Oddly enough, it was in American Renaissance‘s news section that I picked up on the story about the “professor” at Northwestern University who arranged for his students to witness a live, disgusting sex act as an extra activity for his “human sexuality” “class.” AmRen is mainly concerned with issues of immigration and race, not sexual morality, and the article was linked only with the ironic complaint that, in contrast to this appalling occurrence, “a talk about race and immigration would probably be shut down.” And yet, there is common thread of degeneracy in American society linking this unfathomable abuse of the educational mission with the indiscriminate immigration (actually, immigration actively discriminating against the traditional American nation) that AmRen so rightly and valiantly opposes.
One of the most disturbing things about incidents like this one is the relative absence of firm condemnations, either from the authorities whose charge it is to prevent such things from happening, or from the public. The authority figure in this case was university president Morton Shapiro, who, after stating that he was “troubled” and “disappointed” by the event, said that
I feel it represented extremely poor judgment on the part of our faculty member. I simply do not believe this was appropriate, necessary or in keeping with Northwestern University’s academic mission.
Meanwhile, there were a number of very strong condemnations of the perverted professor from the “public,” that is, alumni, students, and Internet passers-by who commented on news stories about the incident. However, there were also quite a few who either supported Bailey outright or insisted that whatever one felt about his actions personally, as long as students were informed about what was going to happen and no one was coerced in any way, then “academic freedom” demanded that he be permitted to run his class however he wanted. This was the view put forth by student editors of the campus newspaper. Students on a TV story expressed a studied, cool indifference to the whole issue – in effect, “It may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but hey, this is the 21st century, and who is anyone to condemn anything that takes place between consenting adults. Aren’t there more important things to worry about, like war, racism, and global warming?” Even Shapiro failed to issue a genuine condemnation of the act, resorting to the “poor judgment” cop-out that is otherwise so often applied when a nonwhite member of our society commits an appalling, evil crime.
I am not even very impressed with the responses given by writers for the National Review, here and here. One writer gives Bailey far too much of a pass for his allegedly excellent “research” of the past, while the other condemns him firmly, but for incoherent reasons, such as that the sex demo was degrading to women.
My friends, we are in deep, deep trouble. A majority of Americans, at all levels, apparently do not understand traditional sexual morality. In particular, it seems that many people under 30 lack even a vague instinctive sense of what is right and what is wrong sexually.
Sex is inherently connected to baby-making and family formation. If we want to live in a society with healthy families – with families at all – and with healthy, happy babies and children, we have to impose standards and restrictions on people’s sexual behavior. Who has sex, when, how, and with whom – these things are not simply matters of private choice, for all sex has serious consequences, and every variant of sexual activity has its typical and distinctive consequences. Further, to attain the aforesaid type of society – namely, a society composed of families formed from monogamous heterosexual unions – there needs to be a general expectation that normal adults should, to fulfill one of their basic obligations in society, get (heterosexually!) married in due time and form and support their families.
This expectation is still the norm in much of the world, even if the form it takes in many places would not be satisfactory to Westerners. Despite the ravages of Communism and the imposition of the “one-child policy,” for example, most Chinese people are still married by their mid- to late- 20s, and few divorce. It’s just what you’re supposed to do.
Birth control and abortion, by separating the sex act from family formation, obviously work against it, and the emotional consequences of this should be obvious even apart from the horrors of abortion itself. But the same is true of a variety of sexual practices – for example, relationships between members of the same sex.
Does this mean reducing sex to a practical act of fertilization or denying that it should be enjoyed? Of course not, and the traditional/Christian view has never done so, even if there may have been irruptions of “puritanical” pleasure-hatred in certain times and places. Indeed, the highest and most fulfilling expression of the sexual impulse is found within marriage. Nor does it mean that we should go on a campaign to stamp out all sexual behavior that is “nonstandard” or fails to contribute to a larger social good – an impossible task in any case. But what it does mean is that everything is organically connected. It is impossible to place sex within the framework of families, and simultaneously to treat it as a physical sport or emotional drug. Can we all get on the same page and recognize that a person who is fixated on “kinky” practices like exhibitionism or obtaining pleasure through mechanical devices providing inhuman and excessive stimulation is a person who has wholly separated himself or herself from the possibility of fulfilling his or her mature adult role as spouse, parent, and member of the community? And that therefore society should grant no tolerance or approval to such practices? (It is an abuse of language to refer to such a person as someone’s “fiance.”)
If we took such a moral perspective, we would not only be in a position to quickly purge sickos like Bailey from their respected social position, we would also be able to see that the “sex research” itself that he and others conduct does not aim at the benign pursuit of knowledge, but pursues a malevolent and harmful agenda.
Now, on to the task of how to bring about an American or Western renaissance. We have first, literally, to reproduce ourselves, that is, to have babies, and we are not doing an adequate job at present. But simply making babies is not going to save our civilization if the babies don’t themselves grow up into civilized men and women carrying on the legacy of their forbears. For that we need traditional families. This is the issue – and not whether Northwestern University’s image has been damaged or whether Bailey may have made positive contributions of some sort to offset his, to say the least, poor “judgment.”
The day that large numbers of Westerners begin to see this will, I suspect, be close to the day that they start to resist their dispossession, through mass immigration, by foreigners who are indeed making babies, but babies who will grow up, not to become Americans, Germans, Dutch, French, or Australians, but to replace them.