Hierarchy, Tradition and Sexually Abusing Inferiors
Posted on: 12/08/2017 04:58 PM

by John Young

Whenever someone acts with a degree of license that is beyond his merit, there is risk for disaster.

People are not equal. Although all should be given the same standards of justice – the presumption of innocence, to be faced with their accusers and so forth – the idea that people are equal is preposterous on its face.

Our laws reflect this when it comes to matters of immediately pressing safety. For example, we don’t allow just anyone to fly a jet liner. Instead, such a task is reserved to people who are licensed after being sufficiently tested. The same applies to practicing medicine, and in many states, to carrying a concealed firearm. It is understood that letting a troubled 14 year old who can’t read perform heart surgery is unlikely to end well.

Our traditions have long drawn lines of hierarchy, whether it was the tradition of monarchy and aristocracy, or the legends of Heimdall founding the three classes of our folk – the nobles, the freemen and the serfs. It has long been understood that some men are wiser than others and have better character than others. Such men were referenced by Thomas Jefferson as our “natural aristocracy.” Our natural aristocracy is not one of money, but one of noble character.

Traditionally, rather than wealth granting someone status, it was the status of nobility that granted wealth. Thusly the role of bankers and merchants – though they might indeed gain wealth – was subservient to that of the nobility, and the purpose of the nobility was to safeguard the heart and soul of the nation.

To that end, when our Republic was founded, only the House of Representatives was elected. The Senators were appointed by their respective States to safeguard their interests. The President was elected by electors – intended to be wise men – appointed by their States. And the Supreme Court was appointed by the President, the the consent of Senators appointed to safeguard the States. And even though only the House of Representatives was popularly elected, the States set the conditions for the privilege of voting such that it was limited to men who had demonstrated enough prudence to own property, and thus have a stake in the system. Indentured servants – overwhelmingly white people – were specifically excluded from voting in the Constitution.

It is not unusual for the words in our nation’s founding documents to be misunderstood or taken out of context. It is quite clear that this nation was not only founded as an explicitly European-American nation, as spelled out in our very first immigration laws, but also reflected a hierarchy wherein political power was tied to merit.

And it can be seen to this very day that we recognize the importance of hierarchy. Certain things are licensed privileges that depend upon a persons track-record of good character – such as carrying a weapon. Other things depend upon the person’s demonstrable mastery of skill, such as being a licensed electrician.

Consider this then: it is legal for person A to fly an airplane, but not legal for person B. The same applies to myriad activities. Hierarchy is necessary because it preserves life. Anybody who opposes this concept can feel free to be the first in line to have a three year old do brain surgery on them. Whenever someone acts with a degree of license that is beyond his merit, there is risk for disaster.

As you have no doubt noticed, the obsession of our culture with a misunderstanding of equality has created considerable confusion in this regard, and that confusion has been aided by a near-universal franchise that allows a cretin to cancel out the vote of a polymath. Those who aim to destroy our culture, this force of entropy, the Apostles of Epic Evil, know this full well. We now live in a social milieu where people who couldn’t even pass algebra feel free to pass judgments on what is, or is not, good science. Thus we have morbid obesity declared healthy, while the basic sexual hygiene of monogamy is scorned by those with low impulse control.

And that brings me to the crux of what I am discussing today: traditional rules pertaining to sex, and how they relate to the recent scandals.

The traditional rules pertaining to sex co-evolved with our people over thousands of years to compensate for our weaknesses, boost our strengths and most importantly support our civilization.

Boasian anthropologists – heavily influenced by Marxist ideology – have long gushed over the “free love,” matriarchal systems, gender equality and similar situations they found in primitive peoples, and used those observations to create theories that such circumstances are a natural state for humanity that is only perverted by “cis-het white males” as an avenue to power.

But they consistently failed to notice that in every single case, societies on any continent that progressed sufficiently to develop writing had very different sexual practices. In fact, all advanced civilizations, by any race that developed them, had in common a system of rules which would be termed “patriarchy” today.

It can be said that civilization itself is built upon rules for regulating behavior. We all understand that we have natural animalistic tendencies to kill an idiot who cuts us off in traffic, but we also understand that tendencies which may have been perfectly fine in the open savanna 200,000 years ago are incompatible with civilization. Boasian anthropologists – today mainly known as cultural anthropologists – have long excused behavior that is unacceptable in civilization and incompatible with civilization on the basis that it is somehow “natural.”

Newsflash: civilization is a social construct which depends upon people regulating their animal tendencies. That is why those who refuse such regulation are called savages – and they are far from noble.

The impact of some civilizational rules is immediately obvious. For example, if there is no concept of personal property beyond what you wear, you aren’t going to work very hard to create a surplus. And this is the situation that prevailed among American Indians in North America who were largely hunter-gatherers.

The connection between traditions regulating sexual behavior and civilization is not as obvious, but it makes perfect sense once you understand it.

A few years ago, Plenty of Fish, a popular dating site, did a poll and discovered that while men consider 50% of women to be
below median, women consider 80% of men to be below median. Let that sink in a moment.

Now, while at first blush societies that allow men to take many wives might seem patriarchal, in reality these societies reflect the preferences of women. And such societies are only beneficial for a very small percentage of men, with most of the others used as slaves, castrated as eunuchs or sent to die in wars in order to keep the society stable. Such societies stagnated in their development long ago.

The innovation in both the Asian and European cultures that allowed for their rapid and advanced development was monogamy. Monogamy is absolute brilliance in that it means most men have a realistic chance of having a wife and children. And if they have children they know to be theirs, they have a tremendous stake in the future. And that stake in the future will lead them to work themselves to death to build for a tomorrow only their grandchildren will see.

In such societies, it was not unusual for those at the very top of the hierarchy – a very tiny percentage of the population – to have multiple partners, although that was usually something kept quiet from the general public.

Rules of monogamy typically discouraged sex outside of marriage – and as a result there were very very few children born into a community who would be a drain on its members. Rules of monogamy also discouraged divorce except in the most extreme of situations. Because of this, sexually transmitted diseases tended to be quite rare because two virgins who marry and who never stray cannot contract an STD.

Traditional rules pertaining to sex also forced homosexual practices into the closet, as well as providing socially approved outlets for people whose practices had to be constrained to keep the community safe, such as cloistered monasteries. In this way they could still live a productive life without the grooming of children or spreading of diseases. The recent decision by the State of California that makes it legal to donate HIV-infected blood places even innocent children at risk, and is a direct result of seeing clearly unequal practices as equal.

We need look no further than our inner cities to see the results of unregulated sexual practices. These have created a community where sometimes one man fathers children with unbelievable numbers of women, the children cannot be supported and require subsidy to survive, and they grow up without proper parental role models resulting in poorer educational outcomes, greater criminal involvement and generally worse outcomes than would otherwise be expected, even taking into account racial differences. We see the same issue among the 30% of white kids being born out of wedlock as well, albeit to a lesser degree.

Cultural Marxists have done significant damage to our traditions of sexual propriety, marriage and family. Some of this damage can be seen in the environment of uncertainty surrounding the concept of “consent” seen on college campuses, because with a lack of any other standards whatsoever, the only thing they can use to establish right and wrong is the concept of consent.

At one time, consent was a non-issue. If a man and woman married, they could and would have sex. End of story. If they were not married to each other, they either did not have sex, or they were married shortly thereafter so the timing of the birth of the baby would not be suspicious. Under Frisian law, if a woman was raped, the penalty for the criminal was the same as if she had been killed – and those penalties varied according to the virginity, motherhood and class of the woman.

Interactions between men and women were strictly regulated as well. Because an unmarried woman’s virginity was valued highly, any time she spent in the company of men was chaperoned so that her status could never be questioned. If she was married, any man who touched her stood the risk of being challenged to a duel by her husband – resulting in maiming or death.

Rules varied to some degree in terms of caste, because people of higher caste were expected to be able to self-regulate, and this is an important point.

Those able to self-regulate, an aspect of their character demonstrated progressively and historically and an expectation of their class, were not subjected to the same rules of oversight, though you might recall that before Princess Diana could marry, she first had to be certified a virgin by the royal physician.

I am certainly not advocating a return to such strict standards, but I am pointing out that at one time, before sexual revolutions and Cultural Marxism, there were very very clearly delineated rules for conduct so that everyone understood their limits. Furthermore, the rules that pertained to people were based upon reasonable expectations of their intelligence and character. And with this demonstrable character came power.

Today, with all the traditional rules gone, we are faced with perplexing issues we have never faced before as a civilization. For example, if a man and a woman are both falling-down drunk and they have sex, could the man give consent? Could the woman give consent? Neither? Both? It is a drama of confusion playing out on college campuses innumerable times every month, and in which a young woman, perhaps regretting her decision, sincerely believes she was raped. But we can’t confront that situation impartially without at least considering the young man might also have been raped.

It is an impenetrable minefield in which the definition and scope of rape keeps getting expanded to sometimes even include being gazed upon in an unwelcome way. And the definition and conditions of consent become a moving target to such an extent that some believe it is even possible to withdraw consent after it was given, turning a consensual act into a felony after the fact. Even within marriage, laws have been changed such that consent cannot be assumed.

The workplace has also become a minefield of risk where the definition of what, exactly, constitutes “harassment” depends upon the accuser’s feelings rather than objectively defined behaviors. It can range all the way from a glance to full-out “sex me or you lose your job” behavior. Given that 50% of all marriages start in the workplace because that is where most people spend most of their waking hours, the ambiguity creates situations fraught with risk and peril. Nearly every man in America walks out of his mandatory annual sexual harassment training feeling less than positively about women.

Into this sort of confusing situation, add people in media and politics who are often earning millions of dollars based more on their connections than their skills, and whose caste position is conferred by wealth and pull rather than meritorious character. Then, add an element of opaqueness because media constitutes a closed society and you have a mixture with inevitable outcomes.

Let’s be clear – being a talking head political or news commentator, once you get used to being in front of a camera, doesn’t take the sort of intellect necessary to be a scientist or a captain of industry. Quite often these media personalities demonstrate an unawareness of basic American history, the structure of our government, the basic tenets of our constitution and even metaphysical reality. These are not jobs that only a select few are capable of performing. Rather, they are jobs typically awarded to people of practiced glibness on the basis of loyalty to the party line, ethnic nepotism, pull and connections etc.

But someone awarded such a position is almost instantly in the top 0.1% of income, surrounded by sycophants and starry-eyed aspiring journalists and more. Again, with almost no attention paid to their personal character and track record – only their adherence to party line matters.

So here we have people in a position that, a few hundred years ago would have been the highest levels of aristocracy, and occupied by people of impeccable moral character. Today that position is occupied by people whose character … well, you see it.

You see them thoughtlessly pawing, groping and salivating over women who, in sane times, could have relied on men in a superior social position as their protectors. Even if these women desperately desired sex with the men, those men would have protected the women from themselves. It was their personal duty, and the duty of their class and position.

Our natural aristocracy protects those beneath them in the social order, even from themselves and serves as an example to uplift them, rather than helping them debase themselves.

What we are observing is a natural and predictable outcome of inverting the nature of hierarchy from one based on meritorious character to one based on money and pull combined with the gutting of traditional sexual mores that are a precondition for civilization. Let me re-state: Whenever someone acts with a degree of license that is beyond his merit, there is risk for disaster.

None of this is an accident, and the fact that the Apostles of Epic Evil have managed to get trapped in their own web is certainly just. But that same web ensnares us as well, and it is our job to work to reestablish a sane society and suitable moral standards because the single largest impact on our impending genocide lies in our own sexual behavior and priorities.

Printed from Western Voices World News (http://www.wvwnews.net/content/index.php?/news_story/hierarchytradition_and_sexually_abusing_inferiors.html)