On the Moralism of our People

Hereward Lindsay

March 19, 2008

This subject of the fall of Eliot Spitzer raises the opportunity to discuss a very important matter in more general terms: the moralism of white people.

This is a profound weakness of our people — their susceptibility to morality fits.

All have sinned and come short of the glory of God as the Catechism says.

No sensible person puts the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval on adultery and sexual misconduct.

However, an honest person has to concede that while there may be some overlap between marital fidelity and qualification for public office, even a casual reading of history shows that there isn't a whole lot of overlap.

Henry IV (Henry of Navarre) had a whole harem of mistresses and a stable of bastard children. But he was an effective King of France, ending at least for a couple of generations the catastrophic religious civil wars between the Huguenots and the Roman Catholics and providing France with the first stable and reasonably effective government it had enjoyed for a long time.

Robespierre's sex life is markedly more admirable than that of Henry of Navarre. From all appearances he was a virgin when he married and never slept with anyone other than his wife his entire life. He deserved his nickname of "L'incorruptible" ("the Incorruptible"). Unfortunately, in terms of his public life, he was a catastrophe, running the Reign of Terror and exterminating much of France's best blood at the guillotine and in less well known mass murders such as "Les Noyades"  in which the Jacobins would pack old, leaky boats to the gills with men, women and children and then sink them in mass drownings.

So of the two — the flagrant adulterer Henry IV or the sexually irreproachable Robespierre — whom would we prefer rule over us?

Rational people would have no difficulty choosing.

Unfortunately, Anglo-Saxons are not rational on this point.

(Europeans find our periodic explosions of indignation over the discovery that some man in public life has had a mistress incomprehensible.)

Most of our people don't seem to understand what an election is about.

They seem to think that elections ought to be primarily referenda approving or disapproving the candidates' sex lives.

The idea seems to be that we vote for people to pick out the kind of guy we would want our daughters or sisters to marry. Elections therefore are seen as a kind of plebiscite on whom you would prefer for your son-in-law.

It's strange that we Anglo-Saxons seem to engage in this kind of hyper-moralistic thinking only when choosing our rulers.

When the pipes break in a freeze on New Year's Day, does anyone inquire as to whether his plumber has ever had an affair? Doesn't everyone recognize that the only issue when your house is being flooded is whether the plumber can get the job done?

I have broached this kind of argument with my very moral and religious relatives. They gave a superficially intelligent reply that they choose public officials as moral exemplars for their children and that if immoral men are allowed to hold office, this will destroy the sanctity of the family.

Maybe so ... to a very small degree. And whoever got the idea that you look to government officials for morality lessons? Doesn't any reasonably intelligent person understand that government unavoidably is a pretty corrupt business? How have my religious relatives replaced "Put not your trust in princes" with "We look to politicians to set the standard of what you should do in your private life?"

The natural inclination of Anglo-Saxons to engage in morality fits is reinforced by two other factors in our society:

1. The fact that women are especially — and understandably — focused on their immediate domestic safety and security and are particularly upset by a man's adulterous behavior. Since women vote — and vote in even larger numbers than men — this gives scandals like Spitzer's an even bigger role in public events.

2. Universal suffrage has enfranchised huge numbers of people who cannot possibly fathom real issues.

As Emperor Franz Josef so accurately pointed out, "The problem with democracy is that it requires extraordinary things from ordinary people." He did not mean this in the gooey sense that most Americans would interpret these words. It is a literal expression of truth. You cannot expect a 3-year-old to press 100 pounds. It is cruel and insane to ask that he even try to do so. Likewise, it is simply a fantasy — as well as the ploy of sociopaths — that every two-legged mammal over 18 years of age can listen intelligently to discussion about and comprehend issues such as free trade, the trade imbalance, the deficit, race and IQ differences, environmental degradation, Middle East foreign policy, and so on. Most people just can't do this.

But everybody can have an articulable opinion on whether Bubba had an affair with Betty Jo. This was one of the reasons behind the joy with which the Republicans took up the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

At last! Something all the voters could understand! Everybody in the laundromat could express an opinion on whether or not Bill got oral sex from Monica.

So, unavoidably public debate in a universal suffrage democracy spins off into a kind of Oprah Winfrey show program along the typical Oprah line of "Women whose fiancés eloped with the dog."

Our enemies can play us like a violin by exploiting our natural Anglo-Saxon desire to engage in morality fits.

Years ago two sex scandals broke into the news involving two very different congressmen.

A Republican named Dan Crane was revealed to have had sex with a 17-year-old female page. Crane was one of the most conservative members of the House of Representatives.

A New York Democrat named Gerry Studds (ironically enough) was revealed to have had sex with a 16 year old male page.

The Republican was ruined and removed from office.

The Democrats in Studds' significantly Jewish constituency easily reelected him to Congress. They didn't give a damn that he was homosexual and buggering teenagers and would have cared even less than that about a scandal like Crane's. All they cared about was how their Congressmen voted.

If Bill Clinton had been a Republican, he would have been out of office in 48 hours.

I once met a very famous English author. He was one of the Angry Young Men who were all the talk in the 1950s. He also was quite sympathetic to our views. For obvious reasons, I am not mentioning his name.

He was the first person I ever met who spoke sensibly about the English (and Anglo-American) susceptibility to being distracted by morality scandals instead of focusing on significant issues of government policy.

He talked about the famous Profumo Affair in which one of the ministers in the British government was revealed to have slept with a prostitute named Christine Keeler. (An exceptionally good movie called "Scandal" was made about this famous incident.

The English author reviewed the facts of this story with which I was already largely familiar from the beginnings of the involvement with Keeler down through Profumo's resignation.

He related how Profumo tried to hang on by foolishly trying to deny that he had had sex with Keeler.

When questions were raised in Parliament, Profumo rose to answer the allegations.

Like Clinton, Profumo said he had never had sex with that woman.

The English author then told me what would have happened in any sane (i.e. non-Anglo-Saxon, non-universal-suffrage-democracy) society.

"Profumo would have risen to his feet and told Parliament, 'I have been accused of having sex with Miss Christine Keeler. The time has come for me to answer these allegations.' All the members of Parliament would be on the edge of their chairs waiting to hear what Profumo had to say. Profumo would then conclude, 'Yes, I slept with her. And she was a damned good lay!'"

Obviously, I have written some of the above rather tongue-in-cheek.

I do not approve of adultery, prostitution, sexual misconduct.

Also, it must be conceded at once that there are frequently important matters of state involved in such affairs — especially in hyper-moralistic societies like our own where someone like Profumo, Spitzer or Clinton can be blackmailed and there exists a real chance that women like Keeler and Lewinkski could be working for foreign intelligence agencies. (Keeler was simultaneously bedding the top Soviet intelligence officer while she was having encounters with Profumo. The potential Mossad connection of someone like Lewinski is obvious.)

Too, since the reality is that our people are susceptible to being selectively manipulated on moral issues as in the Crane/Studds episode mentioned above, it behooves any politician who is on our side to make especial efforts to keep his zipper up and fastened.

It is something he owes us as his followers not to squander our investment in his career by a careless fling with a whore.

But it's clear that a frank discussion of the matter of sexual morality in office holders involving the general public is just not practicable at this time in our democratic society.

However, we at least must understand just how unproductive morality fits are and how con artists — of many sorts, not merely our people's Jewish handlers but all kinds of people including many in our own ranks — use such issues as red herrings to get the hounds distracted from dealing with real problems.

As I said to my shocked hyper-religious Presbyterian relatives during the Lewinsky scandal, "If Bill Clinton would do what we need done in the way of closing the borders, deporting the aliens, halting school integration and school busing and so on, I wouldn't care if he copulated with goats on the White House lawn."

You can see why my relatives frequently tell me that they are praying for me!

The permanent link for this article is Lindsay-Morality.