Monogamists don’t think they’re “morally superior,” Tom Gualtieri. They, like everyone, have desires of the flesh. Monogamy is just better, period. For 2,000 years the success of the Christian West has been sustained by male-female monogamous marriage.

Gualtieri writes at The Weeklings:

Monogamy is not the only successful relationship choice. Opponents cite failed open relationships as proof that monogamy is the right choice, forgetting how many monogamous relationships also fail.

Seeing as how the future depends on perpetuating our values in children, monogamy is better because no other marital arrangement provides a proper, stable foundation for developing moral human beings, capable of becoming productive citizens and channeling their desires of the flesh into marriage and children.

More from the reactionary Gualtieri:

Your view of your own moral superiority is not going to make someone else’s relationship better or worse, but your judgment does degrade society and the advances we have made in civil rights. Sure, you, like Rick Santorum and She Who Must Not Be Named have a right to an opinion, no matter how ill-informed, but what the small-minded lack is the ability to recognize that their opinion can’t translate into policy when that policy means the casual subjugation of others. My moral compass points only to this: is your choice harmless to others, and does it make you happy? If so, my opinion about it would just be a cock-and-bull story about why I’m morally superior. In other words: I’m not.

Interesting how the apostles of the Left deploy this libertarian refrain on social issues, yet they cry out “no man is an island” when peddling top-down economic centralization, in which fascist or Soviet-style planning “casually subjugates” everyone.

Don’t mistake this seeming inconsistency for irony. The destroyers’ philosophy is dominated by contempt for morality, family, property—in short, the natural order of the universe. They are beholden to neither big government nor small government, but to the atomic individual, the sacrosanct sinner, defining his own rules of existence. Little invested in an eternal afterlife in Heaven, they are obsessed with empowering themselves against the worldly, elemental forces of civilization. In some cases, they preach liberation (i.e., from an ancient moral code). In other cases, they preach centralization (to inflict their utopian vision on others).

Eventually their pursuit of selfish, unfettered power will come back to haunt them, as their nihilism lends credence to their own subjugation by some nonideological, totalitarian leader, a la Stalin or Hitler, both of whom rose to power on the backs of hapless socialists.

On a side note, marriage redefinitionists say they reject polygamy, yet time after time we see morally indifferent arguments from the Left sanctioning polyamory and by extension polygamy. We are alert to their game—not that there’s anything we can do about it. We are tied to the train tracks, and the train of relativism can’t be slowed.



6 thoughts on “Subjugation

  1. Ah yes – 2000 years of harems, polygamy, non-Judeo-Christian reality vs. American conservative morality (which involves a lot of invented generalizations on totally unrealistic terms, combined with assumptions about how another person thinks on other issues.)

    Posted by Tom Gualtieri | December 2, 2013, 4:21 pm
  2. Hi, Tom. I didn’t ascribe to you any views other than the relativism you endorse on the topic of monogamy. I then used it to segue into a broader declaration on the philosophy of the Left, the exactness of which is not precise, and even if it were, you’d find few adherents to it. That’s why generalizations are indeed so helpful.

    As for harems, polygamy, and all that, sin has troubled all peoples, always. It’s been shown that much instability throughout world history was caused indirectly by alpha males taking many wives, leaving a burgeoning population of lonely men with not much else to do but drink and wage war against each other.

    Thanks for your comment. I like it when writers respond to my critiques of their work.

    Posted by Joseph Dooley | December 2, 2013, 6:06 pm
    • A critiques of my work would be fascinating except that you haven’t critiqued; you’ve analyzed a vague idea about some part of the population based on anecdotal evidence. Your response is all reductio ad absurdum, moral absolutes and judgment. The big question is, how does one arrive at your theory of “selfish, unfettered power” from the question: “is your choice harmless to others, and does it make you happy?” *headdesk*

      Posted by Tom Gualtieri | December 2, 2013, 7:36 pm
  3. Hi, Tom. I won’t get into a semantics game, but I’ll answer your question. It’s simple. “Is your choice harmless to others, and does it make you happy” is a weak, selfish moral compass, when you consider that human nature is irrevocably flawed and sinful. Yours is a moral compass that atomizes the individual, directs him unto himself, and places moral authorship and final authority in him. Where it becomes unfettered is when one follows that inner-directedness to its logical conclusion and imposes himself on others.

    Posted by Joseph Dooley | December 2, 2013, 8:10 pm
  4. The question should NOT be: Is your choice harmless to others, and does it make you happy! It ought to be: Is your choice the most helpful one for others, especially for the generations that follow you, and does it help you to overcome selfishness? Wickedness never was happiness! Selfishness never was happiness! Happiness comes from serving the interests of others, especially one’s own offspring. I know this. My eleven children are responsible adults, citizens, and parents.

    Posted by Linus | December 2, 2013, 10:57 pm


  1. Pingback: “MYOB” ethics | - December 9, 2013

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by sword. The other is by debt." -John Adams 1826


Red Pill Report is a labor of love for the many contributors who post here. They share their thoughts and talents with us because, like you, they love this great Country and hope to contribute in some small way to returning America to the principles on which it was founded. How can you help? Please share our articles with friends and family. Share buttons for Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest, and Email are found at the bottom of each article. Our writers also love your comments, so please share your thoughts with us, when you can. We appreciate our readers, and would love to have more! Thank you!



%d bloggers like this: