I listened to a video that talked about how porn is used as a psyop by governments against their enemies. I don't have any thing to back this up, but the guy was saying that the Israelis used porn in the occupied territories and the CIA has used it to break down the fabric of societies.

He also talked about the idea of sexual liberation in terms of the cultural pressures for it coming from the top down through the bigger media outlets and how this goes back long before TV. For my own sanity I have to make a distinction between genuine freedom of choice for people, and the kind of societal pressure in defining new norms artificially. He quoted an unnamed college student who apparently was a RA at her dorm. The woman was confronting a professor who told the class how they (students, young adults) are sort of naturally promiscuous and all that. She said she confronts this daily with younger women coming to her for advice on how to deal with the pressure they want resist but also want to fit in.

He continued on this topic, moving up to top-down societal forces shaping culture. He talked about how the early Soviet government promoted it to break down the culture that tied to people to the past, but soon reversed that decision when they saw a decline in production. A big part of what Lenin was doing, and even bragged about, was managing Russia better than the Czars so that it could compete with the west in spite of the winters. That was a big 'take-away' in Russian intellectual circles after the Crimean War. If they did it long enough to break ties to the past only to then restrict the freedoms they championed, well apparently not really championed but used for an ulterior goal, then people in the west looking to manipulate society may have picked up on it and adjusted to roll it out a little slower.

He tied it all to the idea of Cultural Marxism, which I had never really seen a credible connection to actual Marxism or Leninism, or any of the older class-based economic left that thought about the autonomy and dignity of the worker (and in some anarchist circles, extend that to the full person as more than just an economic actor), and Gramasci and the the Frankfurt School. I found them to be snobs who held the working class in disdain. He pulled some rather damning quotes from them which read as intentionally subversive as some of the stupider things I've seen from "queer theory" (just ... ... I mean come on ... what they hell is that and how is it taken seriously by anyone?), and he uses them to make his point that they were all about breaking society to remake it by pulling the rug out from under community cohesion starting with families and relationships between the sexes and all that "baseball, mom, and apple pie" stuff (in the US, I guess, "football or rugby, mum, and Yorkshire Pudding" for Brits, or "Guiness, Ma, and more Guiness" for Ireland (jk).

He also took this idea of cultural marxism, not as a liberator but a subverter and dissolver of cultural norms and bonds that clears out what is there to make room for what the elites want to replace it with, and looked at foreign policy. He talked about Iraq and how the Wolfowitz Doctrine was cultural marxism. Apparently the US introduced and protected porn there as a way to break that (or really those) society (societies). The drone strikes against weddings and ambulances make more sense in that context. They were very open about how they were intending to remake that society. It may have been portrayed as an attempt to make it an AynRandLand or something like that, but really it was about making a hell on earth. And, if this video by a catholic priest talking about Marian revelations is to be considered, porn led the way. Even if you consider the source suspect, and question the overall thesis, which I've struggled with, there is a lot of food for thought there.