Recommended Prerequisite Reading: Inter-somatic Libidinal Economy: Excitation and Power
Original Sin (Critique of Everything)
When it comes to so-called sacred texts, for every verse, chapter and book, there is at least one vulgar interpretation and at least one useful one. To Christians, the myth of the fall of man is one of the most important for explaining the contemporary situation of humanity. Unfortunately for generations of children, the interpretation of this myth is contingent on the neurotic character structures of lapsarians and this fact can truly jeopardize one’s faith in God. Alexander Lowen likened neurosis to “closing the [barn] door after the horse is stolen and then believing the horse is still inside. Of course, one dares not open the door to find out (1).” Our reaction to the bio-psychic injury represented by the fall is one of forgetting and then forgetting we forgot. In order to live this delusion, an obscene limitation of being is required. This limitation is libidinal and somatic whereas the religious, metaphorical confession thereof is epiphenomenal. And for reasons that are only fugaciously implied by the composers of these texts, Homo normalis must, since there was no fall, make his own. That is to say, when his children are born unfallen, he must make them fallen because, of course, there was a fall and we are all “born in sin.”
The truth is this: the antisocial pulsions attributed to the fall, or primitive accumulation, or survival of the fittest, or the id, or the war of all against all, whatever, arise from conditions the propagators of these fall myths themselves create and perpetuate. That these drives are not innate has been proven in character analysis and orgone therapy. Why doesn’t anyone care? Their entire character structures are founded upon the repression of antelapsarian identity and the oedipal transvaluation of pleasure and anxiety (cf. prerequisite reading). On this rock, Satan, whom the vulgar call Christ, has built his church.
I am nauseated by these musty symbols! True faith is only found in apostasy, but that is not meet for Christ-killers to understand. To begin to fathom our profound situation on Earth, we would do well to first dispel the common, vulgar interpretation of the fall myth which is itself a characterological defense mechanism. It functions to conceal the fact that we have been rent in two, that our bodies have been overtaken by a malignancy so subtle, it has eluded public discourse for sixty centuries. It is the emotional plague, an epidemic neurosis whereby the afflicted chronically contract regions of expressive musculature. Energy metabolism is compromised and sexual dysfunction ensues as muscle spasms – the somatic elements of the ego – preclude the orgastic convulsions which equilibrate sex-economy. The resultant libidinal surplus must then be sublimated in historic behaviors like production and war. You’ve never heard of it? A fish has never heard of water.
We will not be analyzing the fall myth, merely its characterological function. Its explanation of our condition is comforting when compared with uncertainty. Moreover, it is a palatable thing to believe because it symbolically depicts the demise of authentic sexuality experienced by adherents and practically all people throughout history as children. As described elsewhere, this consists of their caregivers irrationally aggressing against their expression of pulsions and the establishment of libido-metabolic pathways concerned with production. Of course this whole episode is repressed, not only because of the intolerable excitation and trauma it entails, but because the ego which would be doing the remembrance first diverges from the body as a consequence thereof. We can even hear this trauma in the Christian’s catatonic repetitions: “man was born in sin.” Try to take it from them; they will fight tooth and nail to keep this morbid belief. What if we are not “born in sin?” That would mean we have become sinful, which would mean that it happened at a certain time under certain conditions. This train of thought is intolerable to them. It would imply that the fall of man is not the fall of man, but the fall of you, Christian, and it did not happen six-thousand years ago, but in childhood. Naturally, you have established entire communities so you can mutually lie to one another and preserve each other’s neuroses in the name of “the good” and the most iconic victim of the emotional plague. Therefore, I left the church and call you Christ-killers, crucifiers of somatic libido on the cross of the armored body.
What of the war of all against all? With no evidence, almost everyone assumes that such a war would exist were it not for the state. I am so glad you asked! The advent of chaos upon the ostensible collapse of the state is not evidence of the contrary. For what is the machine of the state if not the aggregate of neurotic characters who must repress biological spontaneity? So in these cases, although the macrocosmic state has collapsed, the state within is intact. Since awareness of inter-somatic libidinal economy is repressed by the historic character, non-verbal indications of hostility or the lack thereof are illegible in times of so-called anarchy. This promotes a paranoiac shoot-first-ask-questions-later attitude. The folding of the macrocosmic state now exposes that the people have been alienated from animal political economy. From a characterological perspective, the state represses the war of all against all and this is of course the position of Thomas Hobbes. Similarly, when the internal state, viz. character structure, loses its facade, the antisocial pulsions whose libido was formerly consumed by its superficial mannerisms must surface. However, we must remember that these antisocial pulsions themselves repress fundamental eroticism, the default parasympatheticonia of the organism. Their actualization is then a misdirected divestment from an unnaturally prolonged sympatheticotonic anxiety. In short, repressed anger felt towards whatever agent inspired this cathexis becomes apparent by virtue of characterological deconstruction. When characterological defenses of the masses are externalized onto the state, it follows that the state’s dissolution unearths repressed dispositions: the war of all against all.
Furthermore, it is armoring which transmutes the erotic pulsion into aggression and since the internal state stands throughout this chaotic period, and is fortified by the paranoia inherent thereto, the war of all against all is not truly cathartic and is not a tenable way to effect lasting, positive social change. That being said, I believe mass convalescence from the emotional plague (orgastic potency) can bring about a stateless but peaceful enough society. But this would be equivalent to the Eschaton.
And the id? So plentiful were Freud’s omissions that Wilhelm Reich thought Freud’s refusal to speak thereon contributed to his jaw cancer! Briefly, the most fundamental thing in the psyche is purely erotic and all the destructive pulsions arise in order to vanquish obstacles thwarting that eroticism. Somatic psychotherapies have shown that the anti-social pulsions are the body’s effort to mobilize libidinal stases and metabolize arrested expressions in order to regain sympathy with the environment and others. There is no “Thanatos” in itself. Once pathological investments are dissolved, antisocial pulsions dissipate and authentic, viz. genital, sexuality begins. Reich discovered that the function of expansion and contraction of the organism in general (that which the ego represses) was operative in the atmosphere and the cosmos at large, hence the orgone. What a mistake it was to ever call it the id! Moreover, Freud couldn’t have failed to realize that the cathexes he discovered were operative in the social hierarchy, and that it would be turned on its head if Reich had his way. It would all depend on the separateness or oneness of “Eros” and “Thanatos.”
What of primitive accumulation, the original sin of the master class? The veracity of this concept is irrelevant because Marxism, like Christianity, is yet another confession of the same repressed tragedy. It is simply necessary to set up the initial differential from which a dialectical history must proceed. The real question is how did the sex-economies of the masters become so pathological that this unfathomable maneuver of exploitation became preferable to genital sexuality? How did the sex-economies of the soldiers they must have hired to enforce their dictates suffer the same fate? Why were the masses, if they were so honest, righteous and innocent, unable to muster enough self-respect to prevent this? Owning capital alters sex-economy. It permits the subliminatory repression of authentic sexuality, thus preserving the integrity of characterological defenses and, therefore, neurosis. Since neurosis can only be considered as a weakness, one must ask how the alleged exploitation was possible in the first place. Certainly the powerful do not exploit and are not exploited.
To avoid being condescending, and if the situation is ever to be rectified, we must place the blame squarely on those in the slave class and their descendants, the “proletariat.” Let’s just try it one time. They have unthinkingly corrupted generations of children for thousands of years, replicating their own slave character structures in those who initially have the libidinality of the legendary kings, to wit, infants. Their rationale was and still is, implicitly or explicitly, that libido must be repressed in order to work and survive. Not even this is correct in light of studying the genital character’s labor habits (2). Ironically, their children do not survive because the opposite of life is not death, but armoring. We do not work because we need to eat. We need to eat because we work.
The pleasure-anxiety (PA) transvaluation is again the culprit. In his Libidinal Economy, Jean-François Lyotard writes:
… the English unemployed did not become workers to survive, they – hang on tight and spit on me – enjoyed [ifs ont joui de] the hysterical, masochistic, whatever exhaustion it was of hanging on in the mines, in the foundries, in the factories, in hell they enjoyed it, enjoyed the mad destruction of their organic body which was indeed imposed upon them (3)…
Since divestment from the cathexes which comprise the ego has become associated with the possibility of being destroyed and abandoned, children take refuge in a chronic sympatheticonia. This wing of autonomic function is concerned with labor, homeostasis, tension, stress and fear. This is the oedipal anxiety which becomes pleasurable only in comparison to the terror regarding the castration that we feel would inevitably result from our descent into fundamental, parasympathetic eroticism. As I have written elsewhere, almost the entire economy is a mass sublimation repressing this eroticism and keeping us in perpetual sympathetic excitation which precludes divestment. On the one hand, draconian child-rearing tactics hew the libido-metabolic pathways of production, turning the body into a machine. When the orgasm reflex is precluded, libidinal stases can only be vented through sublimation (labor), providing the avenues of perversion and delirium are also barricaded. On the other hand, the work environment is almost identical to the familial situation so as to maintain the integrity of characterological defenses and prevent the anxiety that surplus libido is subjectively experienced as. Therefore, Homo normalis can be said to enjoy or prefer this so-called exploitation.
To die is basically the same divestment. If we are ever to progress beyond our miserable state of affairs, the fact that death is the alternative to being coerced must lose its status as an acceptable excuse for capitulating to slave drivers. Death is the price of capitulating to slavery, not the alternative thereto. We read a dialogue from eternity’s perspective out of Nietzsche’s The Gay Science:
A: “You are moving away faster and faster from the living; soon they will strike your name from their rolls.”
B: “That is the only way to participate in the privilege of the dead.”
A: “What privilege?”
B: “To die no more (4).”
Pardon me for asking, but what exactly is so horrible about death? And what life is being preserved in the slave and master? Show me! Where is the life? I see through you, you live-savers! you mourners and charitable ones! You don’t want your company to divest! You fear their catharsis as you fear your own divestment from the labor fetishism which voraciously consumes the despised orgone. Whence is this fear? The subjective observer is itself born of cathexis. Thus catharsis and relaxation are interpreted by the ego as its own destruction by virtue of its oedipal condition. If we fear death, it is because we are already dead. We already died and the fear we think pertains to death is really the fear of becoming alive, viz. unarmored, of rising from the dead. Now we must die in order to live, says the sublime Gustav Mahler (5). This paradoxical complex consists of a libidinal stasis corpuscled by overlying characterological layers. It is the cornerstone of all that is pathological in character, an arrested quantity of biological energy unable to make contact with the world that inspired its pulsion. It is the germ of subjectivity, but now let us dress the stone the builders forgot.
Central to this is the psychic equation of death with the orgasm. The orgastic function is the life function, recapitulated in pulsion expression, respiration, mitosis, the seasons and in the cycle of life and death itself. It is the fundamental function of the orgone, an immanent monistic substance. The life function’s suppression by the armored is the source and consequence of the PA transvaluation and the narcissistic, delusional slave-morality whose application perpetuates the emotional plague. The adherence thereto constitutes a bio-psychic stagnation. These neurotics must insulate themselves and their company from natural forces, but this act of insulating is first and foremost a repressive exhaustion of energy (sublimation), not an act of caring. In hindsight are these anti-libidinal mannerisms deemed good and just. One cannot separate ignoring the natural facts of sex-economy – as it is done in pitying – from the repression of sexuality in children and adolescents which has created the epidemic of orgastic impotence and all the pitiful wretches.
But I digress. We must now ask what a world in which people prefer death to servitude would look like, and if such a world is even possible. It is almost impossible to imagine.
The Origins of Anti-social Behavior
For ages, we have attempted to explain the historic condition by positing hypothetical utopias which fell from grace. Rousseau in On the Origin of Inequality maintains that historic society came about because floods and earthquakes “surrounded inhabited districts with precipices or waters,” creating isolated societies which developed language and civilization (6). Whence is this sentiment that cannot be substantiated? It is symbolic of the catastrophic division of the infant body and the chronic investing of libido. Similarly we have Engels’s conception of the stratification of society at the advent of history (7). But I have already described the stratification of animal society (cf. prerequisite reading), so what can we make of this? Again, his claim looks like the catastrophe of somatic division, viz. the establishment of muscle armoring segments which stratify the body and record every last stasis. I am commenting not on the veracity of these ideas but on their analytic meaning. All political philosophy is displaced somatic psychology.
What is the fall myth’s purpose here? Its espousers endeavor to preempt the Hobbesian rebuttal: it is human nature to kill, rape and steal. Since ancient Greece is long dead, perhaps it is time to abandon this neurotic dualism, “nature versus nurture.” What follows is not a matter of opinion.
In light of the revelations of orgone therapy, we have learned that our anti-social pulsions are contingent on the frustration of our autonomic faculties. The body enters sympatheticonia in order to destroy or escape that which frustrates default eroticism. When the infant’s libidinality is irrationally aggressed against by armored characters, an acute sympatheticonia results. It is a rage pulsion from the interior of the organism reaching out into the world to effect change. However, it is repressed by the familial inter-somatic libidinal economy and therefore must be directed inwardly (cf. prerequisite reading). In Character Analysis, Reich tells us that the ego during its formation “identifies with the frustrating reality as personified in the figure of the main suppressive person” and “turns against itself the aggression which it mobilized against the suppressive person and which also produced the anxiety (8).” In other words, when the organism cannot escape or destroy the frustrater, the libido of the pulsion is divided in two and the one half is directed against the other like in an arch.
The sympathetic response is a libidinal investment in which biological energy is devoted to a certain function, be it laborious or defensive. In the case of being aggressed against, the investment should ideally be proceeded by a divestment. This catharsis would consist of the discharge of biological energy through the mechanical work that escape and combat entail. When these two expressions are precluded, they nevertheless manifest internally. The rage pulsion is directed towards the initial eroticism while the escape pulsion manifests as a withdrawal from being in general. One cannot be castrated if one is already castrated. How then is the libido exhausted in such cases? The internalized aggression against one’s own erotic pulsion is accomplished through muscle armoring. Chronic muscular contractions require mechanical work and therein lies the energetic consumption which makes desire unapparent, thus repressing it.
However, muscle armoring can never adequately exhaust the libido of a pulsion so many psycho-muscular defense mechanisms must be constructed on top of the oedipal cathexis. Each one serves to consume the surplus energy left over by the underlying mechanism. The binding of libido in the overlying investment also ensures the integrity of the underlying investment by preventing its expression and cathartic dissolution, these being one and the same. For all these reasons, the historic character structure is labyrinthine and constipated. Sadism and irrational aggression are the result of the character structure buckling under this energy’s incalculable pressure. Here, the erotic pulsion, transmuted into aggression by the characterological layers, violently breaks out in a desperate bid for sex-economic equilibration. Were it not for the emotional plague and the draconian child-rearing tactics of the afflicted, these libidinal stases which inspire irrational aggression would never exist in the first place. This is evidenced by the fact that the attainment of orgastic potency occurs after the infantile rage is completely expressed. Furthermore, there are no anti-social pulsions following the attainment of orgastic potency. Therefore, there is a kernel of truth in the socialists’ rhetoric regarding human nature and condition.
That all being said, Nature by no means guarantees the sexual catharsis of all creatures. On the contrary, libidinal investment is the basis of natural dominance hierarchy (cf. prerequisite reading). Gestures of deference and submission are sublimations, purposeful repressions of desire that consume a pulsion’s energy until it can be expressed safely, if ever. Few adult males in tournament species ever have sex, sex in nature often appears forced, as with chimpanzees, and many female animals hardly seem enthusiastic about sex, appearing to go to great lengths to avoid it. While better than modernity, Nature is hardly perfect. For instance, the female spotted hyena is thought to have evolved to deliver young through her large penis-like clitoris whose structure often suffocates her first litter of hyena cubs as they are being born. Some hyena biologists claim that this masculinization of the genitals was “an incidental by-product of selection for raised foetal androgens (9).” More androgens, they say, mean greater reproductive success and larger, more phallic clitorises which make birth, already characterized by the rupture of the clitoris, even more traumatic (10). Here the desiring-machinic quality of nature is exemplified, well defended against romanticization and teleological ascriptions.
Now, do men want women who are voluptuous because they are voluptuous, or do the women whom men want just happen to be voluptuous? The evolutionary psychologist will tell you it is the former and that, to “the unconscious,” big breasts mean more milk for the children. They neglect to tell you that the unconscious is simply that which we, the egos, are unconscious of, viz. the repressed visceral excitations of the body. Those excitations are quantities of orgone that gain relevance and context by existing in relation to material structures (morphological investments) and situations. If Reich and Einstein were correct about material being a concentration or contraction of energy, then the anti-libidinal virtue of the ego may be recapitulated in matter; the character structure is to the body as matter is to energy. As this character structure has recorded every stasis of libido with its muscular cuneiform, so those afflicted thereby record history. But this text is inscribed on a somatic tablet. The ink informs through its negative masking of now-delineated regions in the once undifferentiated void. It is the fertile soil through which Aleph the ox silently pulls his letter-plow, that the seeds of naming may be sewn. If the unconscious is orgonotic, what then does it want with these anti-libidinal (material) structures, namely, big breasts? I have never heard anything so ridiculous!
Is it surprising that Oedipus, fixated in pregenital sexuality, is concerned with breasts, and big ones at that? It is not the body, but the ego with its armored ocular and oral musculature who wants such things (א). The emotional plague is driven by the cyclic oedipal machine. Unconsciously, and in order to maintain sex-economic equilibrium via the repression of sub-oedipal eroticism, a neurotic must seek out circumstances that are analogous to the oedipal situation, circumstances characterized by deprivation and the perpetual forestalling of gratification. In other words, it is the chronic, pre-cathartic sympatheticonia which coincides with muscle armoring. Any lapse in the upholding thereof threatens the integrity of the armoring. In order to prevent libidinal abundance and maintain the state of deprivation, the ego employs the visual lusting after bodies in its arsenal of psychic defenses. This of course is a set of mannerisms which require the mechanical work of certain muscles. Oedipus is unconcerned with catharsis because of its equivalence with castration so the lusting has a paradoxical irony; the sensory excitation creates tension but only the motor convulsion of the organism can relieve tension in a gratifying way. This is the same arch-like irony at the core of every repressive structure, psychic, somatic or social. In this case, the energy of the repressed libido resurfaces as a pseudo-sexual behavior, a masochistic voyeurism, as the conditions of lack are neurotically replicated.
Like the historic workplace, the historic marriage also functions to preserve the integrity of the oedipus complex and perpetuate the emotional plague. It is characterized by “fatherliness and motherliness … and by mutual, slavish dependency – in short, by disguised incest (11).” The pregenitally fixated (orgastically impotent) marriage partners cannot satisfy each other and this further inflames their paranoia and envious hostility towards their same-sexed children. Only in this macabre situation can the child’s natural life be seen as threatening. As Deleuze and Guattari put it, “Oedipus is first the idea of an adult paranoiac before it is the childhood feeling of a neurotic (12).” However, all these ideas of jealousy are merely linguistic epiphenomena of an energetic process. As Reich discovered, the historic character structure’s investments are threatened by the perception of and proximity to unarmored children and other orgonotic bodies. Therein lies the true cause of the emotional plague’s transmission; the child is forced to hate and fear its own life as its parents once were.
Such marriages are devoid of love. In order for an adult to be fixated in pregenitality, he or she must be afflicted by a heinous poverty of being. There must be hatred for oneself and one’s partner who has been dehumanized and reduced to a characterological defense mechanism. These partnerships preclude both parties’ convalescence from neurosis. Thus the two go to great lengths to prolong each other’s incarnation, no matter how disgusting it is.
Now let us return to the postulate of Der Ewig Evolutionary Psychologist. We must recall that the ego is an extension of our natural, homeostatic faculties, so maybe this oedipal machine is part of nature in that a man shall “leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh (13).” The lusting after the most exaggerated fertility traits may very well promote the production of “the greatest number of copies of one’s genes.” If this is the case, we have become as the spotted hyenas; it cannot be denied that the oedipal machine, which necessarily precludes orgastic potency in its human linkages, now thereby threatens the continuity of our species in innumerable ways. But according to the anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski, this machine was, at least in 1927, absent from Trobriand matriliny, whose social arrangements were “in almost complete harmony with the biological course of development, while the institution of the father-right found in our society crosses and represses a number of natural impulses and inclinations (14).” One white crow proves that not all crows are black.
So Freud was correct that the oedipus complex is natural, but it is fallacious to delineate between the natural and the artificial because artificers are natural and nature is an artifex. However, the oedipal machine seems to be the collapsed remnants of something greater, like the disembodied torso of a once great sprinter that now drags itself around with its arms. It seems that the subliminatory activities of production and war were sex-economically unnecessary before the historic period began (ב). That would imply that our inter-somatic sex-economy existed more or less at an equilibrium. No, it is not because our progenitors were too stupid to have a war of all against all! For this equilibrium to exist, there would have had to have been widespread orgastic potency or some biological mechanism whereby the pulsions of the sexually undesirable were repressed in such a way that anti-social behavior would not arise to the extent it does today.
It may be that the macro-biological mechanism which would otherwise maintain an equilibrated inter-somatic libidinal economy (something enjoyed by animals) is collectively damaged by historic child-rearing tactics. I have shown armoring to be a temporally exaggerated version of the autonomic investments that animals make to repress pulsions in certain social situations (cf. prerequisite reading). Perhaps the aforedescribed oedipal repression compromises this inborn equilibrating faculty. What am I getting at? Animal political economy arises from the aggregate of interpersonal, orgonotic transactions in which individuals excite each others’ somatic orgone by being perceivable. Again, perception is sensation and sensation is excitation. Armoring prevents us from being viscerally excited and from perceiving things such as repressed psychic content. Moreover, it splits the human psycho-soma into a private, biological “id” and a social facade. As Freud discovered, people often have no conception of this side of themselves.
Repression, as I said before, has a natural function in animal political economy; it is the means by which one avoids being harmed. To reiterate, an animal’s tolerance of excitation determines whether it defers to another in competition or not. Two organisms of like orgonity will meet and excite each other with various sensations whereupon sympatheticonia, a libidinal investment, ensues in both bodies. In order for them to ever descend again into relaxation, they must viscerally express their sympathetic pulsions. In the case of combat, the victor’s cathartic divestment from sympatheticonia will consist entirely of fighting. The defeated’s divestment will consist of fighting and escaping; these are motor convulsions that exhaust libido. When the defeated can no longer tolerate the excitation that is the perception of being fought against, its combative sympatheticonia adopts a withdrawing, submissive virtue. Thus the conflict ends with mutual catharsis but the defeated must repress the pulsion to couple with the cathartic opportunity that was fought over. By virtue of this repression, successive losses eventually result in a more labyrinthine sex-economy and increasingly diminished orgonity, as investigation of armoring and the parent-child conflict has shown.
Now, armoring’s splitting of the psycho-soma does three interrelated things. First of all, it compromises the capacity to perceive one’s own somatic orgonity. Children are aggressed against irrationally by their parents for displays of emotion, these necessarily coinciding with the pulsation of the organism, i.e. its enlivenment with orgonotic currents. As I said before, armoring is the adaptation to this hostility and it functions to repress that which inspired it; it is an obscenely exaggerated version of the aforementioned animal scenario. Thus people become unaware of their power or lack thereof. Since armoring universally compromises this faculty, people have defaulted to using symbols to signify power (it doesn’t work). Second, armoring compromises one’s capacity to perceive an other’s somatic orgonity. In order to perceive orgonotic systems, one must tolerate visceral, orgonotic excitation. Whoever cannot do this is powerless because any strongly orgonotic system will disequilibrate that person’s armored sex-economy. Failure to equilibrate sex-economy results in the becoming conscious of repressed content and that is intolerable to most. To equilibrate, that person will escape the strongly orgonotic system’s stimulation, i.e. it will comply therewith. The third thing armoring does is disintegrate the body and mind by creating an impregnable wall between the soma’s deep biological pulsions and the superficial persona. The persona is the foremost layer of the character structure and it often appears to be either absolutely submissive or absolutely aggressive without any regard for somatic orgonity. Therefore, our pathological political economy is characterized by conflicts that are not grounded in any biological legitimacy. Often we see people with extremely disturbed sex-economies employing their reservoir of repressed drive energy to kill people whom they aren’t even competing with. It is literally senseless violence. In animal political economy, a dispute is almost always settled before anyone can be killed.
I have described combat but for sex, things are slightly different. Orgastically potent men and women are effortlessly attracted to those with equally healthy sex-economies because they seek the highest possible discharge of libido. Similarly, Oedipus and Elektra, with their disturbed sex-economies only want pathological, incomplete gratification that preserves a neurotic equilibrium. Everywhere in between, there are partnerships of those with similar sex-economies. An orgastically potent man or woman would never voluntarily have sex with an armored person in the same way that gold would find it disagreeable to be amalgamated with lead. The armored person would never be able to divest from his or her defenses such that a reciprocal communication between the bodies takes place. Moreover, the armored person despises that which the orgastically potent man or woman has cultivated (orgonity), hence his or her armoring.
Even without morality or the characterological defenses that enslave the armored, the orgastically potent man is sex-economically disincentivized from committing rape. Just as a stone does not roll up a hill by itself, there is no reason for the self-equilibrating sex-economy to contort itself in order to carry out that act. While defense mechanisms indeed repress the pulsion to rape in Homo normalis, the Freudians and other thermodynamic pessimists ignore the fact that this pulsion is itself a defense mechanism ultimately repressing the sub-oedipal pulsion to love purely. Like unwarranted killing, it arises from the aforementioned splitting of the body and ego. We have become alienated from the biological matchmaker and some among us have become so deluded, having committed the incalculably cowardly act of dismissing the facts of their impotence and then aggrandizing some heavily invested conception, that they now employ their repressed drive energy to rape others. So the pulsion to rape represses the facts of one’s orgonotic destitution and the orgastically potent person is of course immune to this. Hesitantly, it may also be that the orgastically potent woman is less likely to be raped because her orgonity is offensive to the sadistic character.
Like rape, voyeuristic lusting arises from a similar narcissistic delusion. First it must be said that since animals with exaggerated fertility traits are less submissive, they must have less complicated sex-economies and consequently, higher orgonity. Since people with similar sex-economies are attracted to each other, it follows that the same goes for animals. The invested, submissive male animal would be disturbed by the orgonity of a highly fertile female. His sex-economy has already been molded by competition and rejection such that cathexes restricting erotic and violent pulsions are in place. Her orgonity excites his, his sex-economy becomes disequilibrated, and he must either withdraw or entertain that which the disturbed cathexis represses. In the parent-child conflict, we see an obscenely exaggerated analogue of this. Homo normalis is penultimately anti-sexual, in that he is castrated and orgastically impotent. That is to say, his sexuality is a performance of the ego, not a spontaneous expression of the body. Oedipus does not want anyone, not even Jocasta. Nor does Elektra want Agamemnon with all his spoils of war. Then whence is this lusting after big breasts? from the abject estrangement from the body and inter-somatic libidinal economy. Orgonity is the source of beauty and the orgonitous love the orgonitous, but when a person has murdered his body and repressed the fact, the last vestige thereof, like a little ghost that thinks itself alive, likes to believe it is a king. Thus he escapes the situation in the most backwards way possible. If subjectivity was to entertain the body, the characterological defenses would be challenged, but instead, it is somewhere else. And after discovering these things, I alone can rightfully utter this dangerous verse which has been utilized to justify untold misery: “whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart (15).”
But the Christian wants to “transcend” the body, and the conservative becomes ever more devoted to “morals!” The flood is coming, but you have no seats on my ark! Nature has been groping her way through the darkness to find something. She is a sleeping artifex, groping to the spotted hyena over there, now groping to the oedipal machine over here. Who can enumerate her embarrassing accidents? We don’t need to hearken back to a primitive horde to justify our entrance into eternal life. If the primitive society was so great, why was it stratified, colonized and digested? There was something it must have repressed, and God does not forgive ignorance! That all being said, there really was a fall, but if you are of the persuasion that there should be no sex outside of wedlock, you have greater things to worry about. We, the Gay Scientists have always wanted to say this, but there were no words to say it with and even fewer ears with which to hear it.
(א) Though muscular, these armorings are alien to the body and have psychic corollaries. Therefore I say they are of the ego and not of the body. Or more correctly, the oral and ocular armor segments are are the product of the reaction between pulsions and anti-libidinal forces.
(ב) The historic period did not begin one day in 4,000 BC., but begins locally wherever people begin to record history, this usually coinciding with the advent of other institutions. There are peoples for whom history has not yet begun and possibly never will begin.
(1) Lowen, Alexander – Fear of Life pg. 52
(2) Reich, Wilhelm – The Function of the Orgasm pg. 184
(3) Lyotard, Jean-François – Libidinal Economy – A Desire Named Marx pg. 111
(4) Nietzsche, Friedrich – The Gay Science – Book III: Aphorism 262 Sub specie aeterni (from the point of view of eternity)
(5) Mahler, Gustav – Symphony No. 2 “Resurrection” – Movement V.
(6) Rousseau, Jean-Jacques – On the Origin of Inequality – Part I
(7) Engels, Friedrich – Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State – IV. The Greek Gens
(8) Reich – Character Analysis – Chapter 7, Section 2 pg. 157
(9) Drea, C. M., et al. – Exposure to Naturally Circulating Androgens during Foetal Life Incurs Direct Reproductive Costs in Female Spotted Hyenas, but Is Prerequisite for Male Mating. – Proceedings: Biological Sciences, vol. 269, no. 1504, pg. 1981–1987
(11) Reich – The Function of the Orgasm pg. 202-203
(12) Deleuze, Gilles & Guattari, Félix – Anti-Oedipus pg. 274
(13) Matthew 19:5
(14) Malinowski, Bronislaw – Sex and Repression in Savage Society – Chapter IX. The Complex of Mother-Right
(15) Matthew 5:28