Lana, a reader of FOTM, recently made a very insightful comment, citing the thesis of E. Michael Jones in his book Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control. Lana writes:
…the further the sexual deviance and permissiveness i.e. sexual liberation, the inevitability of the need for social control. In other words, there is a method to the madness. TPTB promote this extreme excess because it has been scientifically shown that it paves the way for political control and repression…. [T]he end-game of the so-called “sexual liberation” — of which women’s “liberation” and the homosexual movement are part and parcel — is a way for the state to gain control.
As constraints on behavior increasingly are loosened, the social fabric increasingly becomes frayed, resulting in increasing chaos and disorder. But a society cannot function under such circumstances, so citizens increasingly turn to the state as a solution, thereby expanding the powers of government.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
A scene from San Francisco’s Folsom Street Fair, 2010. Photo credit: Americans For Truth About Homosexuality http://www.aftah.org
by Hilary White
Life Site News
Aug 23, 2013
A few days ago in The Guardian, Peter Tatchell wrote a pretty good description not only of that ideology’s goals but its origins. This political ideology, often called “queer theory” by its proponents in academia, is what is being pushed, quite openly these days, by the “gay rights” movement. Despite what we are told all day by their collaborators in the mainstream media, from the six o’clock news to your favourite sit-com, this movement is not about “equal rights”. It is about re-writing the foundational concepts of our entire society. I predict that it will not be much longer before the pretense of “equality” is dropped, having done its work.
… Others have pointed out the Marxist origins of the Sexual Revolution as a whole, and it is clear that the sudden explosion of homosexualism is merely the next logical step in a systematic programme. A close cousin to radical feminism and grandchild of Marxism, homosexualism was developed out of the politico-academic pseudo-field of “gender studies” and has, for 30 or 40 years, been pushed on a mostly unwilling public, through “anti-discrimination” and “equalities” legislation by a coalition of lobbyists, NGOs and politicians on the extreme left, and in increasingly powerful international circles.
Peter Tatchell is a prominent British homosexualist, which means he is a proponent of a specific political and social ideology that he wants to see adopted in British society and elsewhere. He is also a homosexual man, that is, he experiences sexual attraction for other men, a condition whose origin is still debated by doctors, psychiatrists and geneticists. The two things are not the same. This is a fact that tends to escape a lot of people who read and write about the Culture Wars, especially in its current manifestation that seems to have suddenly become all about homosexuality. Not all homosexuals are homosexualists, and not all homosexualists are homosexuals.
Tatchell’s Guardian piece was a paean to a document put together in 1971 by what he describes as a collective of “anarchists, hippies, leftwingers, feminists, liberals and counter- culturalists” to bring about “a revolution in consciousness”. He called the “Gay Liberation Front: Manifesto” “a pioneering agenda for social and personal transformation” that started with the proposal that “subverting the supremacy of heterosexual masculinity was the key to genuine liberation.” Tatchell said it was the book that changed his life.
The Manifesto sums it all up, Tatchell says, by “critiquing” “homophobia, sexism, marriage, the nuclear family, monogamy, the cults of youth and beauty, patriarchy, the gay ghetto and rigid male and female gender roles” … the whole kaboodle of the sexual revolution.
The Manifesto itself is quite blunt about identifying the main enemies to defeat: “The oppression of gay people starts in the most basic unit of society, the family.”
“Consisting of the man in charge, a slave as his wife, and their children on whom they force themselves as the ideal models. The very form of the family works against homosexuality.”
Most tellingly, the Manifesto says that “reform,” in other words “equality,” is never going to be enough; what is needed is a total social revolution, a complete reordering of civilisation. Reform, it said, “cannot change the deep-down attitude of straight people that homosexuality is at best inferior to their own way of life, at worst a sickening perversion. It will take more than reforms to change this attitude, because it is rooted in our society’s most basic institution – the Patriarchal Family.”
Far from being “the source of our happiness and comfort,” it says, the family is the oppressive “unit” in which the “dominant man and submissive woman” teach children “false beliefs” about traditional “gender roles” “almost before we can talk”.
The core concept of gender ideology is given: there is “no proven systematic differences between male and female, apart from the obvious biological ones. Male and female genitals and reproductive systems are different, and so are certain other physical characteristics, but all differences of temperament, aptitudes and so on, are the result of upbringing and social pressures. They are not inborn.”
“Human beings could be much more various than our constricted patterns of ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ permit – we should be free to develop with greater individuality.”
“Our entire society,” the Manifesto says, “is built around the patriarchal family and its enshrinement of these masculine and feminine roles. Religion, popular morality art, literature and sport all reinforce these stereotypes. In other words, this society is a sexist society, in which one’s biological sex determines almost all of what one does and how one does it; a situation in which men are privileged, and women are mere adjuncts of men and objects for their use, both sexually and otherwise.”
It is this that must be overturned, entirely eradicated, before the true freedom we all deserve can be put in place.
It does not take a degree in political theory to recognise the origins of this kind of language: throw off your chains, comrades! Indeed, a very little digging will take you directly to the origins of the Gay Liberation Manifesto in the writing of the first Marxists: in this case, Friedrich Engels, who wrote a document describingwhat most of us call the traditional family in terms nearly identical to that of the Manifesto.
Engels called it “monogamous marriage” and said that it exists “not as the reconciliation of man and woman, still less as the highest form of such a reconciliation. Quite the contrary. Monogamous marriage comes on the scene as the subjugation of the one sex by the other; it announces a struggle between the sexes unknown throughout the whole previous prehistoric period.”
“The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male.”
“The modern individual family is founded on the open or concealed domestic slavery of the wife, and modern society is a mass composed of these individual families as its molecules.” Engels’ solution, of course, we all know already.
The Gay Liberation Manifesto, like Mr. Engels’ work before it, proposes that once we throw off the ancient shackles of “heterosexism, male privilege and the tyranny of traditional gender roles” we all get to live in a glorious and shining “new sexual democracy” in which “erotic shame and guilt would be banished”. This means, in practice, more or less what we now have: everyone gets to sleep around with whomever, and nobody gets to have any long-term claims on anyone else either in marriage or as parents.
Now that it has started the global “gay marriage” snowball, the ideology’s promoters seem to have only a few mop-up operations left to accomplish. The pressure is already starting to widen the burst-open definition of marriage to include multiple partners of either sex and to legalise and accept paedophilia – as an expression of “children’s rights”.
But as with all utopian visions, homosexualism’s great weakness is the failure to consider the entirety of human nature. It proposes, essentially, a permanent state of self-indulgent adolescence, and to other self-indulgent adolescents, this sounds pretty good. Have all the cake you want, eat it for breakfast, lunch and dinner, and never get fat.
Unfortunately, since the 1960s, most of us have been raised to think that this programme is the very meaning of freedom and securing it the whole purpose of democracy. The ideology was already being promoted to children on television to children when I was a child. I remember the huge splash made in 1974 by an animated TV show called “Free to be you and me” that told us through a series of cute animated sketches, narrated by the icons of the 70s lefties Marlo Thomas and Alan Alda, that it was wrong to assume, or adopt, traditional sex roles. Gender ideology for tots.
For those who actually try to put it into practice, however, it quickly becomes obvious that humans were simply not meant to function this way, and basing an entire culture on the proposition, as we have since the 1960s, is going to create dismal state of emotional and social chaos, misery, loneliness, poverty and selfishness such as the world has never seen before.
The main problem with the homosexualist version of the Marxist dream is that you have to get everyone to agree. And I mean everyone. Marxist theorists have always known that utopia will only work if no one is allowed to raise any objection. Everyone has to agree, and no voice of dissent can be tolerated to pop the soap bubble logic of the enterprise.
The first voice to be aggressively silenced, as always, is therefore the Church that proposes something rather more rich and (ahem) fertile for man’s destiny than this facile materialism and sensualism. The Church that, furthermore, has a more comprehensive understanding of human nature, and knows that total license is not a recipe for human happiness… far from it.
Dr. Eowyn’s post first appeared at Fellowship of the Minds.