourke

The difference between getting what you want, and what they want, is nuance,
So listen baby girl, put your boots on, here’s something to chew on …

KFlay, Doctor Don’t Know

The Freemason Conspiracy

Banned from Twitter for a fouth and likely last time, I figured I’d regale my dwindling audience with this hilariously funny, nearly 100 year old joke – that to this day, is taken seriously by Conservatives, Neo-Reactionaries, and superstitious Catholics. I’ll be the first to admit to having a sort of begruding respect for Taxil – in the same sense of I do L. Ron Hubbard. Sometimes it doesn’t matter how ridiculous the fiction – as Taxil says, people want it “hot and strong.” People want to have their superstitions and their preconceptions validated.

So I can tell half-true, half-fictional stories of Manhattan orgies with barely legal trafficked Russian models – sort of a poor man’s version of Trump’s own stories of Studio 54 – and see how much people will believe and how much they think is fictional. I win either way, I’m just a story teller after all. The more true the stories, the worse I look. But the more people believe, the more they are admitting their own prurient interests in such things. If I’m a bad guy, a moral leper, well, what to make of my audience who have for five years breathlessly waited for the next installments? What to think of my readers – male and female – who are both shocked – and titillated – by stories of White suburban teenage debauchery and peeks behind the curtain of what the sexually degenerate New York elites (and wanna-be elites) really do?

Cocaine parties and public sex orgies at night clubs? That’s how Trump got famous, after all. And you all voted for him!

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/10/6/1578544/-The-Untold-Story-of-Trump-Model-Management-A-Daily-Kos-Exclusive-Part-1

Never forget, Taxil was granted a personal audience with the Pope – the Vicar of Christ – who used his position as the leader of the entire Catholic church to publically endorse Taxil’s absurd joke. The Pope bought it, hook line and sinker. Apparently God – whom the Pope presumes to speak for – choose to allow the guy on the throne in Rome to make an utter fool of himself – and reveal his own prurient interests in just what sort of sex parties those Freemasons were having (apparently, the kind with women – something Vatican Catholics are clearly unfamiliar with, celibates apparently with a preference for little boys.)

I’m sorry, it’s just impossible to take Catholics seriously – religious people in general.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxil_hoax

“The public made me what I am; the arch-liar of the period,” confessed Taxil, “for when I first commenced to write against the Masons my object was amusement pure and simple. The crimes I laid at their door were so grotesque, so impossible, so widely exaggerated, I thought everybody would see the joke and give me credit for originating a new line of humor. But my readers wouldn’t have it so; they accepted my fables as gospel truth, and the more I lied for the purpose of showing that I lied, the more convinced became they that I was a paragon of veracity.

“Then it dawned upon me that there was lots of money in being a Munchausen of the right kind, and for twelve years I gave it to them hot and strong, but never too hot. When inditing such slush as the story of the devil snake who wrote prophecies on Diana’s back with the end of his tail, I sometimes said to myself: ‘Hold on, you are going too far,’ but I didn’t. My readers even took kindly to the yarn of the devil who, in order to marry a Mason, transformed himself into a crocodile, and, despite the masquerade, played the piano wonderfully well.

“One day when lecturing at Lille, I told my audience that I had just had an apparition of Nautilus, the most daring affront on human credulity I had so far risked. But my hearers never turned a hair. ‘Hear ye, the doctor has seen Nautulius,’ they said with admiring glances. Of course no one had a clear idea of who Nautilus was, I didn’t myself, but they assumed that he was a devil.

“Ah, the jolly evenings I spent with my fellow authors hatching out new plots, new, unheard of perversions of truth and logic, each trying to outdo the other in organized mystification. I thought I would kill myself laughing at some of the things proposed, but everything went; there is no limit to human stupidity”.

The Explicit Whiteness of Goth

There is some anti-white troll on AltRight.com that calls himself “Gothic Joe” and is supposedly into the “goth scene.” Me, personally, I’m not into the “goth scene” and never have been, although I do like some of the music and music that is closely related, like industrial.

But I do have to admit I’ve had a long kind of fascination with and obsession with “goth chicks.”

I just like the style – the “Suicide Girl” thing. I totally have the hots for women who dress up in “Dominatrix” types outfits. No, I’m not at all a “sub” and don’t get off to being “topped” by a Dominatrix – my sexuality tends to go the opposite direction, to be blunt. Watching the dominatrix slowly yield and turn into a submissive puppy is really, really hot.

I just like the boots, the leather, the little, subtle “restraints” that they wear. And the more these goth chicks dress up like Dommes, the more you know they are total submissives in private.

There is of course a HUGE element of BDSM in the “goth scene” – they are practically synonymous in many people’s minds. Goth tends to be a place where suburban girls can sort of “experiment” with BDSM fashion – and sex – while just making it a sort of “style” and “play.”

Probably the two biggest “goth” acts that went mainstream in the last 20 years were Nine Inch Nails (great) and Marilyn Manson (lame.) Both acts filled their videos and stage shows with hints of BDSM. Marilyn Manson’s video for his cover of “Tainted Love” (ironically, a Motown song by a Black woman that was also covered by the White “New Wave” band Soft Cell in the 1980s, an exception that proves the rule) was a pretty good short film full of that sort of style with plenty of suburban degeneracy – and it was full out “racist” too, Manson’s “goth thugs” were the “alphas” over the Blacks and Wiggers and White preppies – and turned the Cheerleader into a Suicide Girl at the end. It’s cute, not to be taken seriously, but still kind of cute.

Anyway I got into it with “Gothic Joe” by pointing out just how WHITE the goth scene is. Like all “alternative” subculture scenes, it’s a way for White people to SEGREGATE themselves from mainstream integrated society. Consider the original “alternative” scene of the 1990s. The mainstream pop music at the time was heavily dominated by Black artists – Prince, Michael Jackson, and a host of black and brown women “divas.” Even the metal scene, long a bastion of uber-whiteness, had started incorporating hip hop and featuring Black lead singers.

Then along comes “grunge” – the Whitest of the White – based on bands in uber-White Seattle. What distinguished “grunge” music like Nirvana and Pearl Jam from the mainstream pop music of the time?

The complete, 100% absence of ANY black musical influence. Grunge even took it farther by cutting out the guitar solos lest there be any hint of even a light skinned, white presetning Black guitar hero like Jimi Hendrix!

I was at the very first Lollapolloza in the 1990s – I think the only Black person at the entire festival was the lead singer of Living Color.

Goth is much the same way. One of the earliest and most influential “goth” bands was England’s Bauhaus. Look at the band, watch their videos, listen to their music. It’s whiter than white. Over the top theatrical even, lots of references to theater culture – another bastion of whiteness.

If you go to any major city in America and want to go out dancing, and you want to be sure the scene will be 99.99% White people? Go to the goth nightclub. Because the scene is so White, the women feel much safer to go all out, dress really sexy, get drunk and be exhibitionist. They do NOT feel as safe in a mixed race environment. Of course no one will admit it – they will all point to the single token Black goth – likely gay, thus not a threat to the women. But everyone knows the deal.

Also, the goth scene tends to be very Catholic I’ve noticed, and had goth friends say the same thing to me. Goth’s “dark” and even “satanic” image is really just based on the darker side of Catholicism itself. Of course even the name is based on the architectural style of old Catholic cathedrals. Yes, there’s a certain kind of pagan element to it, but it’s the same pagan element embedded in Catholicism itself. So that means the goth scene is also relatively kosher-free (hint, hint.)

I’m pro-White and of course support White people having our own cultural spaces where we are free to be us, express our own inner selves and our own culture. Goth is rather silly and often pretty goofy – but it is sincerely white.

Creeping up the backstairs
Slinking into dark stalls
Shapeless and slumped in bath chairs
Furtive eyes peep out of holes

She has many guises
She’ll do what you want her to
Playing dead and sweet submission
Cracks the whip deadpan on cue

Reeking like a pigsty
Peeling back and gagging free
Flaccid ego in your hand
Chokes on dry tears, can you understand?

She’s jeering at the shadows
Sneering behind a smile
Lunge and thrust to pout and pucker
Into the face of the beguiled

Peek-a-boo
Peek-a-boo
Peek-a-boo (Golly jeepers)
Peek-a-boo (Where’d you get those peepers?)
Peek-a-boo (Peepshow, creepshow)
Peek-a-boo (Where did you get those eyes?)
Strobe lights pump and flicker
Dry lips crack out for more
Come bite …

Bang Gang: The Second Sexual Revolution: No Coloreds, No Fags, No Rape, No Jealousy

Revolution Next

By the 1990s, the AIDS scare was over and everyone realized that the plague was confined to male homosexuals, needle drugs, and Africans. The sexual chill of the 1980s was over: the popular culture of film and music had continued to get more and more explicit – some would say “degenerate” – even while people’s actual behavior had become puritanical. The social shift was centered around the mainstreaming of condoms. The official story was that teenagers were going to have sex anyway so they should use condoms to avoid AIDS and pregnancy.

While the first sexual revolution of the 1960s still had double standards and jealousy, the second sexual revolution had shifted. If everyone was promiscuous, then no one was a “slut.” Since no one was getting married or having children any time soon, teenage relationships were by nature temporary and among peers partners were swapped: Jane dated Billy for a while, then Jane hooked up with Billy’s friend Mike while Jane’s friend Sally started dating Billy. The timeline simply got shorter and the number of partners increased.

So it was only a matter of time until the timeline of the relationships got shorter and the partner swapping more immediate. High school parties where couples would disappear into a bedroom simply evolved into high school parties where more than one couple would be in the bedroom, or on the same bed. Or where there weren’t couples as much as groups.

The Rules

Still, there were some lines that were simply not crossed, at least in the 1990s middle to upper middle class Washington DC suburbs of the 1990s. The rules were essentially non-negotiable:

1. No coloreds. Maybe a half Korean girl would be in the mix occasionally, but like an Abercrombie and Fitch catalog, this was a very White affair. Washington DC, even in the 1990s, was most certainly a racially diverse area, but integrated schools had not led to integrated social circles, and rarely intimacy. All throughout the 1980s Black and White couples were lauded by the media (OJ & Nicole) and the United Colors of Bennetton had spent a decade trying to push a slightly less sexual version of the Abercrombie and Fitch orgy aesthetic, but to no avail.

2. No fags. Male homosexuality was simply not tolerated. This was an era when gays were “coming out of the closet” and TV shows like Friends made it clear that “homophobia” was uncool. Nevertheless, teenage boys, even if they talked the talk, were simply not going to walk the walk. They may not have been going around queer bashing but neither were they going to invited suspected gays, much less out gays, to their parties. And the occasional friend, suspected or known to be gay, that was invited to a social party were simply never invited to the after parties.

Of course “bi-curious” girls were not even considered “lesbian,” merely a form of exhibitionist foreplay.

3. No rape. This was the era of third wave feminism. It was not cool to do something to a girl who was passed out – that passed out girl was your friend. It simply was not considered manly and a rough form of “consent” was expected. Of course “peer pressure” wasn’t considered “coercion” and it would be another decade before concepts like “rape culture” would be popularized – quite possibly precisely because a decade or so of these attitudes created a backlash, and the teenage girls who organized these parties had to regain some plausible deniability.

4. No jealousy. Of course people did get jealous, but no one owned anyone and when people did pair off and form serious couples, they simply didn’t go to the parties anymore. This was in a sense, “sexual utopia in power” and F. Roger Devlin might say. Women – really, girls – were the organizers here. They decided which boys to invite and it was their consent that powered the whole culture.

The Style

The style was rave, baby doll dresses and neo-bohemian. The soundtrack was electronic dance music and alternative rock. The drugs were alcohol, marijuana, and MDMA. (LSD and mushrooms were quite often the initiation into the scene, but those aren’t party drugs.)

No one knew anything about “BDSM” or even what it meant, the blindfolds and bondage were simply party favors, a natural development. There was always a certain “switch” dynamic – both boys and girls could be the one being blindfolded and “worked,” but the few times when an actual male submissive would want some sort of humiliation play, it would skeeve the girls out; he would be labeled a “creep” and no longer invited to the parties.

The age to play? 16.

The Hangover

Of course, as always, standards began to slip after the first generation. LGBT became more militant. Consent became blurry. Jealousy, always present, became more pronounced as “experimentation” morphed into “lifestyle” and the window of opportunity to leave it all behind got smaller. It you’re in the scene from 16-26, you’ve had a decade of experience at temporary “relationships” and zero experience with keeping anything permanent. The color line started to blur, which ruined the entire concept of consent, as consent is a cultural norm, shared among those with the same race and culture. Little sisters were not rebelling against the sexual chill of the 1980s as their older sisters had done, thus had a “starting point” that was much further along than their older siblings.

The impact of internet pornography started to be felt. Before, the parties, the social scene, WAS the initiation – it WAS the porn. Once hard core internet pornography went mainstream, boys – and girls – already had expectations, and the expectations were no longer set by peers in their own social circles, but by professional pornographers and pimps from Los Angeles, always eager to “segment” a market in order to micro-market to fetishes with pin point accuracy.

There’s all the difference in the world between BEING the product, and watching a product being advertised.

The End

What finally killed it off was camera phones and social media. Rumors can be denied, video evidence broadcast instantly to thousands could not.

Toronto Film Review: ‘Bang Gang (A Modern Love Story)’

The Future

As the Unabomber Ted Kazinsky might say, technology affects everything and society gets further and further away from the natural order. Only an industrial society would postpone marriage and family formation long past a biologically appropriate age in order to spend the youth’s most productive years learning to run the machines and push the paperwork. Feeding the machine becomes more important that reproducing the race; the machines become more important than the biology. So society will go back and forth between repression and degeneracy as long as it suppresses biology.

The Onion: Teen Wastes Prime Childbearing Years Going To High School

http://www.theonion.com/article/teen-wastes-prime-childbearing-years-going-to-high-33891