The Great Sex Harassment Witch Hunt of 2017 is mostly hitting liberals. It is leaving conservatives largely unscathed (at least so far). Why should this be?
Conservatives typically and generally labor under and prosper by a strong sense of traditional morality, under which it is not just perverse, but wicked, horrifying, repellent, and so rather inconceivable, to behave ignobly or impolitely toward women or other lessers. Most conservatives, I think it fair to say, would never even think of groping a woman or boy, any more than they would think of torturing a cat. They’d rather rip out their own guts.
Almost all the pathetic gropers who have been brought to shame in the last few weeks, on the other hand, are liberals, who have long loudly proclaimed their allegiance to liberal moral nostrums. As liberals, they think there is nothing inherently, absolutely wrong. They think that what we construe as wrong is – like everything else in human life whatsoever – no more than a social construct; which is to say, a pure fiction. They cannot therefore understand themselves as damned ontologically by the wrongs they do. They take those wrongs as mere “wrongs,” that in reality properly construed are neither here nor there, but rather signify no more than the wind blowing where it whilst.
As if the blowing of the wind were somehow random or disordered. As if its gust somehow disagreed with the Holy Ghost.
The fool says in his heart that the blowing of the wind is not the Tao; is not the dharma, coming for him as for all else, implacably, relentlessly, remorselessly, ubiquitous and therefore utterly inescapable. The fool insists that he is nowise doomed.
So fools go ahead and do their wrongs, blithely, as entitled and radically free and unconstrained agents – we could say, solipsistic agents, for whom no others are finally, absolutely real, or therefore worthy of sympathetic, charitable consideration – in pursuit of their own utilitarian hedonic optima of the moment, that involves the palpation of some bit of human tissue or other.
Insofar then as the scandal truly attaches to some putative conservative, he must be conservative in name only. He must, i.e., be at heart a liberal. He must not at bottom really believe in the traditional morality he publicly espouses, or therefore form his acts according thereto.
Acts bewray convictions.
Liberal “morality” leads logically, and so inevitably, to boundless wickedness. It removes the ontological (and therefore ineluctable) limit of right action, that cannot be swayed by any means whatever; so then any act that can be rationalized, however pitiful and inadequate to its monstrosity be its fig leaf, is rendered worthy of consideration as a viable option. The result is not limited to a parade of petty personal pecadilli. It is, precisely, *not limited.* So you get things like the Katyn Forest Massacre, or the Holodomor. Or, indeed, Lidice, the Holocaust, the Terror, the Purge.
Compare the Christian chivalry of the West to the pagan chivalry of the Mongol hordes. That Christian knights occasionally (or even systematically) defected from their chivalric principles, and failed them, and so doing evil fell, should not obscure the fact that the Christian ideals of chivalry – not in terms of the technics of war, but rather of war’s proper aims and the moral constraints upon the warrior – were at diametric odds with those of their Mongol adversaries.
Once abandon Christian chivalry, and you’re a Mongol, or something like. Rape, then, and pillage, to your heart’s content, and so long as you can get away with it.
The recent panic over sexual harassment is indeed a witch hunt, and so prone to veer into wild error, exaggeration, fantasy, and wrong of its own. A posse of victims and their advocates is liable to become a rave of maenads, who turn and rend their scapegoat victims to unwonted, undeserved shreds. Justice under such circumstances is jettisoned altogether, as simply inapposite to the situation at hand; is remembered only ex post, as an afterthought, too little too late. Was it altogether correct to destroy, say, Garrison Keillor before he was proven guilty? No, certainly; but, so what?
Who cares about due process when the game’s afoot, the horn is sounding and the hounds baying, and the prey are on the run? Tally ho!
To be sure; nevertheless, ahem; must remember the rules, eventually. Witch hunts are Bad.
But, then, just as the fact that you are paranoid does not mean that they are not really after you, so the fact that this is a witch hunt does not mean that its prey are not true witches, who deserve their fate, and must be destroyed to save the body politic. They have for decades stoked the fires of Moloch, which rise now to consume them. To Hell with them, then; kill them all, according to their own religion, and let their god and daemon sort them out.
Some innocents will be caught up in the general mêlée, and immolated together with the real and ugly miscreants. Sure. So be it. So has it ever been. On the Day of Atonement in Jerusalem, a pure, spotless goat was sacrificed to YHWH and translated to Heaven, while his spotted damned counterpart was driven into the wilderness and everlasting death in the desert Pit of Azazel. Sacrifice of pestilential ritually impure scapegoats there must be, under the extra-Christian deliverance, and so some unjust suffering meted out to the blameless, spotless few, *so that* their goddamned brethren the true and honest and rightful scapegoats can be driven forth, bewildered, and destroyed, together with their freight of the sins of the people, and the city thereby purified of their stain. You can’t offer a pure goat to God if you are still impure, for any remnant of impurity in you will pollute him; so the expulsion of the scapegoat together with his imputed baggage of all your sins is a prerequisite of the effectually Atoning sacrifice.
The orthodox Christian is bound to look askance upon this whole proceeding, for it stems and prospers and floresces in and from a rejection of traditional morality, whether construed under the aeges of religion or of Natural Law (if these even differ). Apparent to all is the rich dense delectable irony of ardent public liberal feminist Pharisees exposed as dirty, repulsive sexual predators (which is not even to mention that they are to a “man” soft pusillanimous chestless self-righteous cowardly ugly low T gamma creeps, with no muscles or scars or deathly deeds to their names). But to the orthodox, their public excoriation is doubly ironic; for, it repudiates not just these sexual traitors to liberalism, but – because it implicitly affirms traditional Western notions of chivalry – also repudiates liberalism itself. If there is no absolute morality, as liberals are wont to aver, but rather only what one can pull off for oneself unscathed – i.e., moral relativism, what works for me rather than for you – why then, sexual predation is not really, inherently, absolutely wrong. It is rather, only, wrong insofar as it doesn’t work out. But no, say the rabid maenads: sexual predation is indeed absolutely, horribly, damnably wrong.
And they are right, are they not, the poor sad girls? Of course they are.
But, you can’t have it both ways. If sexual predation is wrong, it is *wrong,* period full stop. And in that case, the moral relativism of liberalism, and with it the sexual libertinism of liberalism, is … absolutely wrong. In which case, feminism is dead.
Nice. So rich, is it not, to savor this chilly mordant schadenfreude? Rock on, you liberal feminist harpies. Rock on.