Mr. Nicholas J. Fuentes and Celibacy

Two Immoralities

We live in an age of two grave immoralities: economic and sexual. These two are pinnacled in two categories of sin: usury and sodomy. These two categories contain innumerable details which often distract. Men are variously appalled by the abominations of war profiteering and slave labor, or ritualistic pedophilia and abortion. But these variabilities are intended by satan to confuse the mind which merely hears about them, so it is good, in order to extirpate them, to stick only to the categories.

Sexual immorality is nothing but a distraction for the allowance of economic immorality, because usurers are physically impotent, while the physically potent are dissipated through licentiousness. Hence, bread and circuses prevent revolution. Everyone ought to see this most easily by looking at examples. Why did Epstein operate? So that powerful people can be controlled. Controlled for what purpose? The maintenance of empire.

This is our situation. What does empire do? Absorb wealth from exterior to interior.  At times this operation is so drastic that those closest to the center are most stripped by its vacuous force: As in, the Roman plebeian, the Englishman outside of London, and the American citizen who is straddled with so much usury that it is hard to see his face clearly.

In this situation, it is only natural that the solution should be among the youth. Why? They are the most free of contracts and obligations, both economic and sexual. Sexuality is the mechanic of family production; marriage the contract.

An Activist and an Intellectual

Enter our hero: Mr. Nicholas J. Fuentes. The most able intellectual of this century is Dr. E. Michael Jones. Dr. Jones has two charges against Mr. Fuentes which echo the popular doubt towards him: these are duplicity and homosexuality. I say doubt because neither are provable and both are fluctuating temptations.

This is the most important thing to understand which I think is missed by almost all commentators. These things are not permanent. If a man is duplicitous, he can repent and simplify. If he commits sodomy, he can cease ever doing it again.

Sodomy and homosexuality are two completely different things. Most sodomy in America is committed by heterosexuals. Sodomy is the sterilization of the natural sex act. Fornication is the natural sex act outside of marriage. As Mr. Fuentes himself recently said: "What is more gay than putting on a condom?"

Let us say that Mr. Fuentes was tempted by sodomy. One of the people that criticized him for this is Mr. Milo Yiannopoulus, a repentant sodomite. Also, a homosexual. In homosexuality is a passionate set of contradictions and self-defeating hypotheses. The primary good in homosexuality which is perverted is not marriage. It is friendship, the cooperative relationship between men founded on an admiration of virtue which the Bible commends repeatedly as higher than marriage. Our words are very deadened, and so I often refer to this virtue, which is raised to a sacrament by many cultures (arguably found in the election of a godfather in ours), as philodelphia, brotherly love. The Greeks understood it very well. They also understood homosexuality and sodomy. The best and wisest of the Greeks understood how the sin corrupts and confuses the virtue, and they bore with it as reluctantly as they did the Homeric illustrations of God that muddled Him with demonic adultery, fornication, rape, murder, and sodomy (e.g. Jupiter and Ganymede).

Brotherhood

Traditionally, a man has brothers long before he has wives. In Christianity, he has many more brothers than he has a wife. His future is determined much more by how he treats his brothers than by how he treats his wife.

If Mr. Fuentes was tempted by sodomy, he would not be any different than any other member of his generation or any generation of Americans since at least the Baby Boomers. If he were tempted by this more than fornication, he might be considered more honest and less confused than his peers, since he has separated the sexual act from love. All this having been said, the main thing to observe is the immense hypocrisy and sin involved in making these sorts of accusations anyways.

As for duplicity, it can be more forgiven, since sodomites are necessarily duplicitous. This is where he ought to be closely examined. I am not qualified to do it.

Why am I not qualified to do it? I am a married man with many children. I am pursuing the most common path to sanctity. From the front-lines here, where I have Catholics treating me like garbage because I would rather have children than do anything for money, I can report quite clearly that we need leaders who are not encumbered by families. When a man has a child in this day and age, his life becomes so overwhelmed and confused, that his intellectual development can reliably be assumed to have dropped to about 10%, much less than the fornicator's 50% and the sodomite's 75%. This is because of the sins and stupidity of the Catholic laity, which obliges a married father to assume the roles of grandmother, aunt, uncle, sister, brother, and even mother to his own children, in imitation of St. Paul (all things to all men). 

With this in mind, having married at 24 and started having children at 25, I might guess that I have fallen behind Mr. Fuentes who is merely three years my junior, and perhaps he is both wiser and more virtuous than me. It remains then for me, the peasant and not the aristocrat, to examine him for duplicity while giving small credence to gossip and detraction.

Proof is how much my children distracted me in the course of writing this article.

Conclusion

We need celibate men to lead us. It is best if they are immune to sodomy and fornication. If they slip and sin, it is best for them to immediately repent. Quite possibly, this should not even be done publicly, since they need to keep their credibility as much as they need to keep their virtue.

Every person that encourages Mr. Fuentes to get married as if it were up to him and did not involve both the cooperation of women and society at large (who hates him), is a fool and an incompetent in the field of history and Western civilization. They ought to repent of pride.

Postscript: Objections

Since this is not a definitive assessment of a critical figure but a recommendation for how to assess him, I fished out among the virtuous men I know for objections to the above:

1) While celibacy is a great virtue and we need virtuous men as economic, political, social, and cultural leaders, I'm not sure celibacy should exclude virtuous married men from these roles.

A) I did not mean to exclude them from these roles. However, it is important here to talk about chastity versus celibacy, or perhaps to talk about a natural characteristic of good men as opposed to a particular accomplishment. I would write a whole article on this. 
Sex may motivate young men quite a bit, but all men naturally speaking are supposed to overcome sex at some age, preferably as soon as possible. Most men do this by attaining its fruit, which is primarily children and secondarily pleasure. Some do it by abstinence. Both men then have to practice chastity forever to varying degrees of success, which is why it is a universally necessary virtue, just as temperance in food is universally necessary, because the pursuit of gluttony has natural limits. There is no perfect glutton nor a perfect lecher. 

After sex is satisfied by some form of denial over time, being a very temporary motivation, there is labor. Men are motivated by labor.

A married man or an unmarried man can be equally celibate, they cannot be equally unburdened by family obligation.

Men who do not like women are naturally suited to all types of governance and production than men who like women because they are motivated by labor.

Let me put it to you this way: One of the biggest disappointments of married life to a young man is when you realize that you will not get all the sex you want, at the very least, because your wife is on her period for one week of every four. Meanwhile, you will be having children. Once you start having children, you will realize that nobody is there to help you with your children, because the world hates children (see below). 

The sort of man that in a disordered society ends up becoming a gay sodomite might just as well be the best suited for politics if his religion keeps him from doing that, because he is not distracted by women and children, and instead wants to please only men, who are the ones that matter in politics, because they do everything.

2) "This is because of the sins and stupidity of the Catholic laity, which obliges a married father to assume the roles of grandmother, aunt, uncle, sister, and even mother to his own children, in imitation of St. Paul (all things to all men)."  I'm not sure what you mean by the sins and stupidity of the Catholic laity here; either be more specific in illuminating the stupidity and sins or be more charitable.

A) I have written a lot of articles on this. My assessment of Catholic laity culture, especially in America, particularly the conservative and traditional communities, is that they are modeled after traditional Americanism of the 1950s complete with individualism and tough-love and pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps mentality. This culture in turn comes from English economic Enlightenment philosophy found in Adam Smith, who, while rewriting the meaning of the virtues to include things such as industrialism, and changing the word “usury” into “interest”, also advocated for the abolition of nuns caring for the poor and sick, and other Catholic and Christian charity operations, in favor of private business. This then was followed by Charles Darwin and social Darwinism, which largely came about to ease the consciences of people when they saw the poor dying in the streets. It taught that this was a sign of progress. The whole thing is connected to usury, and it is a regular repeated cycle throughout history. Oligarchs accumulate wealth because of an historical increase in productivity related to innovation, they suppress wages using their power, the poor cannot make ends meet, the oligarchs then move to lending out their excess wealth to governments while bringing in loan sharks to lend to the poor, rather than simply raising their wages or at least investing in small business. Since wealth is not based on money but on labor, this first destroys the people via their birthrate and then destroys the nation by not providing another generation of workers.

I have documented a lot of examples in my own life experiencing this. I have posted on social media relaying my experience of it during Christmas. It causes the death of my son, the enslavement of my generation, and all of the abortions. When recently a foreigner in Texas called asking about purchasing my house, me and my wife had a conversation which included these words: “Well, they treat us like aliens here. If they wanted a white family having white babies starting businesses in their town, they should have given us a babysitter.”

If you would like to get in touch, you can find my email below, or you can find my books on taurusnecrus.com, if these stinking internet corporations can get it working again by the time this publishes