Liberalism and the slippery slope

I intended to write a post on the ramifications of sexual liberation (or the sexual “revolution”) in terms of its impact on our mores in the future. This is a subject which is broached quite often although the arguments in favour of greater liberation are never considered in the fullest sense of their real long term consequences.

The legalisation (or intended legalisation in the case of many American states) of Gay “marriage” was a massive step in the relentless march of liberal sexual morality (and this has occurred despite popular resistance to it - as with all the other cherished ideals of the liberal project). The question however is, how much further is this going to go? Have we gone far enough? Have we now permitted absolutely everything under the sun or are there still limits which gnaw away at the concept of the “sovereign” individual (and those limits therefore deserve to be destroyed because the individual is “sovereign”)?

After Gay “marriage”, what next? Charles Krauthammer hints that the legalisation of Polygamy is next on the agenda – and as a typical Neoconservative he has no problem with that either (Krauthammer had no objection to Gay “marriage” in agreement with his fellow Neoconservatives).

The legalisation of Polygamy would be an even bigger step than the legalisation of Homosexual relations and the conferral upon such relations with the sanctity that attaches to traditional marriage. No Western nation has allowed Polygamy since the West became Christian. And it is obvious that nothing other than Christian doctrine could stand in the way of legalisation because the liberal concept of “sovereign individuals” offers no resistance whatsoever. If the principle is that consenting adults can do as they please (or as our resident Libertarian priest John Ray says, “I don’t judge a man by where he inserts his penis”), then there is certainly nothing in liberal doctrine to prevent the legalisation of polygamy if the “participants” in question are consenting adults.

But it doesn’t end there. If Polygamy can be legalised, what else can be legalised? There is Incest, of course. At present, Incest is against the law in the majority of Industrialised nations and it is a crime punishable with imprisonment. But these punishments find their origins in Christian doctrine. There is nothing in liberal doctrine (as currently formulated) to prohibit it. If we follow the principle of the “sovereign” individual, it is difficult to see how liberal doctrine would prohibit it. The concept of sovereignty is very wide and needs to be understood in the proper sense. If the individual is “sovereign”, his sexual desires triumph (unless involving physical force against the consent of other adults) any taboos that society may have – as we have already seen with the repeal of laws against miscegenation, sodomy, bestiality (in some jurisdictions) and now Gay “marriage”. 

Since the only source of resistance to the progressive project of legalising Incest could come from Christianity and since Christianity is effectively dead or dying in much of the West, on what grounds could the legalisation of incest be opposed? If we live in a society in which the individual is sovereign, where one cannot be “judgemental”, then it would appear that the grounds for opposition to the legalisation of Incest are very thin indeed (I refer to the legalisation of Incest where the “participants” are adults – not if some of them are children, which will always be prohibited because liberalism recognises that children are incapable of giving consent).

If Incest is eventually legalised (and this could happen a decade or two from now), where does it leave society? The basis of society are the most fundamental of all human relations – the relations of fathers with their sons, of brothers with their sisters, of mothers with their sons and their daughters or of fathers with their daughters. The sanctity of these relations is the bedrock of civil society and it is the basis of the family without which, arguably, society would collapse.

As these examples show, liberalism is self destructive. The concept of the “sovereign” individual (as opposed to the concept of free men living in a moral society – morality which is to be traced ultimately to the will of God), ultimately leads to the abyss of sexual, racial, religious and moral Nihilism, which is a short stop away from the total destruction of our society.

Posted by Phil Peterson on Saturday, March 18, 2006 at 09:06 AM in Liberalism & the LeftLibertarianismMarxism & Culture WarSocial ConservatismSocial liberalism
Comments (29) | Tell a friend

Comments:

1

Posted by onetwothree on March 18, 2006, 11:45 AM | #

An evolutionary biologist should investigate the question of why polygamy is not a eugenic practice. It should be, of course. If you give the 50 percent most able/intelligent/handsome men two wives, and the rest none, you should have a super-race in no time. But it doesn’t work. The countries that practice it are a mess. Why is that? Possibly:

—Women make poor sexual choices.
—Men trade daughters (a practice common in mormon sects), thus assurring serious moral weakness.
—Polygamy is a result of aristocratic societies, in which birth/connections/loyalty make men rise, rather than merit.

2

Posted by Voice on March 18, 2006, 11:53 AM | #

Great Job Phil,

I have never been able to nail this argument as effectively and logically.

The sovereign individual allows me to do this better than the “natural order’ argument which never seems to work as well.  It follows on much better that the sovereign individual deciding for the rest of society, without judgement ,leads us down this path to our ultimate destruction.

Here is my next conundrum for me personally.  I look at myself as “culturally christian”(defined as Christianity as part of our ancestral heritage which we owe much for our cultural heritage) but agnostic in the sense that I am not a practising Christian.

I would say that I am more a evolutionary and racial agnostic which allows me to draw a spirtual basis in extending the consciousness of my people through the furthering our racial stock and the culturally continuity that extends the civility and governmental forms allowing Europeans to express their beautiful genotype in a way our behavioural characteristics/spirit dictate.

I think Christianity used to do this up until the current dogma took over.

Unfortunately WN doesn’t define our spirtuality in the terms I long for.

Although, We are at war for survival now and should get our priorities straight.  Survival is our first goal and we can soar again spirtually when guarantee the survival of our people and way of life.

3

Posted by José María on March 18, 2006, 01:08 PM | #

Liberals will not stop neither with polygamy nor incest. I think they will try to “convince” us with paedophilia. They will say that children can “freely” consent a sexual relationship with adults, one of the “reasons” they will offer is that not everybody becomes adult at the same age, that some children have a mental age adult no matter their age.

There is an old force trying to destroy real progress and civilization, liberals are only a tool. I don´t think they would even stop with paedophilia, there are many other perversions to legalize.

4

Posted by Phil Peterson on March 18, 2006, 01:31 PM | #

Although, We are at war for survival now and should get our priorities straight.  Survival is our first goal and we can soar again spirtually when guarantee the survival of our people and way of life.

The belief in “sovereign” individuals lies at the heart of our rotting society. If that belief can be challenged and undermined, there is hope for nationalism, yet.

You will note that all nation-destroying liberals use the same rhetoric when referring to immigrants, asylum seekers etc - “but they are only people”, “I judge people as individuals” etc.

If this progressivism kept marching on beyond Gay marriage, it will only precipitate the collapse. We ignore it at our own peril.

5

Posted by Phil Peterson on March 18, 2006, 01:32 PM | #

I don´t think they would even stop with paedophilia, there are many other perversions to legalize.

Possibly. My capacity for imagining the evil that can be perpetuated is limited, I suppose.

6

Posted by Phil Peterson on March 18, 2006, 01:37 PM | #

I look at myself as “culturally christian”(defined as Christianity as part of our ancestral heritage which we owe much for our cultural heritage) but agnostic in the sense that I am not a practising Christian.

I think most of the bloggers at MR could be described in similar terms.

7

Posted by Guessedworker on March 18, 2006, 01:49 PM | #

A significant part of the avant garde of liberalism, and very homosexal-Jewish it is too, is to be found at the Canadian site, Ctheory.  It is a gateway into a world of people determined to teat down “social prejudice”.  Transsexualism goes down, so to speak, big with them.  They are so profoundly unappealing it is almost too great a task for an ordinary soul to describe their station in life.  Dante made a fist of it, I think - though for them “fist” would have an entirely different connotation.

8

Posted by Andrew on March 18, 2006, 03:14 PM | #

After reading Gates of Vienna Blog;  http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/03/ummas-involuted-border.html  and reading Phil’s article, we are at war and with battles on all fronts. And seemingly unable to defeat one enemy at any give time: This must mean a total revision of tactics against the aggressors.
If when you read and comprehend what some pathological idiot’s positions are: Perhaps just me, but it is a numbing effect , a surreal sensation;  “This can not really be happening”.
And it does have a Twilight zone aura about it.
It is the Numbers game and demographic shift, and the recruitment of Ideological enemies who side with one another to defeat Civilization: They have achieved Massive inroads in this war, as there is little to no resistance. It must change- and retrospectively dating 30 years. ( Now I’m on an Ideological Tangent) or do we retreat?

9

Posted by Mark Richardson on March 18, 2006, 06:04 PM | #

Great post, Phil. You’ve set things out with admirable clarity.

Lawrence Auster gave a good recent example of what you’re arguing (I can’t link to it because his site has been suspended - he’s been accused of spamming of all things.)

This is Jonathan Turley writing in USA Today in 2004:

“I personally detest polygamy. Yet if we yield to our impulse and single out one hated minority, the First Amendment becomes little more than hype and we become little more than hypocrites. For my part, I would rather have a neighbour with different spouses, than a country with different standards for its citizens.”

Auster notes:

“Turley can think of no legitimate reason why polygamy should be treated differently from monogamy. And indeed within a strictly liberal accounting ... there is no reason to treat polygamy differently .... The justifications for prohibiting polygamy come from outside liberalism, from our religious, moral, and civilizational traditions as a people.”

Note too that Turley writes that he personally detests polygamy. So it is not even as though he has been denatured and is lost to his own moral sense or moral traditions. Instead, he believes that no matter how good a moral standard or tradition is, it should not be allowed a public role, not even if 99% of the population supports it.

If liberalism is the standard, and the liberal standard is that we can do anything whatsoever as long as it’s consensual, then we are applying a different standard if we disallow polygamy, and we must therefore be hypcrites and haters.

That is how Turley understands things, and he is only pursuing in a consistent way the logic of liberalism.

10

Posted by Phil Peterson on March 18, 2006, 06:49 PM | #

Thanks, Mark.

Yes, liberalism with its open-ended permissiveness becomes an unending quest for new “freedoms” - no matter how opposed to nature or tradition or morality these “freedoms” might be.

Once a society has accepted liberalism as it’s only touchstone, it is permanently separated from it’s history, it’s traditions and it’s morality.

11

Posted by ben tillman on March 19, 2006, 02:33 AM | #

I would rather have a neighbour with different spouses, than a country with different standards for its citizens.

Another lunatic.  It can hardly be simpler:  A prohibition on polygamy is a universal standard.

12

Posted by Alex Zeka on March 19, 2006, 05:42 AM | #

I’ll have to respectfully disagree on the gay marriage/polygamy issue. Whilst polygamy hasn’t been tried in any Christian nation, it has been tried in other societies which are not notably decadent. Gay marriage has literally no precedent: even the pagan libertines of ancient Greece stopped short of sanctifying their bit of slap and twinkle as marriage. Gay marriage is the more radical and more utopian of the two measures, as it is not only against our Western traditions but against naturte itself.

In short, after gay marriage, polygamy will come as a positive relief.

13

Posted by Phil Peterson on March 19, 2006, 05:52 AM | #

In short, after gay marriage, polygamy will come as a positive relief.

Alex,

I disagree for the following reason:

In Christian or historically Christian nations that have been monogamous for more than a thousand years, the legalisation of Polygamy requires a justification. This is quite a different situation from Societies that were never Christianised and have allowed Polygamy.

In our case, it is a break with our traditions that are more than a thousand years old. And in that sense, it is another nail in the coffin. And another massive leap for sexual liberalism.

But I think the point of my post was to illustrate that it is not a matter of whether Polygamy is or isn’t good. It is a matter of where this liberal/progressive march is going to stop. It will, if this keeps up, march beyond these existing “projects"and on to Incest and then God knows where.

14

Posted by Alex Zeka on March 19, 2006, 06:07 AM | #

Phil,

I think we need to distinguish between what is against our traditions and what is against human nature.

I agree that the introduction in Christian nations of polygamy requires a justification. That wasn’t my point.

My point was that you seemed to be suggesting that polygamy is the next step after gay marriage in the great leap forward into sexual freedom.

It isn’t, simply because a polygamous marriage retains its original purperse (to have and bring up children). Gay marriage throws away this purperse, and so is entirely about sensory pleasure.

A modus vivendi can be reached with polygamists (look at Mormons in the USA). No such truce can be reached with the sodomites, who need to adopt or convert our children in order to continue existing (which they wish to do, never mind how much they go on about being depressed).

15

Posted by Phil Peterson on March 19, 2006, 06:16 AM | #

Alex,

I agree that Gay “marriage” is more against nature than Polygamy because as you correctly point out Polygamy has existed in other societies and nations in the past through much of history but Gay “marriage” is an oxymoron.

I don’t see why we need to compromise with either though. The Mormons are wrong and their reading of the New Testament is flawed. We are historically Christian societies that have been monogamous. And we must defend that at all costs.

Also, we should not allow Polygamy because it will open the door to all kinds of new demands (including demands from Muslims who do practise Polygamy extensively in the Middle East and elsewhere).

It is all about where the project will next lead after Polygamy has been legalised. Incest may be?

16

Posted by Phil Peterson on March 19, 2006, 06:33 AM | #

Steve Sailer has a good article about Polygamy here.

17

Posted by Phil Peterson on March 19, 2006, 06:39 AM | #

Additionally, I should have clarified that the Mormon Church does not approve of Polygamy.

18

Posted by Phil Peterson on March 19, 2006, 06:41 AM | #

The Mormons are wrong and their reading of the New Testament is flawed

I should have said “Polygamous Mormon Fundamentalists” rather than Mormons.

19

Posted by Mark Richardson on March 19, 2006, 08:31 AM | #

Alex, I don’t think it works to define marriage only in terms of the raising of children.

At the heart of what we understand instinctively about marriage is the possibility of a particular form of love between a man and woman, one which calls for exclusivity and commitment, and in which a male and female complement and complete each other, and which forms the most desirable arrangement for the raising of children.

Gays might call for participation in the institution because they love each other. They cannot, though, reproduce the distinctively heterosexual experience of love on which marriage is founded, nor can their marriage issue naturally in children, and, anyway, a healthy society won’t accept homosexual marriage because it won’t accept that homosexuality itself is a normal development of gender identity or sexuality.

Polygamists can bear and raise children, but an acceptance of polygamy marks a rejection of that understanding of marital love on which monogamy is founded. It is a stepping away from an ideal (an ideal which admittedly doesn’t always work out, but one nonetheless which has inspired a great deal of Western culture).

Isn’t this why Western men haven’t turned to polygamy, despite the fact that there would seem to be some major advantages in doing so (sexual variety, more children, household support etc)?

Isn’t it because of what we understand to be true in our instinct toward love, and the fineness of the culture supporting this?

The reason I write this is that I don’t think a modus vivendi between monogamy and polygamy would be workable as you suggest. There is a clash involved not only of culture, but of the understanding of what is possible in the relationship between a man and a woman.

20

Posted by Phil Peterson on March 19, 2006, 09:04 AM | #

Very well said, Mark.

21

Posted by Cass Freeman on March 08, 2007, 07:08 AM | #

Incest was legalised in France in I think 1810. Where is French society now? Is it in any worse shape ethically or socially than any other European society?

And why are you all so fired up about precedent? “What we did before” is not the same as “what is a good thing to do”. Every culture in the world, including every Christian culture, has a cultural precedent for war. Does that make war a good thing, worth preserving?

22

Posted by Guessedworker on March 08, 2007, 07:47 AM | #

Defensively, Cass, of course war is a good thing.  A necessary thing without which only the most aggressive would be free, and the rest of us would be, at best, slaves.

As regards traditional mores, the foundation for life is NOT what is considered in any particular period a “good thing” or “worth preserving”.  The foundation is what is adaptive from an evolutionary perspective ... what advances our evolutionary fitness.

By “our”, of course, I do not mean everybody, but we Europeans with our distinctively European set of evolved behaviours.

23

Posted by Fred Scrooby on December 30, 2007, 09:55 AM | #

Good news for Satan’s kingdom.

24

Posted by Bill on June 06, 2008, 05:01 PM | #

I came across this, I don’t know the chap but this strikes a chord with me.

http://www.savethemales.ca/

Hetro-phobes want desegregate toilets

June 3 2008

25

Posted by Guessedworker on June 06, 2008, 05:49 PM | #

Bill,

Prof Henry Makow is a Jewish gentleman who takes a fairly colourful view of the cause of our difficulties.  He would be grouped by most of us guys, I think, in that category of lights in the darkness which may lead one over some pretty rocky ground.  In their different ways Larry Auster, Paul Belien’s people, Mark Stein, Mel Phillips and Theodore Dalrymple would all be included in that.

Save the Males is only OK as a staging post, not as a permanent home.  Seekers need to develop the discriminative power to find it wanting, and to look beyond.

26

Posted by Bill on June 07, 2008, 03:37 AM | #

Thanks GW - I’ll bookmark that.

This not the first time I’ve encountered this theme, I really do think there’s something going down - it’s pure science fiction, talk about the ‘Invasion of the Body Snatchers.’

27

Posted by Guessedworker on June 07, 2008, 05:03 AM | #

Bill,

Body-snatching, yes.  Henry is quite correct with his take on this.  He is a Canadian academic, so he probably knows that the centre of excellence in really cutting-edge Canadian body-snatching is ctheory.  Well worth a bit of investigation if you want to know how this stuff is intellectualised.

28

Posted by Bill on December 16, 2008, 05:09 AM | #

Holland and the limits of tolerance

I feel I should make a comment but I think this says it all.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/3778356/Holland-and-the-limits-of-tolerance.html

29

Posted by Anonymous on April 15, 2013, 03:47 PM | #

The greatest societies have collapsed due to Liberalism…Rome, Greece, Canaanites, etc.  You name it!  It was them.  I have personally know a few liberals.  All the ones I know have NO moral compass!  These are the same people who preach “Premarital sex is good, abstinence is bad”.  LOL And then they wonder why homosexuals have such a high risk in getting STDs.  Liberals think the laws of nature & the laws of reason doesn’t apply to them, & that is ultimately why they fail.  I personally can’t stand how the liberal hypocrites equate a sexual devious behavior, such as homosexuality, with skin color.  It’s just another damn excuse to justify their perversions.  They can’t handle the truth.  I’m AGAINST homosexuality & i’m not afraid to admit it.  It’s DISGUSTING!  I don’t care if they are “born that way” their lifestyle spreads sexually transmitted diseases!  Everytime a Liberal mentions “diversity” &/or “tolerance” they really mean PERVERSION.

And when it comes towards abortion…Liberals are WORST (and by “worst” I mean they are the most vile & hateful).  You disagree with them on abortion & you are automatically called a “misogynist”.  They don’t understand we are standing for the God-given rights of that CHILD.  Abortion is murder.  Plain & simple.  When a liberals call you out on “hate speech”, it’s because they disagree with you.  They don’t think rationally.  I think they are very confused individuals.

But I do enjoy trolling them LOL.

 

Post a Comment:

Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Smileys

You must prefix http://anonym.to/? to gnxp.com links...
e.g., http://anonym.to/?http://www.gnxp.com/...

Copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting
it just in case the software loses it because the session time has been exceeded.

Remember my personal information

Next entry: MSM Racial Skullduggery IV: What Is and Isn’t News

Previous entry: The British government protects Muslim killers of its own troops

image of the day

Existential Issues

White Genocide Project

Of note

Majority Radio

Recent Comments

Also see trash folder.

Thorn commented in entry 'Forty-five years of thought-free liberal-left emotionalism on race and immigration' on 04/24/14, 07:52 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Forty-five years of thought-free liberal-left emotionalism on race and immigration' on 04/24/14, 06:17 AM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Forty-five years of thought-free liberal-left emotionalism on race and immigration' on 04/24/14, 06:08 AM. (go) (view)

Leon Haller commented in entry 'Forty-five years of thought-free liberal-left emotionalism on race and immigration' on 04/24/14, 04:23 AM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/24/14, 03:01 AM. (go) (view)

Bill commented in entry 'Forty-five years of thought-free liberal-left emotionalism on race and immigration' on 04/24/14, 02:47 AM. (go) (view)

Trainspotter commented in entry 'Forty-five years of thought-free liberal-left emotionalism on race and immigration' on 04/23/14, 05:01 PM. (go) (view)

Tyler commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/23/14, 04:46 PM. (go) (view)

SunShine commented in entry 'The Cubans of Miami' on 04/22/14, 11:02 PM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/22/14, 06:18 PM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/22/14, 06:12 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/22/14, 05:43 PM. (go) (view)

Desmond Jones commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/22/14, 04:26 PM. (go) (view)

Bill commented in entry 'Elitism, secrecy, deception … the way to save white America?' on 04/22/14, 03:45 PM. (go) (view)

Tyler commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/22/14, 02:53 PM. (go) (view)

Carolus commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/22/14, 02:07 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/22/14, 02:00 PM. (go) (view)

Thorn commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/22/14, 12:32 PM. (go) (view)

Graham_Lister commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/22/14, 09:58 AM. (go) (view)

Leon Haller commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/22/14, 08:04 AM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/22/14, 04:08 AM. (go) (view)

Carolus commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/21/14, 08:44 PM. (go) (view)

Lurker commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/21/14, 08:36 PM. (go) (view)

Arch Hades commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/21/14, 08:12 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/21/14, 07:56 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/21/14, 07:38 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/21/14, 07:14 PM. (go) (view)

Simo Häyhä commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/21/14, 06:28 PM. (go) (view)

Simo Häyhä commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/21/14, 06:23 PM. (go) (view)

Septimius Severus commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/21/14, 06:02 PM. (go) (view)

Tyler commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/21/14, 05:53 PM. (go) (view)

Goybbels commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/21/14, 05:44 PM. (go) (view)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/21/14, 04:59 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/21/14, 04:39 PM. (go) (view)

DanielS commented in entry 'Majority Rights: For Those Who Will See The Obvious..' on 04/21/14, 04:11 PM. (go) (view)

General News

Science News

All Categories

The Writers

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Anti-White Media

Audio/Video

Controlled Opposition

Crime

General

Immigration

Islam

Jews

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Whites in Africa

affection-tone