HOMOSEXUALITY AND SOCIETY
I thought I would recycle another of my old articles, which was in any case originally published on a website I no longer support. The rather dubious people behind that website have now removed my name from the article, but let it stand, in line with their dishonesty. There are two main reasons I wish to republish it here. The first is that a few weeks ago I received a copy of the Counter Currents publication The Alternative Right, in which an expurgated version of an article of mine appears, which was written back in 2016 before I became aware of just how fake and corrupt the Aut Right actually was. What is interesting though is Greg Johnson's essay 'Gay Panic on the Alt Right', in which he defends the LGBTQ+ community within the Aut Right. I aim to critique this essay in my next article, and this article below sets out the general philosophical arguments against homosexuality, as I have always considered homosexuality a symptom of mental illness. Certainly, scientists from over thirty major academic institutions have now conclusively proven that, contrary to their slogans, most homosexuals were not 'born this way' and there appears to be no 'gay gene', and is the second reason for republishing this article now, as philosophical arguments against homosexuality are now weighted by hard science. The onus is therefore on homosexuals to prove homosexuality has social value, which is a task Counter Currents seems to be engaged in, and where Counter Currents and Mjolnir Magazine profoundly disagree.
To give the article context, it was written shortly after same-sex marriage was legalised in France on 18th May 2013, and had not yet been passed into law in the UK. Unbeknownst to me at the time, the so-called Conservative government under David Cameron was at the time discussing and redraughting the bill that would become the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act of 2013, which was given royal assent on 13th July 2013. The huge governmental propaganda exercise came in June of that year. Now of course we live in a society where even the criticism of what once was itself illegal is itself illegal and can result in fines or even custodial sentences. One has only to look at the cases of bakers and hoteliers who have refused to go along with this complete reversal of legality and morality.
HOMOSEXUALITY AND SOCIETY
Homosexuality is a subject most people, including myself, would probably
wish to avoid. If one so much as critiques homosexuals or
homosexuality, one faces a barrage of deconstruction in which the critic
is simultaneously accused of homophobia (a phobia, we remember, being
an irrational fear or hatred) and ‘projection’ – in which the critic
projects his own self-hatred as an alleged homosexual onto other
homosexuals at large. It silences many,
because it uses the fear that mud sticks, no matter the truth. Yet such
illogic would mean that a xenophobe is really a foreigner or even that
an extreme aversion to snakes is because one is really a snake, would it
not? As seen, the politicised ‘-phobia’ suffix is given to make anyone
even mildly disquieted by homosexual activity appear hysterical, yet
real common phobias are often exaggerations of natural aversions to
potential dangers.
Generally speaking, and we will be speaking in general terms throughout
the essay, rather than about individual exceptions, what goes on between
two consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes ought, in
theory, to remain a private matter. Yet can homosexuality ever truly
remain a private affair, completely separated from the public sphere?
The subject of how homosexuality impacts upon society is too vast to
cover in just one article, so we are going to look at just some of the
main philosophical arguments from a rightist traditionalist perspective,
which will hopefully fuel debate among nationalist thinkers.
Certainly, the issue has become very difficult to ignore in contemporary
society and has been thrust into the public consciousness in many ways.
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the issue at the moment
(besides adoption) is that of homosexual marriage. Again, this
perversion of the spiritual and legal pact between man and woman has
been imposed upon society from above without debate or referendum. I say
without debate because the way the media (especially the BBC) has
framed public debate has meant that certain opinions and discourses
(philosophical and otherwise) too dissentient from the agenda have been
excluded from the outset.
When one looks at how François Hollande’s extreme leftist government
imposed the perversion of marriage upon French society, one also
realises the anti-democratic nature of the imposition. I am not a
democrat in the political sense, but one has to remember that
politicians like Hollande have pretended themselves the champions of
democracy and have supported wars purportedly to bring democracy to
countries governed by or in danger from allegedly oppressive regimes
(the latest episode being Mali). In Paris alone, 300,000 people gathered
to protest against the proposed legislation. Across the whole of
France, the figure was 1.4 million. These demonstrators – largely
families with young children – were deemed to be ‘members of the extreme
right’ and the ones in Paris were tear-gassed by police. Witness the
difference in policing when the homosexual lobbyists held their
demonstrations advocating the law.
Instead of a referendum, what the French got was a tidal wave of
propaganda. Programmes and advertisements told of the injustice,
discrimination, adversity and prejudice homosexuals face in society.
There was the inevitable play with linguistics and semantics: the
proposed law to allow homosexual marriage was worded as that which
allowed le mariage pour tous. One notes the implications in such a
slogan: if what is proposed is marriage for all, then the proposition is
for inclusivity and equality: two buzzwords of the left that have
become ubiquitous. One must remember that égalité is enshrined in the
very motto of France.
Why is Homosexual Marriage Wrong?
Marriage has always been between a man and a woman from its very
beginning even in pre-Christian times – although it is noteworthy that
all the great religions of the world have upheld this tradition. The
extreme left would argue, of course, that tradition has no moral value
in and of itself and, indeed, that Western tradition is immoral and must
be overturned. This is really what is at the heart of the campaign for
homosexual marriage.
The comedian Julian Clary has included as part of his show an episode in
which he drags a male member of the audience up on stage and marries
him at the end of every show. At the nub of comedy is always a little
piece of propaganda; why else would leftists have spent so much time and
effort trying to get rid of Bernard Manning? Clary is doing two things
in this piece of farce: he is disarming the audience through humour when
it comes to a very serious issue and he is treating marriage as
something ephemeral and insignificant, when it is in fact so significant
that homosexuals and their lobby groups are petitioning for it,
including Clary himself. Clary says of his show: ‘We also finish with a
song, "Cool to Be Queer". It’s a serious song about gay marriage and
persecution.’
If homosexuals like Julian Clary thinly disguise their disdain for the
institution of marriage, ones like Jewish LGBT activist Masha Gessen are
open about what their true intention is. In a recent radio interview,
she said: ‘It’s a no-brainer that [homosexuals] should be allowed to
marry, but I also think equally that the institution of marriage should
not exist. …fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about
what we are going to do with marriage when we get there – because we lie
that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a
lie. The institution of marriage is going to change and it should
change. And again, I don’t think it should exist.’
Clary and Gessen wish not to have equality within existing structures,
but to debase them, pervert them and ridicule them until they crumble
under a tide of deconstruction and ordinary people are alienated from
them. The result will be complete social upheaval in which their way of
life is normative and that which was formerly normative becomes
abnormal. We will look at the reasons for this in due course.
All this, however, does not really get to the philosophical crux of the
matter. To explore why homosexual marriage is immoral, one must look at
the function of marriage itself. The primary function of marriage is to
create a stable bond between a man and a woman ready for procreation.
While marriage has an intrinsic beauty in its bringing together for all
eternity a man and a woman who love each other, the primary purpose is
to provide a permanent structure for the protection and nurture of
society’s weakest members: children.
The homosexual act does not further procreation, nor can a same-sex
couple provide the diversity (yes, I did use that word) of the two
genders that a heterosexual couple does. No matter how butch the
‘lesbian’ or how effeminate the ‘queer’, they cannot physically or
emotionally emulate the natural man or woman whose place they purport to
be taking. This can only be psychologically damaging to the child.
Indeed, Clary’s song 'Cool to Be Queer' rather lets the cat out of the
bag. The last thing most homosexuals want for their child is for it to
be ‘normal’. Is it not the dream of all parents to want their child to
grow up to share the same set of values that they hold dear? As,
according to ONS statistics, only 2% of the population of Britain
consider themselves homosexual (and figures do not diverge much
throughout the West), the overwhelming chances are that a child destined
to be heterosexual will grow up confused and with psychological trauma,
such as ‘gender dysphoria’. This, however, is the idea and homosexual
magazines like Attitude have welcomed the slight but significant rise in
‘alternative sexualities’ in recent years. If everyone were to take up
‘alternative sexualities’, of course, the birth rate in the West,
already in decline, would plummet, heralding our voluntary genocide. The Rightist view, then, is that the needs given by nature for the success
of the group override individualist egoism.
There does indeed seem to be an certain amount of correlation between declining birth rates and the acceptance of Leftist dogma (China of course has a policy of reducing the birth rate):
Above is a map of global birth rates for 2008, while below is a map of
countries that have signed up to the UN charter on LGBT rights (in blue). Countries in red have opposed the charter, while countries in
grey remain indifferent:
The actor Jeremy Irons also made a good point regarding the issue: if
homosexual marriage is about equality and freedom, where does one draw
the line? Why cannot a man marry his son, for instance, and avoid
inheritance tax? After all, if leftists have removed good taste and
decency from the moral agenda, why not? If one removes these abstract
concerns, then incest laws are only there to protect against genetic
defects in any offspring of such unions. Same sex relations negate that
possibility. Why can a man therefore not marry his horse or his pig? If
what we are basing marriage on is the Utilitarian pleasure principle of
self-interest, then one can degrade marriage to accommodate any
perversion.
Indeed, the Utilitarian pleasure principle is at the very heart of
leftist morality. It is no coincidence that Jeremy Bentham supported
homosexual rights and was surrounded by rumours about his own sexuality.
Indeed this strand of Leftism that comes from radical liberal thought
has intertwined with Marxist anti-marriage rhetoric of oppression to
produce the philosophy that will ultimately undermine the institution of
marriage. It will be destroyed from within by the likes of Clary and
Gessen. Yet if leftist Utilitarianism is overridden by Rightist Natural Law, from which the basis for heterosexual marriage comes, it poses
questions about homosexuality itself.
Is homosexuality Itself Morally Wrong?
The fundament at the base of homosexuality is the perversion of the
sex-act, a natural act designed by nature as pleasurable in order to
promote procreation. Therefore the pleasure gained is secondary to the
primary function intended. With the homosexual sex-act, there is no
primary function; it is therefore a perversion of that given by nature.
Advocates of homosexuality often attempt to pervert the argument by
citing heterosexual couples unable to have children as being a moral
equivalent in that they too cannot produce offspring. Ignoring the fact
they have used unfortunate exceptions rather than the rule, this is a
straw-man argument. We are not talking about the result, but the
subconscious urge given by nature to produce the result. Thus, while all
heterosexuals have that natural urge, whether they are physically
capable of achieving the result or not, all homosexuals do not have that
urge. Homosexuality is thus, by extension of that argument, unnatural,
for their urge is a perversion of that given by nature for the purpose
of instigating procreation. Homosexuals cannot therefore appeal to Nature as a moral force and examples of homosexuality must be taken as
aberrations of nature, rather than examples from nature.
In general, the same-sex relationship forces one of the partners to
imitate a member of the opposite sex: again, this is a perversion of
natural order. To imitate that which one is not is to create a
falsehood, a lie. Homosexuality is thus also based upon falseness. This
perhaps also explains why so many (especially passive male) homosexuals
gravitate towards the performing arts, for one
partner always has to perform a role not intended by Nature.
In males especially, the pleasure of the one (active partner) is gained
by the suffering of the other (passive partner). The pleasure of the
other (passive partner) is gained through the wanton suffering of the self. The
relationship is thus inherently sado-masochistic and so, again,
perverse. In this sense, neither can the relationship be based upon
love. Indeed, a homosexual university professor I once knew defined
sexual relationships as power-based, not love-based. I realised that he
was using his own sexuality as a basis for a universal truth for all
sexual relationships. Also, even on Benthamite principles here, arguments for homosexuality self-deconstruct.
The left always play upon feelings of guilt and pity when addressing the
subject. Appeals are always made to the idea that it is ‘not their
fault’. I concur; it is often not (unless it be via the voluntary use of
recreational drugs). Neither, however, must guilty feelings or feelings
of pity be misplaced, resulting in unwarranted accommodation of
something detrimental to society at large. As homosexuality is an
aberration of nature, it must be treated as a disease, whether it be
mental, like obsessive-compulsive disorder, or genetic, like
Huntington’s Disease. The patient must be treated, but not indulged.
Before the World Health Organisation bowed to political pressure put on
it by lobby groups in 1992, this was the general attitude to
homosexuality post-1960s.
Indeed, homosexuality, whether genetically transmitted or developed as
part of a complex perhaps due to childhood trauma, results in the
degradation of the mind. The perversity of mind arises from the
perversity of the body and vice-versa. Therefore, the
intellectualisation of homosexuality as normative is perverse for the
above reasons. As homosexuality is based upon falseness and a diseased
mind, it should come as no surprise when homosexuals cloak themselves
under the guise of equality and tolerance. They demand equality and
tolerance, but do not tolerate those who disagree with them. Their
demand for equality is also nullified by the fact that, as seen,
homosexuality is a perversion of heterosexuality. Homosexuality is thus
morally wrong if one accepts Natural Law as the fundament for morality; Leftism is unnatural, against Nature, as homosexuality is promoted as
part of its erroneous world-view.
Overturning Society
Certainly, homosexuals have had no small part in moving society away
from natural order. Sexuality is a powerful driving force for human
action; it is not the only driving force, unlike Freud would have us
believe, but sexuality is often intellectualised and helps to shape
society. Even the repression of sexuality is an act based upon sexuality
itself. Homosexuals have been key in pushing society ever leftwards as
an extension of their sexual urge that is confined in a society based
upon Western norms and have been aided and abetted by Zionist Jews
realising they can use them to further their own interests. In any case,
the tendency towards ‘alternative sexualities’ among Jews is quite
phenomenal.
The decadence among homosexuals has always resulted in a right-wing
backlash: in 1885, all forms of homosexuality were strictly
recriminalized (in 1861, a loophole had been created to allow certain
sexual acts) as part of the Criminal Law Amendment Act (which was
designed to protect children from sexual predators) after a series of
scandals involving members of the gentry, politicians and journalists using and abusing young
working-class rent boys in their early to late teens. This included the
Cleveland Street Scandal, in which several members of the aristocracy
were implicated, such as Lord Arthur Somerset and the Earl of Euston,
and the Prince of Wales' own son Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence was heavily rumoured to have been a
customer at the male brothel that was uncovered by police.
It was this law that Oscar Wilde was tried under. Stephen Fry often
makes reference to the Oscar Wilde case as one of the great miscarriages
of justice and as evidence of the intolerance of Victorian British
society. What he never mentions is that Wilde was a predatory pederast
that preyed upon poor boys in their mid-teens, paying them for sex. Had
he been alive now, he would have been facing charges under Operation Yew
Tree. At one time not so long ago, there was an assumed link between
male homosexuality and paedophilia due to the prevalence of cases of
pederasty. One notes, for example, the paedophile lobby group NAMbLA has petitioned
tirelessly to lower the age of sexual consent for males.
Certainly, one can compare the case of Wilde with another notable
homosexual of the time, Edward Carpenter, who lived in Sheffield with
his long-term boyfriend George Merrill without ever being bothered by
the authorities. The tolerance shown to Carpenter’s situation, however,
was not reciprocal, and, a devout Marxist, he set about undermining
British social norms by whispering in the ears of our women. He
propagated the notion that women were unequal in marriage and that the
marriage contract itself was a means by men of oppressing women. These
ideas are now commonplace in universities throughout the West. In later
life, he influenced the infamous Bloomsbury Group of artists and
writers, notorious for their lifestyle of ‘high buggery’.
Such notables in the group included: the novelist Virginia Woolf, who
had a long lesbian affair while married to the group’s Marxist Jewish
political theorist and Labour Party and Fabian Society member Leonard
Woolf; Arthur David Waley, another Ashkenazi Jew responsible for
bringing African Studies into the universities; E M Forster, the
novelist who wrote A Passage to India, the novel that attacked every
aspect of Britishness, because he fancied dark-skinned Muslims; Duncan
Grant, a homosexual painter involved in sexual relationships with just
about every other member of the group, including his own cousin Lytton
Strachey; David Garnett, writer and another lover of Duncan Grant before
actually marrying Grant’s daughter; the economist John Maynard Keynes,
another lover of Grant, responsible for bringing in liberalism and
causing the current economic crisis on the back of his economic theory.
All, and the others too numerous to mention here, used their
intellectual and artistic powers to ensure the moral corruption of the
country by disseminating their amoral ideas through art, education and
politics. These ideas are also now commonplace as right-thinking in all
Western universities.
In Germany, the Jewish Trotskyite homosexual Magnus Hirschfeld was one
of the ‘pioneers’ (I use the word ironically) of what became known as
sexology. This is a so-called ‘science’, a pseudoscience that has now
disappeared, as much of it has been integrated into modern psychology,
was aimed at normalising abnormal sexualities and destabilising normal
sexuality. In 1919, Hirschfeld collaborated with the Austrian Jewish
filmmaker Richard Oswald to realise the pro-homosexual rights film
Anders als die Andern, in which Conrad Veidt starred and Hirschfeld
himself played a cameo. Having escaped the censors, 150 films like it
followed in just a few months. 1920s Germany became the epicentre of
decadence and ‘alternative sexualities’ became all the rage among
socialites. It is easy to see why the German people were driven towards
National Socialism, regardless of the rights or wrongs of the NSDAP –
something one is not taught in GCSE History.
Indeed, the demonization of any right-wing views by linking them with
fascist government policies has paved the way for homosexual lobby
groups to deconstruct and overturn social norms unchallenged. Jewish MP
Leo Abse spearheaded the drive towards decriminalising homosexuality,
which resulted in the passing of the Sexual Offences Act of 1967. From
this point on, lobby groups have pushed further and further until we now
have homosexual adoption and laws which virtually forbid any criticism
of the acts of parliament that have been passed to the advantage of
homosexuals. Perhaps Leo Abse’s sponsor for the bill in the House of
Lords, Earl Arthur Gore, had it right when he was asked why his bill to
legalise homosexuality was passed and his bill for the protection of
badgers was rejected on the same day: ‘Not many badgers in the House of
Lords,’ he said.
Indeed, it is quite astonishing the extent to which homosexuals are
over-represented in politics and political activism; they have been the
catalysts for change and have changed society from one that suits the
majority to one that suits minority groups such as themselves. They have
used the liberal strain encompassed by John Stuart Mill’s catchphrase
‘the tyranny of the majority’ to undermine a society suited to the needs
of the majority. In other words, the 2% of society is now dictating
terms to the 98%, but, of course, we now have many minorities pulling in
various directions. I watched one of those late-night talk shows about
three years ago – one of those discussions where several pretentious and
obnoxious Leftists gather round a table and pontificate on arcane
matters of pseudo-philosophy – and the topic was ‘Homophobia: the New
Racism?’ I knew at that point that pace was gathering for the Left’s
next attack on traditional norms.
What is to be done with homosexuals then? If they keep themselves to
themselves, nothing at all as such, but certainly, public restrictions must be
put upon them. One cannot have the 2% tail wagging the 98% dog. As seen,
it will lead to a further decrease in birth rates and a moral turpitude
in society. Encouragement and commendation must be given to homosexuals
seeking help – but not celebration, otherwise we would have the same
cult of ‘checking into rehab’ that current drug-addled celebrities have
encouraged, whereby drug-taking is made ‘cool’, as one must indulge in
something before alleviating oneself of it as a secular form of sin shrieving. It would become just another
form of degenerate propaganda. Just wait for those words from David
Cameron: ‘marriage for all’.
No comments:
Post a Comment