Is Porn Bad for You?

[brekin]

Jackriddler wrote:

brekin,

Technically speaking - and I do tend to read and write like a lawyer - I said you were proceeding from first principles that happen to be shared with E. Michael Jones. I'll stand by it. (You may not be Catholic, but so what? Lots of Catholics would dispute Jones's idea of Catholicism.)

You should know that lawyers were the preferred interrogators in the Inquisition. (From the book The Light Of The Past I believe.) You had some wild accusations based on some wild conjectures. Do I believe "Truth" comes from the word of "God". No. Does Jones? Sure, maybe.
I've worked with some people who've operated from what I viewed as the craziest first principles. Didn't mean we couldn't agree on pretty much everything else.

I read everything you wrote in this thread. You recommend his book in glowing terms. I see what you wrote corresponds to Jones's ideas on the subject, such as that sexual liberation is a means by which certain elites enslave the masses.

I hardly think Jones has been the first to propose that certain elites have used sexual liberation (or the promise of) to enslave the masses. Does anyone on this thread really doubt that? Just look at advertising. Besides it is a given that many organized religions have used sexual repression to enslave the masses. I don't think being critical of online porn and stating the obvious puts one back in the sexual repression camp. Again, if you think you know so much about a book without reading it, how can you make any claim to empiricism? The very thing you are passing judgment on (his book) you have not even examined. What do you say to a creationist who reads online reviews of The Origin of The Species and they've said they have read quite a enough of that stuff already? I'm sure there are some things you would disagree principle wise with the book as did I. But the book is 95% based on historical fact. Some of the earliest scientists operated from totally insane principles but still compiled factual evidence and proposed accurate reasons to systems.

These ideas in turn come from first principles, prior to empirical examination. God's word defines what is good and evil. A faith. I don't know if you get it from God, but you do share the faith as far as porn is concerned. It's evil because it's evil.

Uh, no I think online porn is evil because the results from what I've seen are evil. If this thread was called "Is TV Bad for You?" It would be a no-brainer. But because we are dealing with sexuality, anyone who is the slightly bit critical runs the risk of being labeled puritanical or medieval. I think it may be time for you to examine your "faith" in what you believe to be empiricism.

Correction: I never said porn was "good." If you go back to my first post on this thread, you'll see I don't believe that.

Mainly I object to your estimate of just how bad it is.

So you don't think online porn is good? Do you have any evidence to back that up?

Misrepresentation: I based my judgement of Jones's theses in Libido Dominandi on the materials Jones presents on his Web site. Those aren't merely reviews. They are the reviews he uses to promote his book. I give him credit for presenting his ideas clearly and honestly enough that these can be critiqued based on his presentation. (There's more, such as that what he writes and presents on his site conforms fully with an ideology I feel I've already read enough of in my life to identify it when I see it. Life's unfair that way, but I don't get to read every book in the universe.)

Look there is no getting around that you based your final condemnatory judgment on a 668 page book based on some reviews of it. Then you extrapolated a whole world view that you accused me of sharing from these reviews. Look, I think you know you basically have to read the book now. In the interest of intellectual rigor, in proving me wrong, in not rushing to judgment, etc you have a new night table book.

Quote:
OK, to sum up: Because I don't think online porn is good I'm a medieval Catholic? Did I miss anything?

No to the first question, yes to the second.

Here is what I said:

You think online porn is one of the greatest disasters in history, just like the medieval Catholic whose book you recommend.

Yes, I think it possibly could be one of the greatest potential disasters in history. I hardly think it has even begun to peak yet though and it's too soon to see the results. But what I've seen so far is pretty disturbing and combined with many of the other systemic ills going on with Western Civilization I think it could be disastrous. And If me and a medieval Catholic thinker agree on that, well then I think that alone is pause for thought.

[JackRiddler]

Now there's a triggering image.

[JackRiddler]

What do you say to a creationist who reads online reviews of The Origin of The Species and they've said they have read quite a enough of that stuff already?

Did Darwin himself write the reviews, or present them as his own promotional material for the book? Because that's the case here, with Jones. It's his pitch, alongside yours, and you've both failed to persuade me that, out of the limited hours I have in life, I need to read his 668-page book. I'm sure you pick up a lot of books in stores and decide whether or not you'll be buying and reading them based on some skimming.

But if a consensus of psychologists or sexual biologists should one day take Jones as the basis of their entire discipline, as biologists have with Darwin, I'll be sure to return to him. Guess I'm just another conformist that way.

(Right now I'm working on the history of Afghanistan by Fitzgerald and Gould, and a book by Jacques Ellul on revolutions I picked up for 99 cents is probably next on the nightstand. - If I can peel myself away from all that online porn, of course. )

I don't think being critical of online porn and stating the obvious puts one back in the sexual repression camp.

Not at all, and I didn't say so. But you contradict yourself. To say you are "critical of online porn" is like saying that the War on Drugs mildly disapproves of marijuana use.

This is your view:

Yes, I think it possibly could be one of the greatest potential disasters in history.

As you've said above, it's the cause of a decline in humanity you specifically date back to the mid-1990s and the rise of popular Internet. That puts you in a camp that I consider extreme. You can name it what you like. It may not be sexually repressed, which is a psychological category, but to me it sounds like the basis for sexually repressive actions. What do we do with things that can cause great disasters? We try to ban them, don't we?

Why don't you put a definition to your camp, or view of the world?

[barracuda]

Look, I think you know you basically have to read the book now. In the interest of intellectual rigor, in proving me wrong, in not rushing to judgment, etc you have a new night table book.

Not sure about Jack, but I know I’m willing to add it to my reading list, though first I have to get through the existing pile by the bedstand, you know, Petronius’ Satyricon, Fanny Hill, Miller‘s Tropic of Capricorn, a few books by Anaïs Nin I haven’t quite finished, as well as a re-read of Terry Southern‘s Candy for a research paper I’m working on tentatively entitled "The Weenus Wot Wanks Itself".

Maybe I could store Jones‘ work on the bathroom shelf, but I only promise to get to it after you’ve watched The Devil and Miss Jones, parts three and four, and Smoker, in the interest of rigor (definition number five). Otherwise, I‘m doubtful that you can really speak to this topic coherently.

[Nordic]

Obviously the victim of "Feminazis"

[JackRiddler]

Obviously the victim of "Feminazis"

Fig-leaf attaching patriarchalists, actually.

[Simulist]

Obviously the victim of "Feminazis"

Fig-leaf attaching patriarchalists, actually.

Who were probably too cheap to buy (or too lazy to make) their own dildo.

[Nordic]

Obviously the victim of "Feminazis"

Fig-leaf attaching patriarchalists, actually.

Who were probably too cheap to buy (or too lazy to make) their own dildo.

I suppose they could have just stolen this one:

[Simulist]

Ha!

I'd heard tell of wiener dogs, but I guess I'd never actually seen one.

I'll have to bone up on the subject (figuratively, of course).

[brekin]

barracuda wrote:

brekin wrote:
Look, I think you know you basically have to read the book now. In the interest of intellectual rigor, in proving me wrong, in not rushing to judgment, etc you have a new night table book.


Not sure about Jack, but I know I’m willing to add it to my reading list, though first I have to get through the existing pile by the bedstand, you know, Petronius’ Satyricon, Fanny Hill, Miller‘s Tropic of Capricorn, a few books by Anaïs Nin I haven’t quite finished, as well as a re-read of Terry Southern‘s Candy for a research paper I’m working on tentatively entitled "The Weenus Wot Wanks Itself".

Maybe I could store Jones‘ work on the bathroom shelf, but I only promise to get to it after you’ve watched The Devil and Miss Jones, parts three and four, and Smoker, in the interest of rigor (definition number five). Otherwise, I‘m doubtful that you can really speak to this topic coherently.

I appreciate your intellectual courage. As for The Devil and Miss Jones I think I first met her acquaintance when I was 12 on Cinemax. Haven't heard of Smoker though. But I think I've seen more then enough to speak on this topic coherently. The Kama Sutra? Michelangelo's David? Greek Vases? Comparing yesterday's porn is like comparing the crossbow to an Attack Drone. If that's all one has found with online porn then one isn't traveling very far indeed. Not even looking very hard I've seen the horror..



JackRiddler wrote:

brekin wrote:
What do you say to a creationist who reads online reviews of The Origin of The Species and they've said they have read quite a enough of that stuff already?


Did Darwin himself write the reviews, or present them as his own promotional material for the book? Because that's the case here, with Jones. It's his pitch, alongside yours, and you've both failed to persuade me that, out of the limited hours I have in life, I need to read his 668-page book. I'm sure you pick up a lot of books in stores and decide whether or not you'll be buying and reading them based on some skimming.

But if a consensus of psychologists or sexual biologists should one day take Jones as the basis of their entire discipline, as biologists have with Darwin, I'll be sure to return to him. Guess I'm just another conformist that way.

So basically instead of even considering investigating something on your own even though it speaks directly to what you are interested in, you would only do so if it is sanctioned by an established authority? If it receives the blessing of your "consensus of psychologists or sexual biologists" and they deem it relevant (safe) then you'll consider reading it? I obviously got a little miffed when you tried to brand me earlier but doesn't this seem more of a faith based way of investigating something?

Not at all, and I didn't say so. But you contradict yourself. To say you are "critical of online porn" is like saying that the War on Drugs mildly disapproves of marijuana use.

This is your view:

Quote:
Yes, I think it possibly could be one of the greatest potential disasters in history.

As you've said above, it's the cause of a decline in humanity you specifically date back to the mid-1990s and the rise of popular Internet. That puts you in a camp that I consider extreme. You can name it what you like. It may not be sexually repressed, which is a psychological category, but to me it sounds like the basis for sexually repressive actions. What do we do with things that can cause great disasters? We try to ban them, don't we?

Why don't you put a definition to your camp, or view of the world?

See I think that's what all the ruckus is about. Online porn is creating an arena where there are no limits on ones passions. I'm saying maybe there should be. I would hope these limits could be self imposed. Should somethings be banned? They already are. I don't like Keanu Reeves or Ben Stiller films but I don't want to ban them. I think it is up to people to make the decision themselves. That's their decision. Everyone seizes up if you draw attention to the possible repercussions of online porn because they are afraid you are going to ultimately take their passion blankey away. I'm merely stating that online porn is a new phenomenon which I don't think the majority of society can handle and will end up probably being more controlled by, then controlling.

Really, I promise I'm not going to take away your online porn away.

[barracuda]

Just say the word, brekin, and I shall be healed.

[brekin]

barracuda wrote:

Just say the word, brekin, and I shall be healed.

Word, baby, Word.

[Simulist]

Just say the word, brekin, and I shall be healed.

Jesus must have had great abs.

(The art itself is at least verifiably real history; I'm not sure at all that the same can by said for the mythic character it represents.)

[JackRiddler]

But I think I've seen more then enough to speak on this topic coherently.

(topic meaning porn)

Just as I have read enough of Catholic fundamentalist blowhards expounding on the evils of fornication and its use as a tool by the Jews in their 2000-year crucifixion of Christ to speak coherently on E. Michael Jones without having to shell out money for his books.

So basically instead of even considering investigating something on your own even though it speaks directly to what you are interested in, you would only do so if it is sanctioned by an established authority? If it receives the blessing of your "consensus of psychologists or sexual biologists" and they deem it relevant (safe) then you'll consider reading it?

The reason why I don't feel a need to read any more of Dr. E.M. Jones is that I read Dr. E.M. Jones's web site and Dr. EMJ's chosen blurbs for his book. No one else's. HIS.

I did leave it open that if Jones were to become one of the central texts of our civilization, like Darwin (or the Bible, which I've also read cover to cover twice), I would reconsider that. As usual, you turn that on its head, and have me saying I only read things approved by The Authorities.

Your misrepresentation of what I wrote in clear English is either ill-advised, or else predicated on the premise that no one will read what I wrote before accepting your misrepresentation of it.

It's also typically humorless and tone-deaf.

See I think that's what all the ruckus is about. Online porn is creating an arena where there are no limits on ones passions.

No it's not. It's almost the opposite. It provides a drug that channels passions into solitary masturbation. Passions cannot be limited much more completely than they are by pornography: to be expressed furtively, in private, at the teat of a for-profit industry.

You have a remarkable handicap for misunderstanding everything as its opposite, and I should stop beating up on you for it.

There never was a limit on passions, except such as were imposed by one's own will, by emotional conditioning, or by force (including that of social conformity) from the outside.

The sick passions of those who obsess over "fornication" as sin unfortunately received constant expression in history, and they are still demanding their victims today, from the "Christian" campaigns against human rights for women and gays to the Taliban's imprisonment of women in walking cages and the death penalty for gay sex in Uganda.

In past centuries the anti-passion fanatics in the vein of your friend E.M. Jones murdered millions in their witch-hunts. Though it's taken centuries, they are on the retreat.

Libertines are at most responsible for spreading unhealthy habits and STDs. Except that these are spread almost as much among those populations who pretend to be puritan. Libertines may waste their own lives, and those libertines who use porn support a kind of drug industry that exploits its labor, but they don't condemn their neighbors for the mote in their eye while having a log in their own.

Let's look again at how the recommended author EMJ presents his own work on his web site:

http://www.culturewars.com/Reviews/Libi ... views.html

Excerpts from reviews of Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control ($28 + S&H) by E. Michael Jones, Ph.D.

"a brilliant tour de force of history and interpretation. Libido Dominandi alerts Catholics to powerful enemies of the Church who have harnessed the Enlightenment idea of sexual liberation to the manipulative power of the modern media in order to gain political force. ... this book is a monumental and compelling account of the program to dismantle the Judeo-Christian culture ... a Herculean task in terms of research and documentation ... This book sounds a warning: Until Catholics stop responding to the seductive voice of the dominant culture and instead resist its covert ways, they will continue to lose their unity and their civic and moral freedom." Rosemary Hugo Fielding, Our Sunday Visitor.

SNIP

"This reviewer values the content of this book. ... a Christian culture once directed the country - even its raw capitalism - and now this influence is no more. Michael Jones provides his own well-researched explanation of this phenomenon." Msgr. George Kelly, StAR.

"E. Michael Jones, Catholic muckraker extraordinairre, has written his most compelling book to date - the quintessential history of the sexual revolution. ... part history of sexual liberation, part history of modern psychology and part history of psychological warfare - all woven masterfully into a coherent tapestry of conspiracy, evil genius, and subtle manipulation revealing the tragic consequences of the sexual revolution in the modern world. ... not for the faint of heart or those who blush easily." Joseph O'Brien, Times Review.

http://www.staugustine.net/libido%20dominandi.html

Libido Dominandi – the term is taken from Book I of Augustine’s City of God – is the definitive history of that sexual revolution, from 1773 to the present.

Unlike the standard version of the sexual revolution, Libido Dominandi shows how sexual liberation was from its inception a form of control. Those who wished to liberate man from the moral order needed to impose social controls as soon as they succeeded because liberated libido led inevitably to anarchy. Aldous Huxley wrote in his preface to the 1946 edition of Brave New World that “as political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends compensatingly to increase.” This book is about the converse of that statement. It explains how the rhetoric of sexual freedom was used to engineer a system of covert political and social control. Over the course of the two-hundred-year span covered by this book, the development of echnologies of communication, reproduction, and psychic control – including psychotherapy, behaviorism, advertising, sensitivity training, pornography, and plain old blackmail – allowed the Enlightenment and its heirs to turn Augustine’s insight on its head and create masters out of men’s vices. Libido Dominandi is the story of how that happened.

The author, E. Michael Jones, has a site and magazine called
http://www.culturewars.com/

Is Notre Dame Still Catholic? by E. Michael Jones. Revised Second Edition. When Notre Dame President John Jenkins, CSC, announced the university would give President Barack Obama an honorary doctorate, more than 250,000 people signed a petition condemning that act, and Bishop Thomas J. Olmstead joined Bishop D'Arcy in denouncing Jenkins' decision, calling it a "public act of disobedience" and a "grave mistake." This updated and expanded book collects 25 years of investigative journalism - an extensive dossier of what went wrong at Notre Dame and, indeed, in Catholic higher education in America. Read More Read Reviews

He includes a review of his book, "The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History." The review is titled, "The Revolutionary Jew would like a word with you."

http://www.culturewars.com/Reviews/NDad.html

To do justice to this wonderful work
would take a book in itself. So packed is it with mind-numbing facts
and insightful commentary that one is tempted to embark on a trip to
a remote place and lock oneself up in a room and absorb every word.
When the excursion is over, your whole view of the world will be dramatically
changed. You will see the inner workings of life that only a
genius the likes of Dr. Jones, unclouded by the lust for power, fame
or fortune, and spurred on only by his sincere and undying love for
Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church, could give you. Not only will
it change you, but this book has the potential of changing the world.
Note well, the revelations you are about to read in Jones’ book are not
things you will ever hear in a history class at Berkeley or on the website
of the Anti-Defamation League. Be prepared to be shocked and awed.
My recommendation is: stop what you are doing, purchase the book,
and don’t come back to civilization until you’ve completed it. It is that
good. But let me also warn you. Like me, after seeing utter devastation
that has been done to our society and especially its root causes, you
may find yourself weeping by the time you get to the end, even as Jesus
once did when he wept for Jerusalem.

Dr. Sungenis is not alone in sensing that The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit is a world-changing book. Israel Shamir, author of Flowers of Galilee and Pardes: An Etude in Cabbala, writes that

The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit by the revolutionary Catholic E. Michael Jones is a long-waited-for revolt against Vatican II and Nostra Aetate with its disastrous philosemitic bias. This monumental book scoops two thousand years of troublesome relations between Christendom and the Jews, and endeavors to connect Jewish strategies of permanent revolution with the permanent Jewish rebellion against Christ (=Logos). This timely book may help to regain the lost balance between Judaic and Christian tendencies in the Western mind.

[...]

When the Jews rejected Christ, they rejected Logos in all of its forms and became, as a result, enemies of the social order. When the Jews chose Barabbas over Christ, in other words, they became revolutionaries. For 2000 years now we have been living with the consequences of their decision. For over 40 years now, a veil of silence has descended over a topic which Americans can no longer ignore. That veil has now been rent.

Especially since I was already assaulted by Christendom in my childhood, is that not enough for me?

Do I deserve more punishment?

[brekin]

JackRiddler wrote:

brekin wrote:
But I think I've seen more then enough to speak on this topic coherently.

(topic meaning porn)

Just as I have read enough of Catholic fundamentalist blowhards expounding on the evils of fornication and its use as a tool by the Jews in their 2000-year crucifixion of Christ to speak coherently on E. Michael Jones without having to shell out money for his books.

I don't think so. See nowhere do you address selling the promise of sexual liberation (the use of pornography) as a form of social control in that. You yourself said that other Catholics would possibly disagree with E. Michael Jones's version of Catholicism. Not all Catholic fundamentalist blowhards are the same. Could it be possible he could write insightfully on this topic and you wouldn't be tainted by all the other dogma of the Catholic Church? And since again you haven't read his book, how do you know he is the same as all the other Catholic Fundamentalist blowhards?

brekin wrote:
So basically instead of even considering investigating something on your own even though it speaks directly to what you are interested in, you would only do so if it is sanctioned by an established authority? If it receives the blessing of your "consensus of psychologists or sexual biologists" and they deem it relevant (safe) then you'll consider reading it?


The reason why I don't feel a need to read any more of Dr. E.M. Jones is that I read Dr. E.M. Jones's web site and Dr. EMJ's chosen blurbs for his book. No one else's. HIS.

I did leave it open that if Jones were to become one of the central texts of our civilization, like Darwin (or the Bible, which I've also read cover to cover twice), I would reconsider that. As usual, you turn that on its head, and have me saying I only read things approved by The Authorities.

Your misrepresentation of what I wrote in clear English is either ill-advised, or else predicated on the premise that no one will read what I wrote before accepting your misrepresentation of it.

It's also typically humorless and tone-deaf.

Look those are reviews of the book. Yes, reviews he has chosen and some of his blurbage. But they are not a summary or even an outline of the book. He is no doubt writing for his home base. Which surprise, suprise is Catholic. But If you don't want to read something because it doesn't pique your interest, fine, dismissing it when you haven't read any of it or even knowing what in the book pertains to what we are discussing is ridiculous. I honestly think when you read the book you will be mortified by how much you do agree with him.

I've read stuff on his website and sure there is stuff I disagree with to, but I wasn't asking you to agree or approve of his other writings. I was pointing to a book that discusses this in depth and makes a very compelling case. Because the writer doesn't appear to completely match up with all your principles you somehow are able to dismiss a book you haven't read because you already know what it says? Honestly how much do you think it pertains to "the evils of fornication and its use as a tool by the Jews in their 2000-year crucifixion of Christ"?

I quote you above everything I reply to, for you and others to determine whether my response is accurate. Can you point out where I've misrepresented you without quoting you? When you said:

Did Darwin himself write the reviews, or present them as his own promotional material for the book? Because that's the case here, with Jones. It's his pitch, alongside yours, and you've both failed to persuade me that, out of the limited hours I have in life, I need to read his 668-page book. I'm sure you pick up a lot of books in stores and decide whether or not you'll be buying and reading them based on some skimming.

But if a consensus of psychologists or sexual biologists should one day take Jones as the basis of their entire discipline, as biologists have with Darwin, I'll be sure to return to him. Guess I'm just another conformist that way.

I think it was fair to say you would rely on an outside authority to decide whether you should read Jones or not. How did I get that wrong? Today you wouldn't read him. If the American Psychology Association decided he was the next Freud tomorrow it sounds like you would.

And humorless? Tone deaf? Are you asking for my posts to be in limerick form?

brekin Quote:
See I think that's what all the ruckus is about. Online porn is creating an arena where there are no limits on ones passions.

JackRiddler wrote:

No it's not. It's almost the opposite. It provides a drug that channels passions into solitary masturbation. Passions cannot be limited much more completely than they are by pornography: to be expressed furtively, in private, at the teat of a for-profit industry.

I think you are right about that. But sounds like you are talking about outlets, where I'm talking about limits (standards, appetites, predilections, fetishes)

You have a remarkable handicap for misunderstanding everything as its opposite, and I should stop beating up on you for it.

You are too kind, sir. Or are you too cruel?

There never was a limit on passions, except such as were imposed by one's own will, by emotional conditioning, or by force (including that of social conformity) from the outside.

So "There never was a limit on passions, except" etc. Well there were some then. Obviously some for ill, some for good. Even Freud and Reich I think would agree with that.

The sick passions of those who obsess over "fornication" as sin unfortunately received constant expression in history, and they are still demanding their victims today, from the "Christian" campaigns against human rights for women and gays to the Taliban's imprisonment of women in walking cages and the death penalty for gay sex in Uganda.

In past centuries the anti-passion fanatics in the vein of your friend E.M. Jones murdered millions in their witch-hunts. Though it's taken centuries, they are on the retreat.

Yes, and democracy is coming to America. So where is this obsessing over the fornication as sin coming from? I don't see me or E.M.Jones spouting this. Sure it has happened historically and goes on now but he is responsible for everything the Catholic Church has done in past?

Libertines are at most responsible for spreading unhealthy habits and STDs. Except that these are spread almost as much among those populations who pretend to be puritan. Libertines may waste their own lives, and those libertines who use porn support a kind of drug industry that exploits its labor, but they don't condemn their neighbors for the mote in their eye while having a log in their own.

Sure, pretty much agree with that.

Let's look again at how the recommended author EMJ presents his own work on his web site:

http://www.culturewars.com/Reviews/Libi ... views.html



Quote:
Excerpts from reviews of Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control ($28 + S&H) by E. Michael Jones, Ph.D.

"a brilliant tour de force of history and interpretation. Libido Dominandi alerts Catholics to powerful enemies of the Church who have harnessed the Enlightenment idea of sexual liberation to the manipulative power of the modern media in order to gain political force. ... this book is a monumental and compelling account of the program to dismantle the Judeo-Christian culture ... a Herculean task in terms of research and documentation ... This book sounds a warning: Until Catholics stop responding to the seductive voice of the dominant culture and instead resist its covert ways, they will continue to lose their unity and their civic and moral freedom." Rosemary Hugo Fielding, Our Sunday Visitor.

SNIP

"This reviewer values the content of this book. ... a Christian culture once directed the country - even its raw capitalism - and now this influence is no more. Michael Jones provides his own well-researched explanation of this phenomenon." Msgr. George Kelly, StAR.

"E. Michael Jones, Catholic muckraker extraordinairre, has written his most compelling book to date - the quintessential history of the sexual revolution. ... part history of sexual liberation, part history of modern psychology and part history of psychological warfare - all woven masterfully into a coherent tapestry of conspiracy, evil genius, and subtle manipulation revealing the tragic consequences of the sexual revolution in the modern world. ... not for the faint of heart or those who blush easily." Joseph O'Brien, Times Review.





http://www.staugustine.net/libido%20dominandi.html



Quote:
Libido Dominandi – the term is taken from Book I of Augustine’s City of God – is the definitive history of that sexual revolution, from 1773 to the present.

Unlike the standard version of the sexual revolution, Libido Dominandi shows how sexual liberation was from its inception a form of control. Those who wished to liberate man from the moral order needed to impose social controls as soon as they succeeded because liberated libido led inevitably to anarchy. Aldous Huxley wrote in his preface to the 1946 edition of Brave New World that “as political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends compensatingly to increase.” This book is about the converse of that statement. It explains how the rhetoric of sexual freedom was used to engineer a system of covert political and social control. Over the course of the two-hundred-year span covered by this book, the development of echnologies of communication, reproduction, and psychic control – including psychotherapy, behaviorism, advertising, sensitivity training, pornography, and plain old blackmail – allowed the Enlightenment and its heirs to turn Augustine’s insight on its head and create masters out of men’s vices. Libido Dominandi is the story of how that happened.




The author, E. Michael Jones, has a site and magazine called
http://www.culturewars.com/



Quote:
Is Notre Dame Still Catholic? by E. Michael Jones. Revised Second Edition. When Notre Dame President John Jenkins, CSC, announced the university would give President Barack Obama an honorary doctorate, more than 250,000 people signed a petition condemning that act, and Bishop Thomas J. Olmstead joined Bishop D'Arcy in denouncing Jenkins' decision, calling it a "public act of disobedience" and a "grave mistake." This updated and expanded book collects 25 years of investigative journalism - an extensive dossier of what went wrong at Notre Dame and, indeed, in Catholic higher education in America. Read More Read Reviews




He includes a review of his book, "The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History." The review is titled, "The Revolutionary Jew would like a word with you."

http://www.culturewars.com/Reviews/NDad.html



Quote:
To do justice to this wonderful work
would take a book in itself. So packed is it with mind-numbing facts
and insightful commentary that one is tempted to embark on a trip to
a remote place and lock oneself up in a room and absorb every word.
When the excursion is over, your whole view of the world will be dramatically
changed. You will see the inner workings of life that only a
genius the likes of Dr. Jones, unclouded by the lust for power, fame
or fortune, and spurred on only by his sincere and undying love for
Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church, could give you. Not only will
it change you, but this book has the potential of changing the world.
Note well, the revelations you are about to read in Jones’ book are not
things you will ever hear in a history class at Berkeley or on the website
of the Anti-Defamation League. Be prepared to be shocked and awed.
My recommendation is: stop what you are doing, purchase the book,
and don’t come back to civilization until you’ve completed it. It is that
good. But let me also warn you. Like me, after seeing utter devastation
that has been done to our society and especially its root causes, you
may find yourself weeping by the time you get to the end, even as Jesus
once did when he wept for Jerusalem.

Dr. Sungenis is not alone in sensing that The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit is a world-changing book. Israel Shamir, author of Flowers of Galilee and Pardes: An Etude in Cabbala, writes that

The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit by the revolutionary Catholic E. Michael Jones is a long-waited-for revolt against Vatican II and Nostra Aetate with its disastrous philosemitic bias. This monumental book scoops two thousand years of troublesome relations between Christendom and the Jews, and endeavors to connect Jewish strategies of permanent revolution with the permanent Jewish rebellion against Christ (=Logos). This timely book may help to regain the lost balance between Judaic and Christian tendencies in the Western mind.

[...]

When the Jews rejected Christ, they rejected Logos in all of its forms and became, as a result, enemies of the social order. When the Jews chose Barabbas over Christ, in other words, they became revolutionaries. For 2000 years now we have been living with the consequences of their decision. For over 40 years now, a veil of silence has descended over a topic which Americans can no longer ignore. That veil has now been rent.

So what do you disagree with in the above quotes? Yes, one of the review guys from what I've heard elsewhere is a nut job and there is some grandstanding (unclouded by the lust for fame, etc) but if anything he makes some big promises that would lead me to see if he can deliver.

I haven't read his Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, but I didn't think it was recent news that Jews because of being marginalized in most societies have had a more then passing interest in revolutionary movements. God, even Jesus and the apostles in the bible read like the prototypical revolutionary cell.

Especially since I was already assaulted by Christendom in my childhood, is that not enough for me?

Do I deserve more punishment?

Well you know I wasn't recommending you read Ratzinger's biography. I was recommending a book that spoke to what we were discussing. Kerouac was Catholic and I can read and benefit from him even though I don't agree with many of his religious and politics views.