Incest, Witchcraft and Other Forms of ‘Moral Progress,’ Ancient and Modern

Posted on | October 12, 2014 | 39 Comments

Jesse Bering (@JesseBering) proclaimed that legalizing incest between adult siblings is “moral progress” Thursday at Huffington Post and the remarkable thing is that almost nobody noticed. Just another “expert” endorsing our society’s rapid descent into perverse decadence:

“I suppose I take an unpopular view that it’s actually moral progress,” Jesse Bering, who is the author of Perv: The Sexual Deviant In All Of Us, told HuffPost Live’s Josh Zepps. “There are certain caveats that we need to include with our analysis of whether incest is wrong or right, but for me, the biggest point is a matter of harm.”
After Zepps pointed to Elijah and Milo Peters, two Czech-born brothers who have performed in gay adult scenes with each other, Bering noted, “The fact that they’re violating this… taboo notion of your brother or your sister being completely off-limits from a sexual perspective, I think, attracts… a large contingency of the viewing public.”

See, it’s democratic: Because an expert says there is “a large contingency of the viewing public” that wants to watch twin brothers have gay sex with each other, who are we to say no? However, if we put it to a vote, and a majority of people said no, then we’d get a lot of lectures about our hateful bigotry — incestophobia! — until a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court issued its ruling overturning all laws against incest.

Notice that tolerance is a one-way street and it’s always straight downhill? That’s because our decadent elite are doing everything they can to destroy our nation. “Progress” is a highway, paved with good intentions, and its destination is the gates of Hell. Speaking of which, in my earlier mega-post about feminist Andrea Dworkin — who in 1974 said it was “essential” to abolish the incest taboo — I mentioned how Dworkin asserted that 9 million (that’s NINE ZERO ZERO ZERO ZERO ZERO ZERO) witches were killed during three centuries. This “gynocide,” as Dworkin called it, was offered as proof of how the Christian church persecuted innocent women. And, as usual when feminist offer statistics to “prove” their point, Dworkin was totally wrong:

Since witches were women, it’s surely a feminist issue? Popular knowledge of the ‘Burning Times’ owes a lot to our vision of witches as prototype feminists, as the ultimate martyrs to male domination. It was patriarchy gone mad — a time when women were burnt just for being women.
Adding academic fuel to the pyre was the blossoming of witchcraft studies during the second wave of feminism in the sixties and seventies. . . .
Soon angry cries were raised of nine million women killed — a gynocide! . . .
You may be surprised to discover for a start that witches were not burnt in England and around 25% of those executed (in Europe and North America) were male, a figure rising to 70-80% in areas such as Finland and Russia. . . . Most scholars now agree that around 40,000 men and women lost their lives in a period roughly between 1450-1800.

So, 40,000 accused witches were killed, not 9,000,000?

Let me check my calculator.

Andrea Dworkin only exaggerated by a factor of 225-to-1.

A minor math error, compared to calling incest “progress.”

YUCK FACTOR: HuffPo 'expert' @JesseBering calls incest 'moral progress'? http://t.co/cABhaGEuOF #tcot

— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) October 12, 2014

.@talkradio200 Yeah. Legalizing incest, what could possibly go wrong? http://t.co/AcE0ixVSzQ @JesseBering

— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) October 12, 2014

Category: Feminism, Gays

Comments

39 Responses to “Incest, Witchcraft and Other Forms of ‘Moral Progress,’ Ancient and Modern”

M. Thompson
October 12th, 2014 @ 9:38 pm

This is a brave new world, and what strange new creatures dwell in it.
RS
October 12th, 2014 @ 9:48 pm

In truth, the “strange” creatures are those of us with a functioning moral compass.
Josh
October 12th, 2014 @ 9:57 pm

One of the longest posts on a single topic I have ever read that did not seem forced.
Anyone aware of the contradictions within feminism and the left in general with their stated aims and goals compared to those they call allies (Feminists allied with Islamists? REALLY?) can avid the same singular conclusion… That leftism in all of it’s incarnations is inspired and controlled by Lucifer himself, as a great counterweight to the happiness that is a God centered life. (I needn’t remind you of the dedication in Rules for Radicals)
Josh
October 12th, 2014 @ 10:00 pm

Damn, the dangers of inadequate proof reading… ‘Anyone’ should be “No one”, and ‘avid’ should be “avoid”.
MrPaulRevere
October 12th, 2014 @ 10:20 pm

And my mother wonders why I own guns. Lord Almighty, what the hell has happened to this country?
Eidolon
October 12th, 2014 @ 11:56 pm

I’ve been wondering how long incest restrictions can stand for a while, ever since the whole gay marriage thing because a fait accompli. My reasoning is as follows:

1. The only practical thing standing against incestuous marriage, the only thing that can pass all the tests that are now applied to things (you can’t ban things just because a lot of people dislike and/or disapprove of them, for example) is the health risk to the children. I can’t see any other issue that isn’t some form of “it’s really gross and wrong,” which we now know will not be held as a legitimate argument.

2. This is not relevant in the case of gays. Sooner or later some gay couple is going to argue that this is an unreasonable rule because the only non-moral reason standing against it is irrelevant in their case. Why can’t we just let these poor folks marry the person they love!?

3. If that goes through, which it very well may, a brother and sister can argue that they are being treated differently under the law just because of their sex. If two brothers can get married, how can you stop a brother and sister? The only difference is the sex of the people, and you can’t consider that! There are no meaningful differences implied by sex, therefore you can’t make a restriction that applies unevenly based on sex.
DeadMessenger
October 12th, 2014 @ 11:57 pm

@JesseBering: Tell your sister I said hi.
DeadMessenger
October 13th, 2014 @ 12:08 am

1. Mandatory abortions of babies conceived through incestuous relations (heh, “relations”, git it?) This shouldn’t be a problem for the sort of deviants who approve of incestuous “relations” (@JesseBering).

2. “Why can’t we just let these poor folks marry the person they love!?“

You xenophobic bigot! I denounce you! If I want to marry the chimp/octopus/wombat (heh) that I love, I should be able to!

3. “…therefore you can’t make a restriction that applies unevenly based on sex.

Or age, or species, or political party affiliation.
Bob Belvedere
October 13th, 2014 @ 12:28 am

And from the high bench, the Prophet Antonin spoketh:

…State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding. See ante, at 11 (noting “an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex” (emphasis added)). The impossibility of distinguishing homosexuality from other traditional “morals” offenses is precisely why Bowers rejected the rational-basis challenge. “The law,” it said, “is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process Clause, the courts will be very busy indeed.” 478 U.S., at 196.

What a massive disruption of the current social order, therefore, the overruling of Bowers entails….

Lawrence v Texas
Danny
October 13th, 2014 @ 12:49 am

The ironic thing is that this kind of moral breakdown, which progressives champion, is going to usher in the exact kind of brutal, repressive society they fear the most. If anyone has not seen it I suggest watching a lecture given back in the 80s by ex-KGB propagandist Yuri Bezmenov about the steps toward dictatorship. You’d be amazed just how far past the tipping point we are.

http://youtu.be/SZnkULuWFDg

Really a must see.
RKae
October 13th, 2014 @ 2:19 am

Yeah. Funny how when you denounce homosexuality or incest or [fill in the blank], suddenly the left conveniently forgets their favorite questions: “Who are we to say no?” and “Well, whose concept of morality are we going to follow?”

Yup! They’re perfectly fine making sure everyone follows THE LEFT’S concept of morality!
RKae
October 13th, 2014 @ 2:26 am

HuffPo! Damn!

I have AOL (which is HuffPo now), and every other time I sign on I see in their “news” offerings a pic of a nice, normal looking woman and the headline “This woman did something unusual that saved her marriage!” Yeah, the answer is “She let her husband cheat!” Because, you know, this whole “exclusive sex” thing is what makes marriage impossible and old fashioned. They’ve run that story over and over.

Now it’s incest.

They just can’t rest. Knocking down taboos is job one with those assh*les!
robertstacymccain
October 13th, 2014 @ 5:41 am

Antonin Scalia made this point in 2003 in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas.
robertstacymccain
October 13th, 2014 @ 5:43 am

(Note to self: Always read Bob’s comments before commenting.)
John Rose
October 13th, 2014 @ 6:57 am

Not surprising at all. I’ll admit the gay sibling bit is a little weirder than I’d imagined, but frankly with the left’s fetishization of all sexual abnormalities, and their enshrining of abortion as their highest sacrament, what, then stands in their way with regards to incest?

As noted earlier on this thread, the question will immediately be raised: “who are we to say who these loving folk might have sex with, eh?” And, to their mind, what is the possible downside of incest? Inbreeding? Damage to the child? Not a certainty, and even if it WERE, why, there are pre natal tests, and abortion up to the moment of birth, so what possible downside is there to these enlightened sorts?

With ethical powerhouses like Peter Singer in our Ivy League houses of education, how long will even THAT proscription against infanticide remain? I believe I’ve read that he’s argued for legal infanticide up to 2 years? See? All the problems can be removed… Just. Like. That.

No, there is no logical reason to forbid incest. As long as we have effectively removed all morality from the American Experience.

Sigh.
Phil_McG
October 13th, 2014 @ 8:30 am

Just to sum up the new mores for us neanderthals and troglodytes (and trans-Australopithecines, we won’t wanna be trans-Australopithecaphobic)…

All freaky sex is good. Including incest.

But drunken heterosexual fumbles at college, or blue collar guys catcalling an attractive girl in the street… that’s rape?

And penis in vagina sex between a man and a woman who are married to each other is worse than the Holocaust, or as Andrea Dworkin said, “the worst betrayal of our common humanity”.
Phil_McG
October 13th, 2014 @ 8:35 am

You know, when you look at the results of feminism and sexual liberation in general:

broken families, collapsing birth rates, explosion of sexually transmitted disease, people arguing for incest and child abuse as if they were good things…

it’s almost as if all those bigoted, repressive rules and norms established by our repressive Christian forebears were put in place for a reason.
Phil_McG
October 13th, 2014 @ 8:48 am

We’re in deeper trouble than the Soviet Union was in the 1980’s.

Russia was still – even after six full decades of uninterrupted Communism – at heart a conservative society in terms of family values.

Look at Russia today and compare it to the West.

Where is Christianity protected by the State, and where is Christianity scorned and spat on and being driven out of the public square?

Where is gay marriage being imposed so as to radically redefine the core institution of society?

Where are fathers still respected as the head of their family, and where are fathers legally second class citizens subject to a frivolous divorce culture that tears families apart on the whims of women, who are propagandised that they should pursue their own selfish desires at the expense of their husband and children?

Where are people being hounded from their jobs because they fail to get with the latest politically correct orthodoxy on homosexual marriage, on transsexuals, on feminism?

Where are social workers snatching children away from people who support right-wing political parties? Where did the police turn a blind eye to mass sexual abuse of children by Muslim paedophile rings?

Russia isn’t the Evil Empire any more. The West is.
New Cause For The Left: Legalizing Incest | The Lonely Conservative
October 13th, 2014 @ 9:22 am

[…] Stacy McCain linked to and quoted and article at HuffPo in which the writer makes the case for legalizing incest for adult siblings. Apparently, for the left normalizing incest means “moral progress.” […]
Danny
October 13th, 2014 @ 10:46 am

I agree that the New Left has really turned out to be worse than the Old Left, and for all the reasons you just mentioned. What Bezmenov is getting out though is how a society is subverted, and how leftist ideology takes down societies in order to solidify state power. If you listen to him, you’ll see how we’ve been through just about every step, and what I’m seeing here more, is what he refers to
as “the radicalization of daily life” where we see nothing but division, and rancor between the races, the sexes, political parties, etc. I’d agree with you that our situation is far more dire in this respect than the ones that lead to leftist revolutions elsewhere.
Mm
October 13th, 2014 @ 1:26 pm

Oprah Winfrey studied the same math. According to her, “millions” we’re lynched. It was actually about 4,300, a third of them white.
Danny
October 13th, 2014 @ 4:11 pm

I think you need to be an adult to realize this. It is within the social justice movement, and most specifically the feminist movement that we see the increasing transfer from radical ideology of the twisted, and bitter hatred to state power. California’s consent laws, and lack of due process around a rape accusation is the most clear example of this. it’s even worse in Norway, and Sweden. Canada is not far behind. University of Toronto is a hot bed of radical feminism and man hate. Check out this video from
a U of T protest against speaker Warren Farrel:

http://youtu.be/iARHCxAMAO0

Truth be told if it wasn’t for feminism, and multiculturalism(Scandinavian countries being the biggest adherents to both)that continues to give Islam a pass, I’d still be a leftist.
Incest, Witchcraft and Other Forms of ‘Moral Progress,’ Ancient and Modern | That Mr. G Guy's Blog
October 13th, 2014 @ 6:21 pm

[…] Incest, Witchcraft and Other Forms of ‘Moral Progress,’ Ancient and Modern […]
John Rose
October 13th, 2014 @ 6:51 pm

That’s just crazy talk, right there…
theoldsargesays
October 13th, 2014 @ 7:23 pm

” The fact that they’re violating this… taboo notion of your brother or your sister being completely off-limits from a sexual perspective, I think, attracts… a large contingency of the viewing public.”

Well of course it does, but the viewing public that watches gay porno in the first place are abnormal people. So what you have here now is sick, perverted abnormal people.

To claim that it’s some sort of liberating experience is just false because these people are already far gone and over the edge.

But hey, another liberal twit writing something stupid about something controversial so that they can get more hits on their byline…nothing new or earthshaking here…..moving on.
theoldsargesays
October 13th, 2014 @ 7:27 pm

But these folks aren’t talking about two brother’s getting married, they’re just cornholing each other.
So that’s no big deal.
And besides, their Czechs! Those wacky liberal Europeans.
theoldsargesays
October 13th, 2014 @ 7:32 pm

Yep. That ’bout sums it up.
theoldsargesays
October 13th, 2014 @ 7:33 pm

Oprah just say a Shiite like that because a certain segment of society will run with it.
That same segmant will use it a justification for looting a FootLocker or BestBuy.
K-Bob
October 13th, 2014 @ 8:11 pm

There was a chick (in Britain?) who tried to marry herself.

I’m sure someone somewhere has tried to marry an object, or money.
K-Bob
October 13th, 2014 @ 8:25 pm

I suggested several years ago that the heads of the various religions (and by the way any belief or catechism that calls for murder, enslavement, and the taking of sexual slaves by conquest is not a legitimate religion. It’s just a gang.) ought to get together and define something specific.

I use the term “Sanctified Union” to separate it linguistically from the now-debased term “marriage.”

I believe it should define this union as the core union for the building of a family, which must consist to the extent possible, of one man, one woman, and the offspring of their mating.

It can include a host of special circumstances, covering adoption, widowhood, etc. It can cover so-called “common law” unions (if applied for). It should be broad and brief, like our Constitution, and it should be ratified by the various religious organizations and recognized as the ultimate authority on such unions.

The point of it would be to eliminate frivolous unions, debased unions, and limit the incidence of divorce.

It would further declare all existing marriages to be grandfathered in as Sanctified Unions, and would declare explicitly that no other form of union or marriage would be recognized.

I don’t really like the term Sanctified Union, but it’s the best one I could come up with. Ideas?

The idea here is for the major faiths of the world to declare something that the governments of the world must comply with. If you get the population demanding it, and the churches behind it, government lackeys who resist it will be shamed into accepting it.

Homosexuals can go make their own deal. We can live with that. They don’t get to declare our deal to be something different.

But clearly, the institution of marriage was in trouble before the ascendance of the gay mafia. It’s time we fixed it anyway.
K-Bob
October 13th, 2014 @ 8:29 pm

If Dworkin had grown up in Liverpool, she’d have been more brief:

“Marriage? Bugger that.”
K-Bob
October 13th, 2014 @ 8:32 pm

They even steal stupidly.

Of course, it’s smart to avoid robbing a gun shop, an auto repair shop, or even a bait and tackle shop.
Shawn Smith
October 13th, 2014 @ 9:57 pm

I seem to recall screeching accusations of “Slippery slope fallacy!” when opponents of undefining marriage said things like this would be next. When should we expect our apologies from leftists, do you think?
theoldsargesays
October 13th, 2014 @ 10:36 pm

I went on over to HuffPo and got started reading the comments on the story.
Their commenter’s biggest concern seems to be the fact that this story was placed in “their” Gay Voices section. So much for equality eh?

(Admittedly I didn’t stay around long…. that shit’ll drive you crazy if you look at it long enough)
theoldsargesays
October 13th, 2014 @ 10:58 pm

I watched the protest video….
Crikey! These womyns are insane.
Its not a matter of differing opinions, opposing points of view or topics worthy of discussion.
These people are insane. I couldn’t help but think to myself “that chick needs a punch in the mouth”, but that’s just the patriarchy talking.
Nigel Rae
October 14th, 2014 @ 3:08 am

“THE LEFT’S concept of morality!”

Which is amoral.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/incitement_to_kill_babies_in_the_womb/
Danny
October 15th, 2014 @ 12:23 am

Yeah, I know which one you’re talking about. She comes in toward the end. A truly disgusting person, and my initial thought was Id love to see her get stomped, too.
irish19
October 15th, 2014 @ 10:14 pm

Cute.
FMJRA 2.0: We’re An American Band : The Other McCain
October 18th, 2014 @ 10:28 pm

[…] Incest, Witchcraft and Other Forms of ‘Moral Progress,’ Ancient and Modern […]