The following is an excerpt from Andy Nowicki's upcoming publication, tentatively titled Demon in the Rough
I am not a theologian by training, and only an amateur one
by temperament. But it seems self-evident, even to a rank layman like me, that in
our time the primary rhetorical strategy used by enemies of decency,
civilization, and faith is to engage in a general and unabating mockery of any and all forms of chastity.
The assault upon this primary virtue has been shrill and relentless over the last half-century in particular. For most of my life (I am not quite fifty years old), the very notion of leading a chaste existence has been endlessly pummeled with ruthless ridicule by nearly all officially-affiliated institutions, public and private (including, unfortunately, many supposed spokesmen for the Church).
The assault upon this primary virtue has been shrill and relentless over the last half-century in particular. For most of my life (I am not quite fifty years old), the very notion of leading a chaste existence has been endlessly pummeled with ruthless ridicule by nearly all officially-affiliated institutions, public and private (including, unfortunately, many supposed spokesmen for the Church).
One who dares to advocate for chastity, on the other hand, is invariably depicted either as a hypocrite (if he is
discovered at any point to have failed to be chaste in his own life)-- or,
should he “fail” to be hypocritical-- as something worse: a fanatic.
 |
| Pigeons: more sensible than liberals |
Thus the mockers and sneerers feel themselves justified in
their hatred, and indulge in quite insufferable campaigns of derision, which
are so all-encompassing as to be ultimately self-contradicting, even incoherent.
--For example: Is the man who
advocates for a return to traditional sexual morality and a revitalization of
the institution of the family to be loathed because he must really be a pervert underneath all of
his supposed righteousness? (In which case, shouldn’t we loathe
non-hypocritical perverts as well, on account of their perversion, if
perversion is to be declared to be a bad thing in the case of “family values”
hypocrites?)
 |
| Despicable for being decent? |
--Or... is such a man to be loathed for his absence of hypocrisy on this matter, because he’s such a “vanilla”
prude, and so “repressed”? (In which case, is everyone obligated to be a Rick
Jamesian “superfreak,” and to be similarly deplored if his tastes are indeed deemed
undesirably “vanilla”?)
 |
| "Superfreaky"... degeneracy as virtue in our new, upside-down dispensation? |
In fact, a man who advocates the party line on sexual
revolutionary matters (pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, etc.)
is given credit if he is a family man;
thus do the sneerers, with contemptible rhetorical disingenuousness, mutter,
“Look, our guy is actually a decent,
monogamous person, while their guys
are mostly a bunch of hypocrites! This shows that we are the fundamentally decent ones, unlike them!”
Yet if one of their advocates turns out to be a sexual
degenerate (that is, if he is consistent in his advocacy of sexual
revolutionism, to the point of applying its principles even to his own
behavior), then his opponents are scorned and shamed as “judgmental” for
pointing out his obvious shortcomings.
Yet even the accusation of “judgmentalism” is dishonestly
applied, since those who sneer at chastity never seem to abate their indulgence
in thoroughly bitchy “judgy-ness” towards those who practice or advocate for
chastity. They grow indignant when they feel that they are being judged by their enemies, but
on the other hand they give themselves abundant permission to judge their enemies.
 |
| Judgy bitches who judge you for your judgement |
Such is the bogus rhetoric which emanates all too often from
those convinced that chastity is a matter of no real importance, and best
discarded; that it is, in fact, a grotesque relic of a bygone age of
repression, oppression, and barbaric theocracy.
*************
As with mass immigration, proponents of liberalized sexual
morality behave as if they are merely observing an “inevitable” cultural change,
rather than admitting that such changes have indeed been engineered; they
haven’t prevailed simply on account of neutral forces at play, without these
cultural transformations getting a mighty boost from numerous powerful, affluent and influential organizations.
Neither the ongoing demographic displacement of the West
through the “open borders” effort encouraged and enabled by Western elites, nor
the ongoing sexual revolution, with all its escalatingly more bizarre permutations of enforced
perversity (homosexualism, transgenderism, polymorphism, animal costume
fetish-ism, sado-masochistic cuckoldry, etc., along the inevitably concomitant devaluation of “vanilla”
heterosexual normalcy) would have happened, nor would they be continuing to
happen, without the express support of a determinedly relentless, ideologically monolithic Establishment promoting them both for transparently nefarious ends.
If these well-funded, well-favored groups ceased to have influence tomorrow, these causes would
immediately founder, if not die outright.
But the sexual revolution—whose ultimate goal is the
undermining of chastity—is in fact the more insidious of these two crusades.
The effort to flood the West with culturally alien elements represents an
attack from without, and thus an indirect assault on the health and well-being
of native citizens, the anti-chastity crusade aims at the immediate erosion of native
countrymen’s strength, virtue, and moral stamina, and thus, their direct corruption.
Those who proselytize for open borders continually run into
a snag: namely, that people have a natural preference for that which is
familiar. Aside from appeals to vanity and status, i.e., the privilege of
getting to “virtue signal” in favor of a progressive cause, there is little
allure to becoming an avowed anti-white multiculturalist. One can only smugly
preen for so long, and while feeling a “leeetle bit superior” to one’s fellow
countrymen is fun while it lasts, one feels hollow indeed once the high of the
virtue-afterglow has receded.
By contrast, the appeal to unchastity has greater allure, on
numerous levels. Professing a belief in the dismantling of “reactionary” or
‘Victorian” cultural norms wins one plaudits from the “right” people, but of
course, as it signals an allegedly “enlightened” view of sex free from
old-fashioned prudery. But living an unchaste lifestyle also has easily discernable allure. One barely even needs to
demonstrate how indulging in unchaste behavior is appealing, while chastity,
being a matter of discipline and restraint, has less appeal to one’s baser
self.
Put simply, indulgence is more immediately satisfying than
self-denial, and having a license to indulge feels, to the one given free reign
to be indulgent, like “liberation.” That it is in fact the very opposite of liberation exposes the
Orwellian dictum that “freedom is slavery,” for apart from a healthful will to
resist indulgence, one is indeed little more than a slave.
Andy Nowicki, assistant editor of Affirmative Right, is the author of eight books, including Under the Nihil, The Columbine Pilgrim, Considering Suicide, and Beauty and the Least. Visit his Soundcloud page and his YouTube channel. His author page is Alt Right Novelist.
