‘Moral values’ fell out of fashion long before what we now know as ‘woke’ became the controlling virus in the minds of our elites.

The sexual revolution swept all before it leaving few taboos.

But despite the judgy tone of the word immoral, even people of no faith still use it to describe sex with animals, children and between family members.

Astonishingly though, woke is now making at least two of the remaining sexual taboos – bestiality and pedophilia – thinkable in the West for the first time since the fall of Rome. I’ll come to this sensational claim in a moment.

But first, more on morality’s comeback.

During his recent visit, Spectator contributor Brendan O’Neill urged a return to moral values. He didn’t specify whether he meant sexual morality but firmly in his sights was ‘anti-civilisation’ woke identity politics, including that pushed by the likes of the LGBTIQA+ political movement.

‘The key problem is moral disarmament – the pushing aside of the core values that have held us together,’ he told an audience in Sydney. ‘There is a tendency to see wokeness as a joke. But it is becoming increasingly clear it is a threat to our society.’

The idea that our civilisation teeters on the brink of collapse is now promoted by serious thinkers like O’Neill, Konstantin Kisin and Os Guinness. It was a theme running through the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship conference in London.

There’s a sense that unless the decline is arrested quickly, our imminent ruin may be the study of future anthropologists.

Woke, the current manifestation of our malaise, was certainly no joke for a group of Year 9 girls and their parents at Renmark High School in regional South Australia back in March. The ABC (maybe we shouldn’t pull the plug after all) reported that children in a ‘respectful relationships’ class were taught details about having sex with animals.

Here’s what happened. Quoting 14-year-old Emelia Wundenberg, the ABC said the presenter, who was invited in from outside the school, ‘was graphic when referencing their own sexual preferences and spoke in sexually explicit terms about growing up and being confused about whether they idolised people of the same gender or wanted to be intimate with them’. Classmate Courtney White, also 14, said, ‘The first slide of the PowerPoint on the board was “You can see queerly now” and “No point hiding”.’ The kids were then told what the initials LGBTIQA+ mean. ‘There was a slide for what the “plus” means, and they just started randomly saying words that no one knew, like bestiality,’ Emelia said. ‘It was on the board when they were showing what the “plus” meant.’

‘They said [the queer community] just accepts all of it, even though… isn’t it illegal?’ Courtney told the ABC, ‘We’re all just sitting there like, What the hell? What are we doing here? Why are we learning about animals having sex with humans?’

‘It was really disgusting, it was really uncomfortable.’ Many of the girls asked to be excused so they could go to the bathroom and did not return.

The incident at Renmark State High raises questions about the encroachment of queer ideology into schools and what the rainbow flag represents.

During the 2017 same-sex marriage plebiscite, one of the key arguments of the No case, of which I was a spokesperson and director, was that removing the gender diversity requirement in marriage law would green light the induction of children at school into radical LGBTIQA+ ideology.

The Yes campaign leaders vehemently denied this and said we were fear mongering.

They lied. Queer ideology is now routinely taught even in childcare centres, primary schools and high schools.

‘Respectful Relationships’, an offshoot of the controversial ‘Safe Schools’ program, has now been caught out teaching bestiality in a Year 9 class. Why should anyone be surprised?

The bestiality fetish of the rainbow movement has been hiding in plain sight.

Pride festivals have been pushing the boundaries for years. It was infamously discussed on the ABC’s Q&A thirteen years ago where Greens co-founder Peter Singer said it was fine if the dog consented. Google it.

Last year, the hapless Dominic Perrottet and the New South Wales Liberal government provided taxpayer money to Sydney World Pride which featured animal-themed fetish parties advertised on its Pride Amplified website.

Why does the media not ask why public funding is given towards events that promote human-animal sexual fetishes? Why have leaders of the LGBTIQA+ political movement, such as Equality Australia, been silent since the Renmark incident?

An answer lies in the fact that Equality Australia counts as one of its leaders Teddy Cook, a woman who has had both breasts surgically removed so she can identify as a man. Equality Australia trotted Cook out in a media release last month seeking to discredit the UK’s Cass Review which found children’s transgender treatments were harmful, and led to the banning of puberty-blockers on gender-confused children.

The Daily Mail reported that Cook’s ‘now-private social media posts are awash with X-rated material, including public nudity, bondage parties, trans orgies and even a photo of a man apparently having sex with a dog’.

Canadian gender ideology critic and social media influencer Chris Elston, aka Billboard Chris, posted on X, ‘Teddy Cook is a woman who has promoted bestiality (a crime in Australia), advised that trans-identified people have better sex while high on drugs, glorifies bondage and mutilation, and frequently posts X-rated imagery, yet she has been appointed to a panel of @WHO (the World Health Organisation) health “experts” to draft healthcare policy for trans-identified individuals.’

The post landed him in legal trouble. Australia’s eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant has ordered him and the owner of X, Elon Musk, to remove the post. They are fighting the ruling in court. Good on them.

The eSafety Commissioner’s intervention to censor Cook’s advocacy of bestiality, amongst other depravities, is outrageous.

The Yes campaign for same-sex marriage, now re-badged Equality Australia, said ‘marriage equality’ would not lead to any consequences beyond two loving people getting married.

They should be asked to explain Renmark and Cook. While they are at it, they should explain why academics are now using the term ‘minor-attracted persons’.

We have been morally disarmed.

Visiting Sydney last week, I asked Chris Elston where this all ends. At pains to point out he is not a Christian, he replied, ‘Sodom and Gomorrah.’