Recent Articles

Post Top Ad

Your Ad Spot

Thursday, 9 May 2019


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). 

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 discernible 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.

Post Top Ad

Your Ad Spot