Ellen Degeneracy Redux + Prudes in Epicureans’ Clothing
“You stand for the lowest class—take me off your list
I’m no Democrat, I’m a conversationalist
If your aunt had balls, she’d be your uncle
And you just can’t get it off your brain.”-The Red Chord, “Black Santa”
“I went to a Muslim swingers’ party. We all toss our detonators in the ring and swap each other’s virgins.”-Mark Steyn
“What is a ‘pansexual’?”-Scott Stapp
The managerial elites’ decadence seemingly knows no bounds. Deluded as they are as a consequence of their frictionless lifestyle, they pearl-clutch and relentlessly virtue-signal, unable to formulate one complete sentence in the definitive, having to “problematize” and circuitously hedge their bets before arriving at a milquetoast conclusion hoping no one gets offended. These effete “intellectuals” are all soft hands, soft bodies, and soft minds—divorced from the Schwarzeneggerian mantras of staying hungry: to conquer, to climb, to achieve. There’s no edge to them, and though they may be learned, their faculties are weak. As Christopher DeGroot notes:
Such a bizarre sensibility [that peoples and human nature itself are as conveniently shapeable and interchangeable as the nifty gadgets affluent Westerners rely on to live lives of unprecedented ease] is the product of sheer affect uninstructed by cold reason. Guilt, envy, and compassion are all affects that weak-willed leftists use to determine their worldview. Leftists are quite womanly in this respect. Where the conservative, like a man in the old sense, examines contexts objectively, then makes a judgment irrespective of how it makes him feel, the leftist projects feelings onto things themselves, as if the heart were the criterion for truth.
There’s something to this—is it possible that politics has become too feminized? I’m certainly not proposing we end women’s suffrage, but it is a very real possibility that the nurturing side of women clouds their judgement when it comes to hard-nosed issues and even some “softer” ones like immigration. This can become internalized society-wide, especially as women dominate a Cultural Marxism-doctrinally-centered education system, and men eagerly rush to castrate themselves in “allyship.” Sentimentality begins to dominate the decision-making process, and the difficult choices are rendered impossible. How could you turn away a starving child or the next wave of potential Holocaust victims? When logos and pathos find themselves in opposition, for the feminized and Otherized Left, logos inevitably yields, logos being, 1) the fundamental organizing principle of Western civilization, and 2) the predominant, but not exclusive, province of men. Fortunately for the “elites,” they’re largely insulated from the damaging effects of their (non-)decisions, and they may move freely behind walls of their own while simultaneously decrying national borders (for Western countries).
The current feminist orthodoxy has tried to erase the biological differences between men and women, and has forced many square pegs into round holes. Face it, most men and women are not interested in the same things, nor do they have the same strengths. Women represent only 12 percent of U.S. innovators, yet they can literally give and nurture life. Feminism doesn’t celebrate women and femininity, it actually robs women of what makes them unique. We need them as a complement to our often harsh and coldly logical, survival-oriented worldview; the issue is that this counter-balance has spilled over to where it’s now clouding and even obscuring the necessary debate with too much motherly instinct. The feminine perspective is vital for just that—perspective, but it cannot form the basis of foreign policy, immigration policy, and the like. Compassion can take many different forms, and permissiveness, despite frequent appearances to the contrary, is in many cases morally indefensible.
Permissiveness renders a group unable to defend themselves. It is, as I’ve written previously, the disabling of the guardian function, which results in both a literal and metaphysical paralysis. I’m reminded of the following exchange from the 1996 film Swingers:
Trent: You know what you are? You’re like a big bear with claws and with fangs...Big fuckin’ teeth on ya’. And she’s just like this little bunny, who’s just kinda cowering in the corner. You know, you got these claws and you’re staring at these claws and your thinking to yourself, and with these claws you’re thinking, “How am I supposed to kill this bunny, how am I supposed to kill this bunny?”
Sue: And you’re poking at it, you’re poking at it...
Trent: Yeah, you’re not hurting it. You’re just kinda gently batting the bunny around, you know what I mean? And the bunny’s scared Mike, the bunny’s scared of you, shivering.
Sue: And you got these fucking claws and these fangs...
Trent: And you got these fucking claws and these fangs, man! And you’re looking at your claws and you’re looking at your fangs. And you’re thinking to yourself, you don’t know what to do, man. “I don’t know how to kill the bunny.” With *this* you don’t know how to kill the bunny, do you know what I mean?
Well do you? The U.S.-Mexico border spans 1,954 miles, yet there are fewer than four hundred asylum officers stationed at just eight offices in the entire United States, and none of them directly on the border. The United States only has “effective control” of less than 700 miles, or less than 36%, of the total 1,954 miles, with an ability to actually stop illegal entries along just 129 miles, or 6.6%, of that border. With the largest economy and the greatest military in the world, not to mention departments of Border Control and domestically Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), plus a militarized police, the FBI, the CIA, and God knows what else, we can’t stop a bare minimum of twenty-two million illegal aliens from swarming across our borders.
Yet we are so self-congratulatory for having accomplished nothing. Worse than nothing, in fact. We are in the process of dismantling the greatest nation the world has ever known. To quote Victor Davis Hanson:
For the Roman poet Horace to be a laudator temporis acti (“a praiser of a past age”) was a natural if sometimes tiring inclination. His famous lines at the end of his Ode 3.6 on moral degeneracy run, “Worse than our grandparents’ generation, our parents’ then produced us, even worse, and soon to bear still more sinful children”—and managed in just a few words to fault four generations for continual moral decline. Yet what is strange about the present age is that our current generation uniquely believes just the opposite. Apparently, we believe that most cadres before us were not up to our standards. Indeed, we are having to clean up their messes of racism, sexism, homophobia, nativism, xenophobia, and Islamophobia, as well as environmental desecration and global warming. Even their statues must fall as bothersome reminders of their moral depravity…Usually our generation kills the dead by the mob or a frightened mayor in the dead of night—rarely by a majority vote of elected representatives, referenda, or the recommendations of local, state, and federal commissions and carried out in daytime…Who is the moral superior to whom, and how much progress—or retrogression—has our generation achieved?
It is an age of the most profound arrogance, and the most profound ignorance. There can be no dispute that we live in an age of extreme irrationality and intense ugliness. What kind of subnormals protest to have their rights taken away? Disgust is not only natural, but essential for survival. When one cannot expel that which is hideous and foreign, when one comes to love that which is slowly poisoning it to death, then what hope is there for salvation? From the preoccupation with transgenderism and all sorts of weird sexual proclivities to the fetishizing of that and whom is most diametrically opposed to us—the darker, the stranger, the more degenerate, the less capable—we sow the seeds of our own demise and call it virtue.
But it is anything but virtuous. There is today an alliance between the privileged classes—those with wealth and influence, and those various disaffected, maladjusted, defective, and alien. For both groups it is about power; for the so-called “elites” it is about maintaining their control as well as signaling their status. Jason Tebbe writes:
The nineteenth-century bourgeoisie used morality to assert class dominance — something elites still do today…The belief that the bourgeoisie holds a place of moral superiority over the other classes persists. Today, spin classes, artisanal food, and the college application process have replaced Sunday promenades, evening lectures, and weekly salons. But make no mistake, they serve the same purpose: transforming class privilege into individual virtue, thereby shoring up social dominance.
For the body of the “Coalition of the Fringes” their bid for power is something quite different. To quote William Gayley Simpson:
In inferior people of every sort, the will to power is easily frustrated. They are not able to take their full natural shape. Consequently, in them the will to power seeks its ends through devious, underground ways, by burrowing, or by stealing up backstairs and climbing in back windows. Like all people they create that kind of morality that will serve their needs—in this case, the needs of the weak, sickly, and botched. Having no strength in themselves as individuals, they turn upside down all sound valuation of life, and pronounce the virtues of superior men evil, and turn their own weaknesses into virtues. On the one hand, out of envy and fear and hatred, they disparage and condemn those qualities of their masters that they do not possess and, because of the limits set by heredity, cannot acquire. They depreciate beauty, health, good birth, and great strength; and they deprecate self-reliance, independence, boldness, iron will, and prodigality.
This veneration of the alien and the defective leads to the most grotesque perversities that we see becoming “normalized” today. As the end-stage of “democracy,” the mass becomes virtuous in and of itself! It becomes, ironically, communistic. Here we can understand that populism is not an inherently conservative proposition, but if there is enough virtue remaining in the general populace—a genuine understanding of who and what we are—then it may break the stranglehold of the invidious “Coalition.” If demography has been too thoroughly transformed, and enough good people have had their values perverted, this is no longer possible. We are, in the West, at this watershed moment. It drove Francis Parker Yockey in Imperium to conclude that in the United States our republic is too far gone to salvaged, and that America needs a Caesar to restore its glory and push back against the degradation of its founding stock. Revilo P. Oliver framed this discussion for the Right as that of Cicero the republican versus that of Caesar.
The United States has always had this inherent tension between maintaining its republican virtues and Manifest Destiny. Rome, for its part, wrestled with the same tensions. In the European context especially, the appeal of fascism is so strong that the system of government must be demonized at all costs. After all, the following is both appealing and logically and ethically sound:
We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within the framework: The good of the state before the good of the individual.
Regarding Christianity in this particular context, I find Revilo P. Oliver’s following consideration especially helpful:
Logically and historically, Christianity must be the antithesis of the “universal love” that is currently peddled by men who find their country a “concept” too small to deserve loyalty. And a crude counterfeit of religion, whether manufactured by folly or by cunning, must not be used as a narcotic to blunt our perception of danger with romantic visions of a “world community” and “enduring peace.” Those are the hallucinations that precede disaster.
This is the “social gospel” that is killing Western Man from within, both from the pulpit and from the atheistic “do-gooders” who have somehow convinced themselves that the hijab is a symbol of female empowerment, not the mark of a backward faith that would yoke its women like trains of oxen.