The Sexual Left Devours Itself

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.

25 thoughts on “The Sexual Left Devours Itself

  1. Pingback: The Sexual Left Devours Itself | @the_arv

  2. When the NFL institutes a rule change, past games are not re-scored and trophies are not transferred according to the new rules. But when a woman’s feelings change, all her past experiences are re-evaluated in light of her present feelings. That man is a creep, we had sex two months ago, I would never consent to sex with a creep, so he must have raped me. Or the ex-wife who describes her entire marriage as ten years of misery — why then did she wait so long to bail?

    In Hollywood it’s perfectly OK to fondle women you barely know if you’re a sexy famous guy, and a crime to do so if you’re a disgusting old pervert. Ambitious whores converge on Hollywood from all over the world to be fondled by the rich and famous. But if one or two complain, you suddenly flip from “sexy famous guy” to “disgusting old pervert” in the mind of every woman you’ve ever touched, and your career is over.

    The Bible solves this problem by telling women to “honor and obey” and attaching very little weight to their feelings. Does the word “consent” appear even once in the context of sex?

  3. Pingback: The Sexual Left Devours Itself | Reaction Times

  4. That it is a Bacchic frenzy, a sacrificial crisis, a mimetic meltdown, is marvelously declared by its self-designation under the “#me-too” meme.

  5. You are right. Liberal morality is inherently arbitrary, and so subject to sudden changes–the result being this sort of moral earthquake. A Conservative can get caught up in this machinery, though, since it is only an accidental congruence when his morality lines up with whatever the liberal formation happens to be right now.

    One reason conservative men may have come off so lightly (so far) is that ideological segregation is pretty far advanced in our society. Most of these charges come out of highly “converged” settings, such as journalism, entertainment, and the Democratic party. These women want power in organizations where most of the men standing in their way happen to be liberals. When the dust settles after all this, we will see more women at the top of “converged” organizations (which is to say that they will be even more “converged”).

  6. “He must not at bottom really believe in the traditional morality he publicly espouses, or therefore form his acts according thereto.”

    In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle distinguishes between the Incontinent (άκρατης, akratēs) man and the Intemperate or Licentious (ακόλαστης, akolastēs) man. (In Aristotle’s usage, someone who is carried away by sudden passions is incontinent, whereas someone with ingrained, unresisted, bad habits is intemperate or licentious.) Since passion soon passes, whereas a habit is “a disposition difficult to remove,” the incontinent man repents at once, as soon as the passion has passed; but not so the intemperate man. In fact, he rejoices in having sinned, because the sinful act has become second nature to him; for custom and habit are a second nature. Thus, Proverbs 2:14 says, “Who delight in doing wrong and rejoice in the perversity of evil”

  7. Conservatives typically and generally labor under and prosper by a strong sense of traditional morality

    Uh huh. And etc. Not to mention Roy Moore. I really expect a better brand of BS from you.

    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.

    What a classic example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

    Suppose I said “Liberalism holds the rights and autonomy of woman as a sacrosanct principle” (true) and therefore people who violate women’s autonomy, like Harvey Weinstein, aren’t true liberals. I assume you’d laugh at me, because Weinstein (whatever might be in his soul) has been an important part of the Democratic party for decades. And just like liberals have to account with that (the accounts have belatedly come due and people like Weinstein are getting dropped and shunned), conservatives have to account for all the serial molesters, rapists, pedophiles, and closeted gays in their corner of the world.

    • “Liberalism” holds the “right” to “self-annihilate” as sacrosanct whether one is a female, Harvey Weinstein or a.morphous. Yet, this “right of self-annihilation” is at one’s own consent. And this understanding possessed by a critical mass is “equality.” So Weinstein is certainly a “liberal” by what are his acts of self-annihilation, ie., non-consensual sexual transgression. A “conservative,” on the other hand, perpetrating acts of self-annihilation by way of nonconsensual sexual transgression is, literally, an anti-CONSERVative. That he calls himself “handsome” on the outside does not negate the ugly on the inside NOR HIDE his act of radical liberation.

    • Suppose I said “Liberalism holds the rights and autonomy of woman as a sacrosanct principle” (true) and therefore people who violate women’s autonomy, like Harvey Weinstein, aren’t true liberals. I assume you’d laugh at me, because Weinstein (whatever might be in his soul) has been an important part of the Democratic party for decades.

      Yeah, I’m sure he would laugh at you. I know I would.

      Suppose Weinstein (et al) came out and publicly stated, ex post facto (as several of the examples given in the second article did), that he regrets championing women’s rights causes, signed an amicus brief asking the Supremes to strike down VAWA and/or Roe, became an advocate for repeal of the 19th Amendment, blah blah. If you know what I mean.

      Seems like about half of those stories serve more to prove Kristor’s point, rather than the opposite. [And that’s not even counting the ones who are still lying out their teeth].

    • @ a.morphous:

      To struggle to meet a standard of behavior is not to meet it. But it is at least to try; is at least to try to form one’s acts according to that standard, thereby implicitly recognizing that it *is* a standard, and that one *ought* to meet it.

      To say that conservatives generally and typically labor under and prosper by a strong sense of traditional morality is (obviously) not to say that they generally and typically adhere immaculately to the standards they set for themselves (I thought this went without saying, but I suppose that was too optimistic). I certainly don’t. Indeed, if my own experience is any indication, most conservatives spend a fair bit of time agonizing over their manifold failures to live up to their own standards. And – again going by my own experience – they spend a lot of time and effort rationalizing their defective acts. But according to their own standards of right conduct, that sort of ex post rationalization won’t do – is itself a terrific defect of character.

      No True Scotsman? On the contrary. The standards of traditional conservative morality are such that no man meets them (Romans 3:10-18). The point is that true conservatives *try* to meet them; and that a conservative who does not even try to meet them, but rather eventually comes out as at bottom, and in truth, a convicted sexual liberal – such as the squalid hypocrites you adduce in the article you link – was never in truth a conservative in the first place, but rather a faux conservative. He is a man who pretended conservatism in rather the way that Rachel Dolezal pretended to be black.

      … people who violate women’s autonomy, like Harvey Weinstein, aren’t true liberals. I assume you’d laugh at me …

      On the contrary. Weinstein and his ilk are not living up to liberal standards of conduct. Obviously. Indeed, they have manifestly failed to live up to any current standard of decent conduct. They are contemptible swine. Let them cook. Let that cooking, please God, end in their purgation, and redemption, and salvation.

      … just like liberals have to account with that … conservatives have to account for all the serial molesters, rapists, pedophiles, and closeted gays in their corner of the world.

      Of course. How not? Let the tumbrils roll. A man who engages in acts universally abhorred by traditional conservative morality is not welcome in conservative ranks, so long as he has not repented of his sins.

      Here’s the thing, a.morphous. There’s no gainsaying that the Great Sexual Harassment Scandal of 2017 has so far mostly come home to roost on the Left end of the spectrum. It’s just a fact, and you would do better to ponder honestly – and admit, to yourself, and to the public – why this might be so. What is it in liberal sexual ethics that leads people to think that harassment is sometimes OK? Is there anything in it that does thus lead people?

      Under conservative sexual ethics, any sex whatever outside of marriage is utterly proscribed. Under liberal sexual ethics, sex of whatever sort is perfectly OK, so long as everyone involved gives valid consent. All you need to do under liberal sexual ethics is ensure that each sexual act is given full valid consent ex ante, in such a way that no one involved can later labor under any sort of doubt whether they had given impregnable consent. Piece of cake, right?

      Now, I ask you, honestly: which ethic is more likely to lead to sexual misconduct?

      • Contrary to a.morphous’ quaint misrepresentation of “liberalism” and Kristor’s very tolerant rebuke, Harvey Weinstein was and still is an “exemplar” of radical liberation from that point of view that actually matters, ie., the perspective of the vanguard radical autonomist.

        To CONFINE the dynamics of “sexual relationships” to an UNBOUNDED temporal contract called “consent” is to, practically-speaking, do away with all sexual standards as the radical sexual autonomist is naturally inclined to realize.

        Self-annihilation will always plague those places where no real sexual standards exist.

        Yet… This is a radical liberationist’s deepest desire.

        Harvey Weinstein is a REAL AND TRUE, radical liberal.

      • What this memes is more “radical autonomy” by way of cog-diss in the liberal masses.

        Little liberals can publicly disassociate from Harvey Weinstein, but they must endure, privately, the agony of understanding that he was AND STILL IS more radically liberated than thyselves.

      • “Under conservative sexual ethics, any sex whatever outside of marriage is utterly proscribed. Under liberal sexual ethics, sex of whatever sort is perfectly OK, so long as everyone involved gives valid consent.”

        Marriage is an arbitrary superfluous man-made celebration of a divinely recognized event. God does not draw the line of adultery at PiV sex. Feeling up your fiancee is part of an organic process of two becoming one flesh. There is zero Biblical precedent for an autistic spazzout if the natural process takes its course a bit early. There is no such sin as “fornicating with your betrothed” in the Bible. Just celebration of it in Song of Solomon. God knows us. And your view is very puritanical as a result. You’re not alone in that, it’s a very common view. But it isn’t biblical.Guilt-tripping wholesome lovers for Song of Solomoning as if they were damned adulterers is beyond Pharisaical proportions.

      • I wasn’t tripping any guilt. The passage you quote was merely describing the two sexual ethics, traditional versus liberal.

        But if the shoe fits, by all means go ahead and wear it. Why is it, do you suppose, that as you read you began to feel guilty, and then angry?

      • Koranic @ There may be no sin in fornicating with your betrothed, provided you keep your promise and go through with the marriage in a timely manner. But if you get cold feet and back out of the engagement, the Common Law held you guilty of the capital crime of rape. This strikes me as a fair compromise. You get to feel up your sweetheart in the hay mow, while whispering the Song of Solomon in her ear, but should you then fail to bring her to the altar, the magistrate will order you hung by the neck. Deal?

      • .God does not draw the line of adultery at PiV sex. Feeling up your fiancee is part of an organic process of two becoming one flesh.

        Thank you, beelzebub. “Hath God said?,” indeed.

        Btw, I love Prof. Smith’s portrayal of Adam chasing Eve around the Tree of Knowledge; but I also have serious reservations about whether it was Adam or Eve doing the chasing. I figure it was probably Eve, but readily admit I could be wrong about that.

        But in any case, ‘feeling your fiancee` up’ is most certainly *not* God’s ideal of marriage.

      • Koanic is absolutely correct that God does not draw the line of adultery at PiV sex. On the contrary, he draws the line far, far more broadly:

        But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. Matthew 5:28

        As for the Biblical warrant against extra-marital sex, it is to be found in Paul:

        I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. I Corinthians 7:8-9

  8. Pingback: Traditional Sexual Morality Works; the Liberal Sort Cannot, & So Tends to Marriage – The Orthosphere

  9. Pingback: The Sexual Left’s Ambiguous Definition | Winston Scrooge

  10. Pingback: Beware the maenids | Dark Brightness

Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.