I recently discovered that a fellow I went to high school with (whom I did not like much at the time) has, in recent years, become some sort of cross-dressing homosexual freak who runs a website mostly dedicated to what I am given to understand is a form of written Asian pedophilic pornography which centers on cartoon characters who are underage boys. To put it more briefly: he’s a freak, a weirdo, a pervert, a deviant, etc. We should not be afraid of the aforementioned words: we need them to describe the sort of dangerous lunatics who our society seems determined to embrace as the new face of normality.

The First Commandment of our popular culture is as follows, “Thou shalt be tolerant.” This is something that has been pushed to abhorrent extremes. This new credo holds that you have no right to object to (or judge) any practice that does not directly impact yourself. It holds the consent of the individuals involved as the only applicable standard. In arguments with myself people have used this logic to defend the German cannibal Armin Meiwes: his victim agreed to be butchered and eaten, so what possible right do I have to make an objection of my own?

A deliberate effort has been made to blur the lines between morality and Puritanism. The big lie about modern Christianity is that it is harsh and unforgiving, that it demands absolute perfection from its followers. That is why the left shows so much joy at the moral failings of people like Rush Limbaugh and Bill Bennett. That Limbaugh once popped pills (or that Bennett gambled) is taken as evidence of hypocrisy. After all, by their actions, both have shown themselves to be less than perfect.

This is a deliberate distortion of the message of both modern Christianity and modern conservatism: they do not seek perfection; they wish to strive towards perfection. No human can live a morally perfect life. Everyone with common sense understands this fact. What is demanded then, is nothing more than effort: for an individual to work towards better living.

By this device, the cultural left seeks to shame those who speak out against any vice. How can Bill Bennett speak out against adultery when he gambles? How can Rush Limbaugh speak out against gay marriage when he abused prescription pain killers? It isn’t an argument that’s meant to make any sense: the whole point of Bennett’s and Limbaugh’s problems ought to be that they sought to overcome them, not that they had them. Humanity is in the striving. By liberal logic, Rush ought to have simply declared that there was nothing wrong with his pill popping and appealed for special laws to protect his “people”. By liberal logic, no conservative is fit to judge anything or anyone because all conservatives are, due to their individual moral failings, hypocrites. Thankfully, liberals manage to avoid this horrific fate by the useful expedient of have no moral sensibility whatsoever.

Cultural liberals work from an overly optimistic estimate of human nature. They see the rules and strictures of civilization as oppressive, nothing more than the arcane dictates of dead (and stupid) white men who invented them as a means of dealing with their own psychological demons. It is perfectly clear to me that the proponents of the modern sexual revolution regard all limits (either formal or informal) on sexual practices as inherently irrational and contemptible. The cultural demands of the gay rights lobby (and other advocates of deviancy) are like those of Hitler in the 1930’s. The repeal of laws against gay sex was presented as their “final demand”, then it was the passage of “anti-discrimination” laws which, eventually, became “hate crimes” laws. Now they claim that “gay marriage” is their final demand on the road to equality. Nonsense. Gay marriage is their Sudetenland: a year after they finally get it, they’ll be back for more.

Rules, cultural norms, and laws may “restrict freedom”, they may be “oppressive”, but they are also the essence of civilization. Now, these rules can be for good or for ill: but they are necessary in some form. Absent the rules of a civilization, no large-scale society is possible. Without moral rules, the only co-existence that is possible is that which occurs as a result of familial bonds.

What are we without rules, both formal and informal? Is it not true that, in the absence of such restraint, we are little more than particularly clever animals? It would certainly appear that way to me.

Let us drift back to where we began, namely the question of homosexuality. Recent studies have established that homosexual behavior is quite common in the animal kingdom. It is also quite common in many parts of the world and, quite certainly, was common in the Ancient world (for example, Greece). Pederasty was (and is) quite common as well. Yet, until very recently, the advanced nations of the world have come to view homosexuality with increasing harshness.

What does this tell us? Does it not seem to suggest that, in fact, banning (or restricting) homosexuality goes hand in hand with civilization? Civilization is based, in large measure, upon the subordination of impulses to the greater good. Left entirely free to conduct their own sexual affairs, without fear of formal or informal sanction, a great many people would do little more than was necessary to give themselves as much free time for sex as possible.

Cultural liberals often speak lovingly of the sensual nature of many foreign cultures, which had relaxed sexual attitudes. I notice one other common factor shared by most foreign cultures: they were eventually conquered by “puritanical”, Christian, Westerners.

Take a look at the North American Indians so admired by the left. They lived in cultures that many of our liberal friends seem to look upon as ideal: (ostensibly) environmentally-friendly, (allegedly) peaceful, relaxed, mystical and (supposedly) tolerant. The thing I notice most of all about those folks is this: they lived on the richest land in the world for thousands upon thousands of years, and they never developed much beyond the Stone Age. In the end, they were forcibly displaced by culturally-superior Westerners.

At the core of Western (and Christian) culture is the sublimation of impulse. The entire point of Christian sexual values is to redirect people’s energy into other endeavours. The restrictions that people are trying to do away with are, in fact, central to civilization itself.

The cultural left fails to understand this point. They believe that all of our rules are mere superstitions. They distrust them because they are religiously-based. What they miss is that, in creating a sort of social anarchy where anything goes, they threaten to cause immense damage to a civilization whose power and prosperity is the only thing that allows them to indulge themselves as they presently do.