The Golden Age – Episode 1: Anti-Buggery And The Epistemology Of Tradition

Welcome to The Golden Age. The podcast airs on Mondays.

— Brought to you by —

Michael Perilloux with special guest Nick B. Steves.


Nick B Steves’ tweets:

Arthur Gordian’s Article:

Inference with the Vampire:

Buggery Redpills:

Subscribe to

The Golden Age

Or subscribe with your favorite app by using the address below

Liked it? Take a second to support Social Matter on Patreon!
View All


  1. Can’t wait to listen! Thanks!

  2. Great podcast Michael. I am pleased to see that you have continued with podcasts discussing NRx topics on a higher level in the absence of the Ascending the Tower series. Myth of the 20th century is entertaining, but can get quite repetitive with the constant drumming of the JQ which seems to find its way into every episode.

    Some feedback: Firstly, I really like the structure of the podcast where you keep bringing the guests back on track for the discussion to continue along the intended thread of discussion (in contrast to Ascending the Tower that could make 20 minute tangents). Please keep doing that. It gives this series a way more professional feel to it. Secondly, don’t be to conscious about the time length of this podcast on behalf of us listeners. Most of us are happy the more we can get; instead of 45m podcast lasting us a one way trip to work, a 1h 30m podcast can last us return trip as well. So don’t feel time constrained due to your audience.

    Also, if I can make a wish for the topic of a future episode, can you address the topic on how we can help to select for the most qualified future statesmen from a pool of candidates? The guys over at Imperial Energy had a really interesting suggestion with their “The King’s Game” that they fleshed out in this article:

    Finally, I would like to make comment on this week’s discussion.
    As a long time Muslim convert that has studied classical Arabic and Sunni theology, I would like to make a rebuttal on Nick B Steves assertion that Islamic theology does not make reference to the natural order in regards to its laws and that said laws are “arbitrarily” commanded by God. This assertion is not correct. There is a theological concept called “fitrah” ( which can roughly be translated to “natural disposition”/”instinct” that has been explicitly mentioned by the Prophet Muhammed (peace be onto him) in certain contexts, e.g. that humans are born with an instictive inclination towards belief in God or in another case in regards to maintaining personal hygiene (such as e.g. cutting nails). This concept has since been further extrapolated by scholars to other domains such as sodomy being unnatural, where similar arguments are made akin to that which you guys presented in the podcast. There may be minor sects or modernists that may diverge on this issue, but to my knowledge all major denominations within Sunni theology and within the major branch of Shiism (the “Twelvers”) have this concept of fitrah.

    Furthermore, even if a commandment may seem “arbitrary” at a specific time and place, it does not follow that it does not have some wisdom behind it. E.g. there are explicit instructions in a well known statement by the Prophet that we should cover our food and drinks over night. Now, before the Germ theory of microorganisms gaining traction in the 19th century this commandment may have indeed seemed quite arbitrary. Yet millions of people adhered to this custom for over a millenia before this commandment “made sense”, helping to prevent harmful microorganisms to contaminate their water/food and thus enhancing their overall hygiene. In sum, our overall perception of “arbitrariness” is constrained by our limited knowledge that is tied to a specific time and place; hence we should be cautious about making sweeping statements about seemingly “arbitrary” commandments.

    That little rebuttal aside, keep up the good work!

  3. I would like to take exception to your strictures against buggery and homosexual relations generally on the basis of natural law ethics. I assume that natural law ethics is the basis of your condemnation of homosex when you say that it is against nature.

    I think that Natural Law ethics is more nearly adequate, as an ethical theory, than the other types on offer, viz., utilitarian, Kantian, and contractarian. However, the version given by Aquinas, which I think is superior to Finnis’s updated version, makes a mistake with regard to the function of sexual behavior.

    Aquinas says, in enumerating the fundamental impulses of human nature, that, “human nature is inclined to desire those things that nature teaches all animals to desire by instinct. For example, all animals have an instinctive desire to come together in a union of male and female, and an instinctive desire to care for their young.” (Treatise on Law, Quest, 94, art. 2)

    However, homosexuals do not have such a desire. [Not universally true. Where true, it is nevertheless disordered desire -Ed.] If we are to derive God’s purposes for human conduct from the fundamental impulses of our nature, we have the conclusion that, if Aquinas is right, homosexuals do not have a human nature and, then, in an important sense, are not human. [Bollocks. They have disordered human desires. -Ed.] But this (I suppose) unwelcome conclusion may be avoided by considering the teleology of human sexual behavior. If the divinely ordained end of sexual behavior were reproduction [Which it is -Ed.], then sexual behavior should be regulated by that end. That is, when reproduction is possible, the behavior should occur and when it is not possible, the behavior should not occur. But it is a well-known fact that we humans are ready to have sexual relations at the drop of a hat and regardless of whether the woman is her fertile period. It follows that, if the nature of sexual behavior is divinely ordained, it cannot have reproduction as its sole purpose. [No. but an hierarchy of purposes, deriving from the procreative act. -Ed.] Hence, the so-called “unitive” function is separable from reproduction. [Nein! Ibid.] In properly ordered homosex (if such a thing were culturally endorsed) the unitive function would be present and, so, I do not see how this is any more against nature or the natural law than heterosex when the woman is not fertile. [Nice try. Thanks for playing. -Ed.]

    The great difficulty about homosex is that there is no cultural “template” (hated word!) for it to follow. The straight folk have made a mess of heterosexual marriage, so I don’t see much hope for homosexual committed relationships, which have no template. My preference would be, for men, to be “brothers in arms,” who will face the world together, each having the other’s back. But as it is now, gay marriage is just an exercise in putting a thumb in the eye of Christians and is not marriage, no matter what it is called. The institution of marriage has as its purpose reproduction and the rearing and education of the next generation. Gay “marriage” cannot have such a function and is not marriage, no matter what you call it. How may legs does a dog have, if you count its tail as a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg. There is no magical power of words.

Comments are closed.