Chapter 11
.
The Communist Origins of Homosexual Activism
.
On the subject of homosexuality, it should also be kept in mind that until
well into the seventies a general consensus existed across party lines,
all party lines, that same-sex identity was unacceptable.
.
There was zero tolerance for homosexuality among all groups including
Communists -not least because it was a capital offense in the Soviet
Union.
But Democratic Socialists opposed homosexuality as well (despite the
efforts of a faction in the 1950s), with Erich Fromm the leading spokesman
of those who regarded it as pathological. Fromm's lover in those years,
Karen Horney, had a similar and possibly even stronger view. Even the
ACLU was anti-homosexual.
.
What happened to change this consensus?
.
Joanne Boucher's essay is very important but before discussing it in some
detail there is information that needs to be carefully explained. It cannot
be assumed that most readers know any of this, indeed, it is a safe bet
that
almost no readers are familiar with the facts.
.
.
We can start this discursus with a few remarks about David Horowitz.
.
It is surprising, given his disdain for the hard Left and his depth
knowledge
of Communist activities in American history, that Horowitz is oblivious
to these facts, when all is said, and is one more 'enlightened' naif on
the issue
who has never studied the rise of the homosexual movement in the United
States and now takes at face value all of the false claims of the perverted
as if their entire program is some kind of set of established truths.
.
That is, Horowitz is well aware of the political dimension of the
homosexual
movement and the flagrant irresponsibility of its leaders (and just about
everyone else), but he seems to have no idea where homosexual ideas
come from. He isn't the only one; as a rough estimate about 99.999%
of everyone now making fools of themselves proclaiming each and every
demand of Leftist homosexuals as if these demands are as American as
the US Constitution, have never done even one hour's worth of genuine
research on the issue and are completely in the dark about the Communist
origins of this 'noble cause' they praise to everyone who will listen.
.
For everyone's information, the story traces to Harry Hay in the early
1950s
and his role in the Communist Party in -guess where?- California. While
Communists everywhere else were as anti-homosexual as everyone else,
this was not the case on the West Coast. There might be homosexual
enclaves in places like Manhattan or Philadelphia but only in California
was there a sufficient homosexual demographic to have political weight.
Harry Hay recognized this and, because he was a Communist, had a
pretty good idea how to organize homosexuals into a coherent
pressure group.
.
The result was the creation of the Mattachine Society in 1950 -which was
set up exactly like a Communist Party cell -and as it grew the Mattachines
adopted Communist protocols for secrecy, a rank structure of organization,
and so forth, in parallel to the CPUSA. Best known as the first
homosexual
"civil rights" group, the Mattachine Society did not begin that way and
only
took on a 'liberal' patina as a strategic measure during the McCarthy era
as camouflage for self protection. McCarthy had made the association of
homosexuals with Communists and, while this was anything but always
the case, it was true enough to cause suspicion.
.
The Wikipedia article about the Mattachine Society is a good a place to
begin
research into the group but, of course, there is considerably more to learn
and a web of Leftist connections to make. But we should beware of
over-simplification. "Ideological research," research that demands that a
predetermined outcome must be arrived at, does no-one any good.
.
The background to Harry Hay in 1950 was, in large part, his experience in
the Henry Wallace campaign of 1948 where he first met other politicized
homosexuals, but that year was also the publication date of the first
"Kinsey
Report" and Kinsey himself was a political conservative. He was also a
bisexual, a child molester, and a sado-masochist, but what he said about
homosexuals became important to individuals like Harry Hay.
.
Kinsey's data, which scholars like Judith Reisman have shown to have been
horribly skewed since the supposed representative sample of the US
population
reported on turned out to have consisted of 25% sex offenders, but this
was
not known in the late 40s or early 1950s. And as far as homosexuals were
concerned it looked to them that 10% of the US population, as Kinsey
claimed, consisted of other homosexuals (rather than the now demonstrated
2% to 3 %), and the stage was set for recruitment at scale.
.
Hay was joined by Chuck Rowland and Rudi Gernreich in his efforts, plus
several others, as discussed in an article by Leslie Feinberg for June 21,
2005,
at Workers World, a Communist website. Rowland, according to the story,
reflected on conversations of the time: “We had been saying, ‘We’ll just
have
an organization.’ And I kept saying, ‘What is our theory?’ Having been a
Communist, you’ve got to work with a theory. ‘What is our basic principle
that we are building on?’
.
This was followed by comments by Harry Hay who said: ‘We are an
oppressed cultural minority.’ And I said, ‘That’s exactly it!’ That was
the first time I know of that gays were referred to as an
oppressed cultural minority.”
.
This kind of thinking was also influenced by the Communist campaign
of the time to try and appeal to African-Americans (then called "negroes"
or "Negroes"). Party members were encouraged to regard black people
as an "oppressed minority," along with other oppressed minorities, but the
emphasis was on this minority more than any others. Which, as an aside,
was consistent with what Toffler had told me in January 1975 in trying to
justify his reasons for joining the party when he did, in the 1940s.
.
Harry Hay, then, did what homosexuals and their supporters would do
in the 1970s, claim an identification between the civil rights cause and
sexual perversion. Many black people over the years have strongly objected
but always in an unorganized manner. The Communists, who lent their
organizing skills to the Mattachine movement and its successors, saw to it
that their message would prevail.
.
It should be noted that Rudi Gernreich wasn't a Communist in the sense
that
Hay or Rowland were, but he was quick to agree with their ideas and, over
the
course of time, helped bankroll the Mattachines and, later, other
homosexual
causes. Gernreich was the well known fashion designer who was largely
responsible for "unisex" clothing styles and for such bizarre fashion
ideas
as male and female models shaving all the hair from their heads and bodies
and parading before the public completely bald and hairless.
.
The California branch of the CPUSA wasn't about to deviate from
the national party but it included a large number of sympathizers with the
homosexuals. They could not break ranks because they understood the
problem; Communists had enough worries, homosexuals within the
organization were not only an affront to Soviet policy, they could become
a liability in terms of FBI or other investigations. But as individuals,
local Communists could offer help to Harry Hay and his new organization.
.
Hay maintained his Communist affiliation for several more years but as the
McCarthy era unfolded he had increasing doubts about how his presence in
the party might adversely effect the cause. And he was well aware that
homosexuals were not formally allowed as members of the CPUSA.
Finally he talked with party leaders and urged them to expel him on
the grounds that he was homosexual. Given Hay's long involvement
with the party, however, they decided not to do so because of his
homosexuality but because he was deemed a "security risk." Parting
was "sweet sorrow," though, because Hay maintained his friendships
with Communists and, in expelling him, the organization passed a
resolution calling him a "Lifelong Friend of the People."
.
Also a factor was the 1951 publication of The Homosexual in America
by "Donald Webster Cory" -the pen name of Edward Sagarin, a bisexual
professor of criminology and sociology at the City University of New York.
Sagarin definitely was a Leftist although I do not know any details about
his
Leftism. The article at Workers World talks about Sagarin but doesn't
say much except to give the impression that he was sympatico with
the Communist cause.
.
The importance of Sagarin's book cannot be emphasized enough. While Hay
was busy organizing in California, the ground was being prepared on the
East Coast, and elsewhere, for growth of the Mattachines by this
publication.
In due course chapters of the Mattachine Society would appear in New York
City, Washington, DC, and other centers on the Atlantic seaboard.
.
Sagarin, a Jewish member of the NAACP, had borrowed an idea from the
early civil rights movement, such as it was, of the 1940s. The NAACP
view was that there was no “race problem” in America —"the problem
was racism." In Sagarin's rephrasing this became: There is “no homosexual
problem except that created by the heterosexual society.” Therefore,
homosexuals -bolstered by the fiction that 10% of the US population
was homosexual, should stand up and "demand their rights."
.
This begged the question, "since when has a population of sexual deviants
been recognized as sane, such that it has any grounds to do any such
thing?"
and in 1953 the American Psychiatric Association, in the first publication
of its DSM -Diagnostic and Statistical Manual- had classified
homosexuality
as a mental illness, so Sagarin's argument got nowhere at the time, but
under
Communist guidance that would change.
.
What is important to remember is that Sagarin was formulating arguments
that the still fledgling homosexual movement would find useful. Sagarin
had set the stage; from then on, mentally damaged or not, homosexuals
would claim the status of a legitimate minority and agitate for civil
rights
for themselves. From then on, homosexuals would be described as a
persecuted group, presented sympathetically to the public, and as 'normal'
people seeking an end to anti-homosexual "discrimination." Along with
that
went a demand to repeal all laws -some of which dated to the founding of
the
United States, like Virginia law which was drafted by Thomas Jefferson
that defined sodomy as a felony crime- that could be used to curtail
homosexual activities.
Harry Hay and the Mattachines had the nucleus of a homosexual program
to use to eventually seek the many things that homosexuals were to achieve
especially in the years since Clinton's election in 1992.
.
This did not happen immediately, in fact for a time in the 1950s most such
talk
was regarded as fantasy. In the Eisenhower era opposition to homosexuality
was as close to universal as can be imagined and McCarthy, even though he
eventually was censured by the Senate for over-reaching when he attacked
the president for alleged Communist sympathies (which was preposterous),
nonetheless had awakened the public to the dangers of homosexuality,
something that Hollywood had no trouble understanding.
.
See the Wikipedia article, "History of homosexuality in American film,"
where we read that "during the Second World War and the subsequent
Cold War, Hollywood increasingly depicted gay men and women as sadists,
psychopaths, and nefarious, anti-social villains." Few movies 'featured'
homosexuals in any important roles, but one exception was the 1948
Alfred Hitchcock drama, Rope, where homosexuality is condemned.
When it was mentioned at all in the 1950s it was virtually always
characterized
negatively and called a "sexual perversion" -which , by the way, was a
coinage
that was popularized by Sigmund Freud.
.
Before the end of the decade Mattachine groups had spread fairly widely
but as the sixties approached the original Harry Hay model for organization
was dropped by almost all homosexuals. At that, the society had recast
itself
as a standard civil rights group by the middle of the decade and Harry Hay
found himself temporarily marginalized. He would recover his standing in
the
movement when he became one of the major supporters of NAMBLA,
-the North American Man Boy Love Association- dedicated to pederasty
and child molestation, but that would not happen until the late 1970s.
.
That is, thinking about the history of the modern-era homosexual movement,
which became a significant political force around 1970, its successes
would
have been impossible without the help of "useful idiots."
.
The phrase derives from the title of a 2003 best seller by Mona Charen,
which,
in turn, was taken from a comment of Lenin to the effect that the
Communist
cause benefits from the efforts of naive people who can be persuaded to
promote Marxist ideas which they then help 'normalize' in the general
population, never aware that they are dupes of the Bolshevik cause.
.
In other words, the entire homosexual movement as it is known today
started out as a Communist effort to drastically change American society
to make it receptive to homosexuality. However, and this is crucial,
it was, in the beginning, only a small Communist minority that had this
ambition. In Leftist parlance, they were "deviationists." But California's
Communists, or many of them, proved to be open to the ideas of
homosexuals and at a time when the party was unable to find many
new members, homosexuals, perceived as a tenth of the overall population,
seemed like prime candidates for recruitment.
.
.
.
--------------------------------------------------
.
.
.
Chapter 12
.
Cultural Marxism and Homosexuality
.
.
.
Then came Gramsci's Cultural Marxism as championed by Herbert Marcuse,
who's 1955 book, Eros and Civilization, advocated his own combination
of the ideas of Marx and Freud, urging a transformation of social values
based
on hedonistic principles basically void of any concept that is
recognizable as
morality. While Marcuse mostly meant heterosexual libertinism as an ideal,
his ideas opened the door for acceptance of homosexuality -as it would
later
be called- conceived as an "alternative lifestyle."
.
Erich Fromm, the Democratic Socialist, condemned Marcuse's book as
a distortion of both Marx and Freud, and other criticisms were to follow.
But Eros and Civilization, although it developed a sort of cult following
in
the 1950s, really became a 'hit' in the sixties after its reissue in 1966.
It took two years but no later than 1968 it was a sensation among the
college age young.
.
What also gave Marcuse traction were two developments that preceded
the republication of his 1955 tome. One was Khrushchev's denunciation
of Stalin 1956 -along with disclosures of many of the dictator's crimes
from previous years. This stunned many Communists who, until then,
had denied the crimes of the Stalin regime. With Stalin gone, he had died
in 1953, and Khrushchev in power and calling for reforms, the CPUSA
had little choice but to start the process of rethinking Communist
ideology.
.
The other development was the rise of the New Left after 1962. Extant
'Stalinoid' Communism was still dominant within the party but that could
not
last forever. 1963 was the year of the Port Huron Statement and the rise
of the SDS, the Students for a Democratic Society, with Tom Hayden
as its leading spokesman.
.
Not that either the Port Huron more-or-less manifesto or Tom Hayden
could have made much difference but there was a growing war in Viet Nam
and cultural shifts were under way. Although, while he lived, JFK was able
to channel much of the enthusiasm of the young into productive activities
-the Peace Corps dates to his term in office- his assassination in 1963
knocked the props out from under the cultural establishment and young
people felt less and less constraint.
.
Rock 'n Roll, now taken for granted, was brand new at the time, and soon
the Beatles would arrive to take the young set (and many others) by storm,
changing values in the process as teens and twenties "loosened up" and an
era
of sexual experimentation began. Then came the Berkeley Free Speech
Movement that broke out in 1964 and self expression became the
watchword. The effect of all this was that old orthodoxies began
to fade away, not all at once, but unmistakably.
.
This made the SDS seem attractive to many and even those outside its orbit
would be affected by it. By then, no longer active in YPSL, but attuned to
events impacting my generation, it seemed obvious to me that a sea change
was under way in American culture which, back then, I took to mean
new Existentialist philosophies, new kinds of art, new developments in
religious ecumenism, and some kind of 'new Socialism,' but not SDS
which already had a reputation as far Left -not in all of its chapters,
but many of them, and that did not interest me at all.
.
If my prognostications were more on target than not, they were also partly
wrong, especially when the New Left, while it did become associated with
new trends in the arts, also became increasingly militant. That was an
effect
of Viet Nam. Tom Hayden, the main author of the Post Huron Statement,
which took a strong anti-war stand along with a strong pro-civil rights
stand at a time when black people were mobilizing around the leadership
of Martin Luther King, Jr., drove the New Left further and further to the
Left and -unbeknownst to many people, myself included- made a
rapprochement with Communists.
.
It was not difficult not to know much of what was going on in the New Left
because only a fraction of that movement was organized in any formal sense.
More than anything it was a politico-cultural Cause that manifest itself
in hundreds or even thousands of local variants across the country. There
was an Appalachian version, for instance, that focused on the coal industry
and the arts of mountain people. Other versions arose in parts of the
South,
New England, and the Southwest. No-one was in "control" of the phenomenon;
most was spontaneous. But as the war became more threatening to young men
of draft age, few of whom had the least interest in it, the appeal of SDS
and
anything related to it grew larger. But how to reconcile politics with
massive
cultural change -and new sexual attitudes?
.
Did I mention "the pill?" The advent of birth control tablets, while there
had
been medical trials as far back as the mid-50s, were only given FDA
approval
in 1960 and it took several years after that for 'the pill' to become
commonplace.
Which it did and, with concern for unwanted pregnancy pretty much
eliminated, sexual morality became increasingly 'liberal.' Recreational
drugs
-and marijuana- lagged behind and would not become newsworthy until
late in the 1960s but that matter was essentially a footnote to
everything else.
.
The point was that Marcuse became relevant at precisely this time because
the young were searching for a new worldview to match their new lifestyles
and he was the first to offer a new philosophy for them. But not only the
young.
.
Adult Leftists had their own problems to solve. As the sixties developed
it became more and more obvious that the 'proletariat' was less and less
interested in classical Marxism of any kind. If there were a few exceptions
to the rule, a union local in West Virginia or a local in North Carolina,
that is all they were, aberrations. Hence the appeal of Gramscian ideas
which Marcuse, a transplant in America from the Frankfort School of
German Marxists, understood with great clarity. The goal of the Frankfort
Leftists was cultural takeover, labor and the economy could wait until
'hearts and minds' had been won.
.
Hayden and the SDS more generally were quick to see the potential
in this approach for themselves and the original Port Huron document
was superceded two years later with new emphasis on taking over the
universities -which would require a lot of time and energy but which,
everyone agreed, could be done. Which, of course, proved to be
prescient even if, at the time, with many colleges and universities
-or even most of them- still more conservative in outlook than not,
it may not have seemed very likely.
.
Class struggle, said Marcuse, was far less important than seeking freedom
from "biological repression." What was vital was experiencing pleasure in
life
along with striving for higher social goals. This message rang true for
large numbers of the young and the Left needed to reinvent itself.
.
To what extent such ideas directly effected the leadership of the CPUSA
is not a question that can be answered here; I simply do not know. But
what
cannot be denied is the fact that organized Communists infiltrated the SDS
and the fact that in some cases official Communists co-operated with
Tom Hayden and, after they were married, with Jane Fonda.
.
Herbert Aptheker, the warhorse Communist historian, became a friend
of Hayden and, as no-one can pretend otherwise, Hayden and Fonda
traveled to North Vietnam where they championed the Communist cause.
.
They were joined by Staughton Lynd, a Quaker, indicating that the
Society of Friends was also infiltrated by Communists -which is
significant
because Quakers, despite their fairly small numbers, were to play a major
role in the anti-war movement of those years- which was huge. A number
of politicians of the era also became fellow travelers of the Communists,
most notably Jerry Brown of California. Yes, that Jerry Brown.
.
One final comment about Hayden: He was and doubtless still is anti-white.
He first expressed these sentiments in the 1960s, saying that he hoped
for the "peaceful, nonviolent disappearance of the white race" through
racial intermarriage and other forms of reproduction. After all, no Asians
were ever imperialist in all their history, the Han Dynasty and the Gupta
empire never existed, no Africans were ever imperialists whatever
the history books say about the Ashanti or various Zulu empires, nor did
any Native Americans ever create expansionists states even if this means
overlooking Iroquois wars of conquest or the Comancheria empire,
nor were Malays ever imperialist whatever you may have heard
about Srivijaya or Majapahit.
.
Isn't ignorance of history wonderful? You can say whatever you like
and it doesn't have to be true even when you are shaping political policy.
Your fictions may be pure crap but who will know the difference
between your falsehoods and the truth, anyway?
.
Whites do all the evil in the world, other peoples are all virtuous
and never do anything wrong. Uh-huh. As a suggestion may I recommend
that Mr. Hayden make it official that his personal theme song has the
lyrics:
"they're coming to take me away, hey, hey....."
.
He believes in self-loathing insane garbage.
.
All of which is one more reason to despise the Communists and the hard Left
more generally, but it is necessary to return to the subject of homosexual
psychopatholgy.
.
.
The rise of the homosexual Left
.
By the early 1970s Communists were being forced by circumstances to
reconsider their stand on homosexuality. This does not -or not
necessarily-
mean the Communist Party of the United States of America. That is not
information at my disposal. But there were many people who were
veterans of political wars who had been 'card carrying' Communists
who now were adrift as lapsed members -large numbers quit the party
in the years after 1956- but they had not really ceased being Communists.
And some of these people moved in social circles that included many
homosexuals, as was true especially in New York City and California.
.
The Mattachine Society still existed even if only a shadow of what it
had once been, but new homosexual groups were emerging, inspired
by student protest movements and civil rights organizations and they
modeled their actions after those of college 'radicals' and black
activists.
Indeed, even before 1970, some Leftists were taking up the homosexual
cause -among them, Alvin Toffler. His 1970 book, Future Shock,
written during the late 60s, is replete with commendations for the
sexually different. But this was still far from what homosexual leaders
most wanted. To get that they would need to convince the APA, the
American Psychiatric Association, to abandon its position
on homosexuality as a mental debility.
.
The best account of how this was done remains Charles Socarides' 1995 text,
Homosexuality -A Freedom Too Far, but there have been a good number of
other studies that have reported many of the same facts he discussed.
.
To summarize succinctly: After several years of organized attacks on the
APA
by homosexual activists, including threats, disturbances at meetings,
arguments
in the hallways outside the offices of psychiatrists, picketing, and
intimidation,
all of that abetted by the efforts of the still fairly small number of
secret
homosexuals in the APA, the homosexuals had their way in 1973 at an
official
session of the association's assembled leadership, by a two vote margin.
All that really did, was to reclassify homosexuality as a 'problem' rather
than an illness, and even then it might be an illness under some
circumstances,
but the decision was treated by the limp wrist crowd as if they had won
a decisive victory -which is what it eventually became.
.
The APA action, despite considerable opposition in the organization until
well into the 1980s, had effectively been taken over. There was much
"mopping up" yet to do, but it was only a matter of time. More to the
point,
the political Left, seeing this and also being deceived by Kinsey's
fraudulent
numbers (which would not be corrected until the early nineties in two
University of Chicago studies) in the 10% range, thought that here
was an important population to try and appeal to and convert into
other Leftists. As if that was all that necessary since many homosexuals,
not waiting to be converted, had become Leftists on their own.....
.
Exactly when to set a date for the moment that the majority of the Left,
-certainly the hard Left- had become pro-homosexual is uncertain.
Possibly this had happened during the Carter presidency, but the process
was largely complete no later than about 1990. The news media, following
the example of the New York Times, fell in line across America no later
than 1995 or so. Not all Democrats were won over but by the time
Clinton departed from the White House probably two out of three
were in the "homosexual rights" camp.
.
One book more than any other helped "seal the deal." This was a 1978 opus
by Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of
Diversity Among Men and Women. Which is where the efforts of the
Kinsey people at their Institute for Sex Research in Indiana and the
hard Left converged. An unholy alliance of Communists and sexual
Fascists one is tempted to say.
.
In any case, Bell and Weinberg had started their study giving every
appearance of trying to be objective, taking into account a variety of
viewpoints on the issue of same sex sexuality. Included among those
involved in this early stage was no less than Irving Bieber whose 1962
book, Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study of Male Homosexuals,
had argued that homosexuality is, without serious question, a mental
illness.
For several years this text was regarded as definitive on the subject.
.
That was stage # 1. Somewhere in the process, this is not clear, Albert
Ellis
was included, ostensibly an objective third party but in reality an
anti-religion
Atheist who detested Biblical morality.
.
Then came the next stage during which the deck was stacked to reflect
the views of the Kinsey Institute. Among the "experts" consulted
thereafter
were such figures as Clarence Tripp, Wardell Baxter Pomeroy, and
Paul H. Gebhard, each of them pro-homosexual without reservation.
But what is more interesting inasmuch as Kinsey participation was a
foregone conclusion, was participation by Left-wing researchers,
most notably Edward Sagarin and Evelyn Hooker.
.
Hooker is not someone usually thought of as political. However, she was
exactly that even if politics was not her professional priority -which was
homosexual psychology. This has to do with Hooker's time studying in
Germany in 1937. She had been staying with a Jewish family and saw,
first hand, Nazi treatment (abuse) of Jews and was appalled. Next she
visited Russia in the wake of one of Stalin's purges and that was also
very
unpleasant. But, at least as much of the story as I have been able to
piece
together, on her return to America, she gravitated to the political Left
as the
best available alternative and one in which, even in those years, showed
some
toleration for homosexuals. And, of course, there was Hooker's decisive
role
in the 1973 APA decision with her since-discredited research of that time
made the most of by homosexuals to claim psychological normality. Nearly
all of the homosexuals in question were Leftists of one kind or another.
.
Of the two main authors of the study, Alan Bell was not especially
political;
primarily he was a pro-homosexual activist for whom homosexuality itself
was his politics. Weinberg was another matter, someone who had associated
with Leftist homosexuals since the early sixties and who was clearly in
their
orbit. Weinberg apparently coined the word "homophobia," which was first
used in a book in his 1972 opus, Society and the Healthy Homosexual.
He has claimed that he started to use the term in 1966 and that the small
"homophile movement" of the era thought the word could be useful and
also began to employ the neologism. After that, according to Wikipedia,
he prevailed upon a friend of his, Al Goldstein, to use "homophobia" in
his
pornographic newspapers, Gay and Screw. Eventually the word spread
to the culture at large.
.
The history of the word "homophobia" is a subject I have written about
in some detail; it is brought up here to inform readers unfamiliar with
my unpublished essays -although many have appeared at the website
[email protected]_
(mailto:[email protected]) - in case they have the mistaken
view that the word is somehow neutral or 'scientific.' Actually, the
word was designed with the specific purpose of smearing opponents
of homosexuality as if they necessarily must be ignorant bigots. And if
critics of homosexuality are trained psychology professionals like Dr.
Paul
Cameron or have written scholarly books on the subject like Judith
Reisman,
that doesn't matter, they should be smeared anyway.
.
Actually, of course, there is no such thing as "homophobia," what there
actually is, as sex researcher Claude Crepault of the _Institut I_
(http://www.google.com/url?url=http://www.sexoanalyse.com/&rct=j&frm=1&q=&esrc=s&sa=U
&ei=7DZeVd_GEZe4oQTOvoF4&ved=0CEkQFjAN&usg=AFQjCNGwkTPLjIBj74iltoKkziMjWrEVZ
w) nternational
de Sexonalayse in Montreal has pointed out, is clinical heterophobia,
morbid aversion to normal sexual relationships and pathologically
negative feelings about the opposite gender. It is completely natural
to feel revulsion at homosexuals for the simple reason that what they
do and who they are contravenes the order of nature.
.
Instead, of course, today's "enlightened" masses have an opposite view
and have made themselves into "useful idiots." Which is to say that
everyone
who uses the word "homophobia" as if it has scientific standing has made
themselves into mouthpieces for the homosexual party line which, in turn,
serves the purposes of Cultural Marxists at the same time. Which is also
to say that Christian believers who use the word are just as much
useful idiots as the most secular people anyone can imagine.
.
This applies even to some critics of homosexuality who, because of their
ignorance of homosexual and Cultural Marxist campaigns to change the
culture, don't know how it is that their vocabulary has changed, and with
it so have any number of their values when compared with,
say, 2005 or 1990.
.
What, exactly, is Cultural Marxism? Several characteristics are
easy enough to identify:
.
* It started out in America as an academic movement among Leftists
influenced by the Frankfort School, named after an institute in that
German
city that was shut down at Hitler's orders. With the rise of the Nazis and
the
expulsion of (or flight of) scholars from Germany, an important group
of Marxist revisionists found refuge at Columbia University in New York
while others, after a time, relocated to California and worked
in the movie industry.
.
Important names include Theodor W. Adorno, Max Horkheimer,
Herbert Marcuse, Ernst Bloch, and Walter Benjamin. Also part of this
circle was Jürgen Habermas, although his reputation essentially dates
to a later time period, Wilhelm Reich, who was so eccentric that he was
effectively discredited in due course, and Erich Fromm, who never quite fit
and who made an independent political career for himself. Each of these
thinkers were well known by the intellectual class. They all were regarded
by 'orthodox' Communists as something like heretics; this view would
change and eventually Communists of all kinds pretty much followed
in the footsteps of the Frankfort School, but that took years.
.
* Critics of the Frankfort School have themselves been criticized
as "paleo-conservatives" as if no-one else could possibly have a
negative view of contemporary Leftism, which is demonstrably false.
Critics characterize the views of people like Marcuse, etc., as
Cultural Marxism, which , of course, is also my conclusion as a critic
who is a political Independent. Cultural Marxists, according to
this critique, wished to destroy the cultural / values paradigms
that made American what it became by the 1950s and which
were still dominant as recently as ca. 1990. In this they have
been largely successful.
.
* The anti-Christian character of Cultural Marxism was made very clear
starting in the 1930s, especially in the work of Antonio Gramsci and
Georg Lukacs. They argued -which was to become the basic theme
of Leftists in the late 1960s- that the prime obstacle in the way of
achieving a Communist revolution was Christianity. Therefore, everything
possible must be done to subvert or destroy Christian institutions,
including churches, and to discredit Christian faith.
.
The Wikipedia article on the subject summarizes the views of Cultural
Marxists
quite well in saying that, from their era in history, looking forward:
.
"The new battleground...must become the culture, starting with the
traditional
family and completely engulfing churches, schools, media, entertainment,
civic organizations, literature, science, and history. All of these
things must be
radically transformed and the social and cultural order gradually turned
upside-down with the new proletariat placed in power at the top."
.
At first, most Leftists had no use for homosexuals and regarded
homosexuality
as anathema. However, the paradigm shifts in behavior among the young
during the 1960s changed all that and the Left even became susceptible
to some of Marcuse's more extreme views, eventually re-defining the
"polymorphous perverse" as intrinsic to the "new proletariat," hence
adding homosexuals, lesbians, and transsexuals to the Left-wing coalition,
a development that was accomplished in fits and starts over
a 20 year period that dates to about 1970.
.
* Also important to the mix was the goal of pathologizing everything
that,
until this time, had been regarded as normal. Which is not to say that some
of
the original leaders of the Frankfort School went nearly so far, but is to
say
that some of their ideas were made to serve nihilistic purposes soon
enough,
Hence the significance of the interest of these (mostly) German Marxists
in Freud and other forms of psychology.
.
In the aftermath of WWII the Frankfort people made much of Adorno's concept
of an "authoritarian personality." This said, basically, that there was a
very
unhealthy strain in European Christianity, with offshoots in America, that
allowed the rise of Fascism / Nazism. Which seems true enough when you
think of the one-time power of the Ku Klux Klan -which had millions
of members as recently as the 1920s. But Leftists in the 1960s began
to generalize to all of Christianity and, in the process, to all effects
of
Christian values in society. Such reasoning led to the view, summarized
neatly in the Wikipedia article, that:
.
"Christianity, capitalism, and the traditional family create a character
prone to racism and fascism. Thus, anyone who upholds America's
traditional moral values and institutions is both racist and fascist.
Children raised by traditional values parents, we are told to believe,
will almost certainly become racists and fascists. By extension, if
fascism
and racism are endemic to America's traditional culture, then everyone
raised in the traditions of God, family, patriotism, gun ownership,
or free markets is in need of psychological help."
.
This, then, is basic to Cultural Marxism. Which, when you think about it,
is also the agenda of two organizations that, at their founding, had
altogether different values than now is the case, the ACLU and the SPLC.
Both the American Civil Liberties Union and the Southern Poverty Law
Center have become multi-million dollar Cultural Marxist institutions
-in case you were wondering what influence any of this has over you.
Not to mention Cultural Marxist values that now are pervasive in the
Democratic Party and the RINO wing of the Republican Party.
The Green movement is now close to 100% Cultural Marxist
although it maintains its commitment to saving the environment.
.
Most libertarians in the United States fall into a category that, while
decidedly non-Communist, agrees with the values promoted by
Cultural Marxists. Libertarians are facilitators of Cultural Marxism;
they are useful idiots par excellence. The difference is that libertarians
emphasize the efficacy of markets and believe in the notion that
economic motivation is central to everything else and is sufficient
to solve all problems. Cultural Marxists could care less about
these libertarian fantasies
.
* Cultural Marxists are strongly opposed to political Independents,
whom they slander as "fence-sitters." The fundamental ideal of most
Independents, that you should think for yourself and cultivate a strong
sense of conscience about what it right and what is wrong and demand
truthfulness from politicians, is not what Cultural Marxists are
interested in.
And they oppose free speech -except for themselves. Everyone else
should shut up and if they don't, such dissenters are branded as Fascists
or as mentally deranged. In any case, the view that Independents have
their own ideas which are very different than those of Democrats or
Republicans -or the hard Left- is incomprehensible to Cultural Marxists.
.
* Cultural Marxism also makes use of what is known as "Critical Theory."
Roughly, this is the view that people need to be enlightened to their
real best interests through a critique of society that is based on all
of the behavioral sciences -including psychology, but especially various
forms of sociology, with economics part of the picture.
.
Needless to say, seeing major importance in the social sciences does not
need to be Cultural Marxist in any sense; Saint-Simon, who lived before
Marx, invented social science and saw the world very differently,
for example. But a Marxist "take" on things is what is demanded
by Leftists who make use of Critical Theory.
Rightists who recoil in horror at the thought of the Liberal Arts, not only
concede the social sciences to the far Left, they stigmatize anyone who
strives to use sociology or psychology for humane purposes as if they
were Leftists, making it difficult for many people to understand the fact
that the social sciences not only can be used for the good, but should be
used for the good, and that this should be demanded of
our educational institutions.
.
As it is, Critical Theory is an anti-Capitalist system of ideas and is
based
on the notion that 'normative' social values mask a system in which the
rich
rule everyone else and everyone else is blind to this fact. Moreover,
according to Critical Theory, traditional cultural values support
Capitalism
and make it impossible for nearly anyone to identify the sources of their
"oppression." Thus the-poor-are-virtuous-by-nature is a corollary and
the conclusion that civilization as we know it must be torn down and
replaced by a new regime in which all current values (or many of them)
are reversed. Spirituality should be replaced by Atheism, and such
philosophies as Existentialism and Pragmatism expunged to be
replaced by Nihilism, viz., "anything goes" social values and
"who needs to think about consequences?"
.
Such is the realm of Cultural Marxism, and it is everywhere.
.
.
The incompetence of the Right
.
Any honest appraisal of Christians in particular, although this may apply
to
Orthodox Jews and to many Buddhists and Hindus as well, has to say that
believers are hopelessly naive, are just about totally ignorant of
Cultural
Marxism, tend to be ridiculously uniformed about relevant science on the
issue of homosexuality, and don't want to become informed because they
have other priorities that exclude doing research that might subtract
time
from church functions or charity work or home schooling their kids.
.
Clergy, who might have sufficient time, aren't interested, either, because
the subject of homosexuality is such an embarrassment, it is so
antithetical
to the values of the New Testament or to the Bible more generally. As for
subjects like Cultural Marxism, they don't see the relevance and, in any
event, studying such topics is too difficult for them because of their
hopelessly simplistic -childlike- views of the world. At least this
is what it amounts to if you want an honest opinion.
.
When they do stand up for their values in opposition to homosexuality and
the threat this now poses for families, they make complete fools of
themselves
because the only way that occurs to them to make their case is to quote
Bible verses -which, of course, have no standing in the political realm.
As much as I respect the Bible, as much as it may have authority for me
as a scholar of the Bible, I nonetheless am fully aware that the Bible
has no authority outside of the realm of faith. Other reasons for moral
stands must be made use of in any political debate. This is a fundamental
fact of life -which is totally obvious but which most Christians simply
do not comprehend.
.
Are there informed critics of homosexuality who could help Christians
make their case? Of course there are. Two names might be cited here
out of many others, Neil E. Whitehead, who has written for the Journal
of Human Sexuality and other publications, and Joseph Nicolosi, a clinical
psychologist who is founder and director of the Thomas Aquinas
Psychological
Clinic in California, who is associated with NARTH, the National
Association
for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. But Christians seldom avail
themselves of the expertise of such people. They seem to assume that the
issue
has been settled in the scientific community in favor of homosexuals years
ago
and, hence, that their only recourse is an appeal to religious freedom.
About which it is difficult to imagine anything more stupid.
.
Christians also are oblivious to the many scholarly criticisms of
homosexual
ersatz "research" found in the books of Bell and Weinberg and others.
.
John Gagnon, an entirely reputable sociologist, tore Homosexualities
into shreds when it was published, and John P. DeCecco, then a professor
of Psychology and Human Sexuality at San Francisco State University,
said that the entire project was so much dishonesty disguised beneath
a welter of misleading statistics. Which is hardly to do more than suggest
what is available to study, to use in opposition to homosexuals.
But Christians don't make the effort.
.
And so, they, too make themselves into useful idiots for the homosexual
cause.
This isn't their intention; their intentions are the exact opposite. But
this is
the practical effect. They say to one and all: "See, all opponents of
homosexuality are uninformed religious simpletons."
.
News flash: Praying about the problem of homosexual inroads in society
won't make any difference at all unless you are informed and take
real world action to put an end to such diseased filth.
.
Now we have conservative Republicans who have thrown themselves
under the wheels of the homosexual bandwagon, useful idiots like
Reince Priebus, Rob Portman, Fred Thompson, Robert Gates, Laura Bush,
and still others. Even Newt Gingrich, although he has continued to take
conservative stands on homosexual issues, is another useful idiot. Newt,
who has a homosexual sister, has not spent as much as one day doing
serious research on homosexual psychopathology and knows almost
nothing about this mentally diseased condition. Hence all of his comments
are based on legal considerations, tradition, and religious rights, all of
which are secondary to the agenda of homosexuals and which miss
the point of their basic arguments entirely.
.
I know from experience that it is futile to talk with Republicans about
this issue.
Most of them live for money, they can't be bothered to research anything
that won't increase the net worth of their portfolios. They may not like
to concede the culture to Democrats and the Left, but for them the culture
doesn't really matter all that much, not compared to their $ 150,000 income
or $ 800,000 house. For Leftists, which was one reason that, in the past,
I identified with the Left, priorities are the exact opposite: A six
figure income
and a deluxe home does not count nearly as much as values and the culture.
The crass materialism of all-too-many Republicans is sickening to even
think
about. It is no mystery at all why conservatives are losing the culture
wars
wherever you look.
.
And so, here we are in the twenty-teens of the third millennium, the Left
in positions of dominance in almost all areas where it counts in terms of
who decides which values we will live for: Education, television,
literature,
the news media, visual art, music, drama, the film industry, and, of
course,
Silicon Valley. Religion is the one major exception but even there useful
idiots
abound and the homosexual cause continues to move forward. Indeed, the
unbiblical Evangelical slogan, "hate the sin, love the sinner," also works
in favor
of the psychologically perverted since, unlike the first generations of
Christians
we can read about in the epistles of the Apostle Paul, men and women who
detested everything about homosexuality including homosexuals themselves,
today's believers bend over backward in their 'enlightened toleration'
of homosexuals.
.
Its all pathetic, is what it is. Utterly pathetic.
.
.
Redefining "hate"
.
Homosexuals aren't misunderstood victims of bad childhoods or of
bad choices they have made in the past even if, yes, such considerations
may help explain homosexuality. Rather, like criminals with a guns,
homosexuals are the enemy. They seek to destroy each and every value
that makes life decent and good as people have understood those words
for countless generations. If you have the ability and someone with a
gun seeks to harm you, the first thing to do is defeat him, make it
impossible for him to continue his criminal conduct. To do that you must
recognize the obvious, he is your enemy. You had better summon up
some hate so that you have the motivation to disable him, then and there,
without waiting for an explanation for why he is a criminal.
.
Hate is a useful emotion -which is why we are capable of hatred.
It serves a function in the human emotional economy. The basic question
concerns moral forms of hatred vs. immoral versions of hate. To make
this clear, an immoral form of hatred is anti-Semitism. This type of
prejudice
also strikes me as stupid beyond belief. But no assumption is being made
that
anti-Semites necessarily are Nazis or other Right-wingers. The time when
anti-Semitism was primarily a phenomenon of the Right is historical;
today's far worse problem is Left-wing anti-Semitism.
.
What about other forms of immoral hatred? Here are some examples:
.
* Feminists shouting down a college teacher who tries to talk about the
lessons of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology.
.
* African-Americans who riot against white people when a black criminal
is shot by a police officer. They may also riot against Asians at the same
time.
.
* Leftists who hurl invectives, who show extreme disrespect, who yell
and otherwise disrupt a speech by a conservative on a college campus
.
* Anarchists who go on a violent rampage against businesses because,
for them, capitalist enterprises are somehow "evil."
.
* Muslims who attack Christians or others with different beliefs than
their's
because, as they see it, all other religions besides Islam are false. Not
that
some Muslims don't claim that Islam is tolerant, but speaking of what
millions of Muslims actually do and what their motivation consists of.
.
.
But, but, but......these are not the kinds of examples you expected?
They aren't? What were you expecting?
.
Let me guess: Examples of hate that only the political left identifies as
hate?
.
Very well, yes, white people who are anti-black racists are motivated by
hate.
Right-wing pissants who despise Jews are also motivate by hate. So are
nationalists who disregard the rights of Native Americans and regard them
as inferiors. You can add to this list as you see fit. The point is that
hate
exists on both the Left and the Right and the completely unjustified view
that only the other side hates is an absurdity.
.
One can appreciate the good intentions of anti-hate laws and even of groups
dedicated to combating hate. However, a war on hate is senseless.
Part of how we all define ourselves is by what and who we hate.
Isn't this self-evident?
.
We love certain types of music and hate other kinds of music. The same
goes for social environments, people whom we associate with or refuse
to associate with, and so forth. Hate helps set boundaries that are useful
to us.
We also hate, or should hate: Sin, crime, disease, unsafe working
conditions,
callousness, irresponsibility, indifference to unjustified suffering,
lying,
and on and on.
.
Given the nature of homosexuality, the diseased mentality that is at its
roots,
and the damaging effects of homosexual behavior on people's lives,
we should hate homosexuality.
.
There should not be the least question about this.
.
Which is being said by someone who does have researched opinions about
why homosexuals are what they are, who does have detailed knowledge
of the history of the homosexual movement, and who actually has studied
much of the psychological literature on the issue of homosexuality.
If you are ignorant about your enemy you cannot possibly win
a fight against him -or her.
.
Don't even try to refute this viewpoint because, if you are like the
vast majority of Americans, you have never done any research at all
on the subject -and who can respect uninformed opinions?
I cannot, and no-one should.
.
.
There is still more to be said about homosexuals and homosexuality.
The story you are reading is a saga that not only involves Communists
and Cultural Marxists for whom homosexuals were -and are- a
cause célèbre, but necessarily has to include the psychological dimension
of sexual malfunction. It would be best to talk about that subject, in
depth,
in the context of 21st century politics, however.
.
Enough has been said to this point to set the stage for what will follow
on this subject later, so let us resume the narrative about Alvin Toffler
and his past as a secret Communist -then a secret ex-Communist who
never fully abandoned Marxist-Leninism.
.
.
.
.
--
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[RC] Chapters 11 & 12 When the truth is found to be lies...
BILROJ via Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community Wed, 24 Jun 2015 00:13:37 -0700
