Chapter 18
.
The Liberal Case Against Homosexuality
.
.
.
In the year 2000, I wrote a book entitled The LIBERAL Case Against
Homosexuality. In retrospect it might just as well have been called
"The Liberal and Conservative Case Against Homosexuality," it really
was not a partisan composition. But I wanted to point out the fact that
liberalism does not need to mean tolerance for sexual perversion. As
recently
as the 1970s, at least outside of California, even the ACLU was opposed to
toleration of homosexuality; like 90% of Americans, civil libertarians took
the view that a mental illness is outside the bounds of legitimate civil
rights
concerns. But on this issue liberals generally were little different than
conservatives, just as 'classic' liberals were just as anti-Communist
as people on the political Right.
.
That is, the title had a rationale that might not be understood today for
what,
in fact, were its intensions. And I wanted to call attention to the
positive uses
of the word "liberal," something that had become almost impossible in some
contexts as a result of demonization of the term by George HW Bush and
Lee Atwater in the late 1980s. for which, as I saw it, there were
no good excuses- unless you think we should also demonize "conservative"
or other political vocabulary.
.
Instead, we need to refurbish a number of other political terms
that have lost their original meanings, like "progressive" and "radical."
NOT to promote meanings that today's fake 'progressives' promote,
but the exact opposite, and in order to remake 'radical' into a term
of respect -although it sometimes does have this sense now. And to
restore the meaning of "progressive" as Teddy Roosevelt
understood it.
\
The book was filled with facts that no-one could refute. It provided all
the
evidence at my disposal at the time that homosexuality is a mental illness.
While much more can be added in 2015, there were no mistakes of
substance in that book; it has held up quite well in the intervening years.
.
The book documents, at some length, the pattern of pathological lying that
characterizes homosexuals. There are two chapters on this subject, with
focus
on modern-era mythology manufactured by this sub culture. For example,
which will cause great dismay among homosexuals and their supporters,
absolutely no-one can say, based on extant evidence, that Walt Whitman
was anything but an eccentric heterosexual. Granted that he sometimes was
bizarre, and sometimes was a 19th century version of Sidney Jourard (hence
very out of place in his society), he nonetheless insisted, repeatedly,
that he
was sexually normal and nothing but normal, with memories of affairs in his
past
to prove it. And his denials of allegations of homosexuality were
vehement.
My point was that unless hard evidence to the contrary surfaces the only
decent choice we have is to take Whitman at his word.
.
A book published in 1995 that was unknown to me in 2000 has proven to be
very useful in this context. This is David Reynold's opus, Walt Whitman's
America; the relevant material can be found on pages 197 - 230.
There are also important observations about his poems as such,
observations
that -somehow- are never made by homosexuals who try and make Whitman
into a degenerate like themselves.For instance, as page 29 informs us,
Whitman
frequently referred to himself as "procreative parent," and he often used
imagery
and metaphors that are explicitly heterosexual. That is, maybe you can
read into other poems vague allusions to same-sex interest, although that
is questionable, but again and again he was obvious about such themes as
fertility, parenthood, and intercourse. Which maybe, just maybe, is what
helps explain his claim -years later, when they would have grown up-
that he had fathered six children. You would think that all of this had
something to do with a normal heterosexual disposition.
.
There also was Whitman's obsession with Marietta Albinoni, the famous
contralto of the 1850s. As Reynolds noted, the songstress is alluded to
repeatedly in Whitman's poems. Not that romantic relationships were
available to Whitman except, as in real life for most males, now and then,
but he seems to have made the most of opportunities when they were
possible. And, as another wild guess, Whitman's poem, "To a Common
Prostitute" from Leaves of Grass, has something to do with sexual
relationships he had with 'women of easy virtue.'.
.
Homosexual myth-mongering goes back a long time. Was Sappho a female
homosexual? Not according to a friend of mine who once taught a course
in Sappho's poetry at the West Virginia branch of Antioch College. This was
Bob Snyder, since deceased, someone who had made himself an authority
on the poetess. He had no "sexual politics" axe to grind, which if anything
would
have been "liberal" at a school like Antioch, it was just that there was no
evidence
to any effect other than that Sappho was a mother and seems to have been
the
overseer of something like a finishing school for brides-to-be of the Greek
upper
classes. There are two overtly homoerotic poems that have traditionally
been
included in Sappho's collected works but these have been known to have
been ancient forgeries for decades, and subtract them from consideration
and
there is nothing all that sexually unusual in her verses.
.
And as for using the term "lesbian" to denote female homosexuality, which
I will not do, this is nonsensical in an ancient context. The reputation of
the
island was the exact opposite of the modern era use of its name to denote
sexual perversion among women. Hence references to Lesbos in the Illiad as
a favorite haunt for Greek soldiers seeking "R & R" with the opposite sex,
and a similar image as late as the time of Catallus -hence his well known
poem that provided the 20th century lyrics for Carl Orff's Catulli Carmina.
"Lesbia," in the poem, refers to a young woman whom Catullus had a
passionate entirely heterosexual love affair with.
.
It is high time we stopped insulting the Christian men and women of the
very
real island of Lesbos (aka Lesvos), people who have repeatedly complained
about this usage, even, unsuccessfully so far, appealing to the
Greek supreme court.
.
Speaking personally, I'm also sick and tired of people who take the view,
as if there was no other, that "of course" Lesbos refers to female
homosexuality,
who doesn't know that? Actually what this attitude says is the anyone with
that outlook does not know history, has no idea that 150,000 real people
live on the island, and like other dupes of homosexuals, parrots whatever
lies homosexuals want everyone else to believe on baseless grounds.
.
Homosexual propaganda takes the view that only homosexuals and their
supporters are informed and everyone else is backward and ignorant.
Actually, while there certainly are a lot of uninformed people in society,
the worst ignorance exists among homosexuals and their friends,
who believe their own myths and falsehoods.
.
The LIBERAL Case Against Homosexuality debunks a number of popular
myths and clears up issues around various famous people who have been
smeared as homosexuals. Still, that was 2000, and a time before I owned
a computer. There is much more that can be done with this idea now.
.
Following are the names of people who homosexuals identify as other
homosexuals. These names, in some cases, are also discussed in my 2000
book,
but most are taken from a homosexual-produced Wikipedia entry :
List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people.
.
I cannot comment on anything like all the names on that list, more than
a thousand, but I have done at least some research about some people
and can report that it is wise to mistrust homosexual characterizations
of anyone at all. While it is true that most people identified on that list
(as far as I can tell) are homosexuals, or bisexuals, others are not,
at least if their self-described identities have any value.
.
For example, the Wikipedia list says the Camille Paglia is a female
homosexual,
this is presented as a positive identification. However, Paglia describers
herself
as bisexual. There are, in fact, a good number of 'false positives' on that
list,
none worse that the claim that Alexander the Great was homosexual. This
allegation has been debunked long ago, most definitively by W. W. Tarn,
and is generally regarded as false. As tarn pointed out, Alexander had many
enemies among Greeks -he had conquered Greece, let us not forget- and
among
the few ways to 'get back' at him was by means of slander. Moreover, there
are problems of substance with those ancient allegations, among other
things
the fact that some of them would require Alexander to be in two places at
once,
the documented place and the location mentioned in the allegation. And
besides
all else, exactly how is anyone supposed to dismiss Alexander's known
relationships with women? Pretend they did not exist?.
.
Also important in this context is the false use homosexuals often make
of Plato, as if, since homosexuality is discussed in some of the dialogues,
therefore the philosopher approved of the practice. The Symposium is
clear,
however, that Socrates was not interested in homosexuality and while he
tolerated it -what else was he going to do in Athens if his era?- he
also
recommended against it. As for Plato, while his earlier writings can be
taken
as congruent with Socrates' form of toleration, later in life, away from
Athens,
he was free to express himself openly and wrote The Laws -which
unequivocally condemns homosexuality. All of which is disregarded by
contemporary homosexuals on the theory that:
(1) why not make up history?, and
(2) no-one will know, anyway, 99% of Americans are historically illiterate
.
Such is the "knowledge" that supporters of homosexuals boast they uphold
as part of their enlightened superiority..
.
Uh huh, yeah, sure........
.
Other "for sure" homosexuals include Emerson, Keynes, da Vinci,
Tchaikovsky, Michelangelo and Jane Addams..
.
Emerson did, as a young man, express emotional interest in another young
man
he met in Florida, but whatever those feelings consisted of, the fact is
that there
never was a sexual relationship, Emerson married a teen bride a few years
later to whom he was passionately devoted, and after she died, after an
interval, he married again and became the father of four children.
Therefore,
according to the Wikipedia list, Emerson was queer.
.
As for Keynes, whom I once researched in some detail, it is altogether true
that into his twenties he was a practicing homosexual. However, along came
a
young woman with whom he fell madly in love -all kinds of comments
by people who knew him at the time attest to exactly this- and the couple
married and stayed married for the rest of their lives. Therefore the only
possible way to characterize Keynes is to insist that he was homosexual?
.
For da Vinci, there are suspicions but no proof of anything at all, nothing
at all for either sex, and the same is the case for Michelangelo, about
whom
there at least is knowledge that he had been in love with a woman for
several years. Anything else is pure speculation.
.
Tchaikovsky became an active homosexual later in life but his journals
tell the story of a man tormented by those kinds of feelings, which he
rejected outright for many years. Indeed, he fell in love with an opera
singer and she was the passion of his life for some time -all of which
was unrequited, however. As far as I can tell, although my information
is sketchy and I don't have all that much interest, as late as the time
he wrote his 4th symphony he still led an asexual life; that
symphony was dedicated to his patroness Madam von Meck.
.
There is reason to suspect that Jane Addams was a female homosexual
but about her "love life" there is no solid information of any kind.
.
In other words, homosexuals lie about many of the people they claim
are (or were) homosexuals -they lie repeatedly and often.
.
One person whom I once thought was not homosexual turned out to be
homosexual after all, Gian Carlo Menotti. I will never again attend
a performance of Ahmal and the Night Visitors. In fact, if at all possible
I do not listen to the music of any homosexual composers whatsoever,
which goes for Lully, Copland, Lou Harrison, Reynaldo Hahn, Samuel Barber,
Virgil Thompson, Benjamin Britten, Crumb (which is no problem, everything
he wrote is junk), Corigliano (more junk), Rorem (still more junk), Cage
(worthless garbage) and so forth. The one "maybe" concerns Poulenc.
He definitely was homosexual most of his life but he had a religious
experience
in his later years and became a devoted Catholic -hence his Gloria.
Possibly he abandoned homosexuality at that time.
.
As for homosexual musicians, I once owned two CDs that featured Michael
Tilson Thomas; when I learned he was homosexual I threw them in the trash.
Do I need to say more? It should be obvious that the same principle applies
to other kinds of music. If a musician is homosexual I do not listen to his
or her
music. Usually this is no problem as far as Rock or other 'popular' music
is
concerned; I seldom have an interest these days nor have I had much of an
interest since about 1980. In the years since 1998 approximately 90%
of the music I listen to is Classical.
.
I try to make allowances when called for. Leonard Bernstein, for instance,
started out as a homosexual ("bisexual" is more accurate), but then met
the love of (most of) his adult life, Felicia Cohn Montealegre, whom he
married
and with whom he had three children. Those were the years when he
composed
the music for Candide and West Side Story, the only two compositions of
his
that I actually think are good. However in 1976, after 25 years of -by
all accounts-
a happy marriage, Bernstein left his wife to carry on a homosexual
relationship
with Tom Cothan, who was to die of AIDS in 1981. But before that, when
Felicia was diagnosed with cancer, Bernstein broke off the relationship
with
Cothan and returned to his wife until her death in 1978. After that be
basically disintegrated, viz, he became a complete boor and made
a fool of himself repeatedly.
.
For the "two Bernsteins," one before 1951, and the other of 1976-1977 and
1979
until his death, I have nothing but contempt. Still, that leaves most of
the years
in-between even if, as scholars have noted, he possibly had a few
same-sex liaisons during that time period.
.
.
Three other concerns about the list need comment and after that it would be
advisable to discuss the evidence that homosexuality is a mental illness.
.
1. In case it matters, about most homosexuals I really don't give a damn
and
think that the world would be better off without them. This sentiment also
goes for a host of degenerates, many already dead, of whom I have never
said
much of anything my entire life, viz, Susan Sontag, Andre Gide,
Christopher
Isherwood, Langston Hughes, James Baldwin, Malcolm Forbes, Gertrude
Stein,
and Alan Turing, plus many others. Basically I ignore them.
.
2. It should be noted that people sometimes share the same names.
Years ago, for instance, I knew a "Terrence McNally;" the last I heard he
had
become a sort of New Age management guru. I doubt if we have much
in common any more. But I have mentioned him now and then. In the past
he was a bright "idea man." There is a homosexual of the same name, a
playwrite,
and he is an altogether different person. There also is a modern era
homosexual
painter named Gluck; he is not the same as the 18th century composer
named Gluck. Lastly, there is a female homosexual Muslim activist named
Irshad Manji. I never cite her for anything. But her name is the same as
the Japanese word for swastika, manji, and my writings about swastikas
frequently use this term -I cannot avoid doing so and, in any case,
it would be an unwarranted insult to the Japanese if I did.
.
3. About homosexual news people, as soon as they are on-screen,
I change the channel. I despise each and every one of them. About
Richard Socarides, the son of Dr. Charles Socarides the noted and
scholarly critic of homosexuality, it seems that Richard is a degenerate.
All that this means to me is that he deserves my complete contempt.
Richard is someone else whom I utterly despise, nor have I ever said
anything different about him. In case these reflections may
answer questions some people may have.
.
--------------
.
.
Another book I did not know about in 2000 was Charles Socarides' 1995
text, Homosexuality -A Freedom Too Far. Those were, for me, pre-computer
days, and far too much was impossible for me to know back then, or
at least to know in a timely manner. Had I been aware of that book it
would have been cited extensively. As it was, I have since cited it
frequently
and recommend it to others as sort of a substitute for my own book -which
has not been published and has not been retyped for Web distribution.
My views and those of Charles Socarides sometimes are very similar.
.
Nor did I know about O.R. Adams' 1998 opus, As We Sodomize America,
which I also recommend highly, or recommend the first 200 pages of so
of this 700 page legal brief that ends with extended comments about
religion.
You can read my lengthy review at Adams' website, American Traditions.
.
In 2000 not that much was said about the research of Paul Cameron or of
Judith Reisman, two scholars of sexual deviance whose work I now cite
quite often when discussing homosexuality. The work of Reisman and
that of Cameron is essential in any serious discussion of same-sex
pathology.
.
The LIBERAL Case Against Homosexuality discusses such topics as the
military policy on homosexuality, especially its expression in the UCMJ,
the Universal Code of Military Justice. It also talked about Clinton's
lying
prior to enactment of "don't ask, don't tell." At the time, mid 1993,
America's
leading military officers, in response to a White House directive,
commissioned
a study of possible effects on the armed forces of allowing homosexuals to
serve in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines. The findings of the
officers
who wrote the study, which is reported in detail in my book, were nearly
unanimous in declaring that the result would be extremely negative, with
serious consequences on military preparedness and especially on morale.
Among other things, ability to recruit new people into the military would
be
impaired. The study strongly recommended that existing policy, consistent
with
the UCMJ, should be kept in place.
.
Clinton received the report and presumably read it. He was due to give a
speech
on its findings at the War College later that Summer. During his talk he
said that
the general staff of the Pentagon agreed with new White House policy
and therefore it should be implemented!
.
It really is difficult to imagine more blatant lying.
.
And what were Republicans saying at the time? Effectively nothing. Why not?
Because of their mentality.
.
Many Republicans (although some Democrats aren't all that different)
live exclusively for money. What matters first, most, and always, is
profitability,
return on investment, marginal advantage, and the things that money can
buy.
There is no "world of ideas," science is something valuable for business
or
physical health but is otherwise useless, and religion doesn't register as
all
that important, and certainly isn't something to "waste time on," doing
research.
Why bother with social issues? Besides, the military "isn't my business."
.
For those who had serious concerns about the possibility of homosexuals in
the
armed forces, and elsewhere, the only conceivable way to discuss the issue
was in terms of religious morality or tradition. They could not begin to
see
the relevance of scholarly research.
.
Which is to say that Republicans were -and are- incompetent.
.
They completely missed Clinton's lying.
.
At that, they don't even know how to make the most of the religious
arguments
that can be made. Most are basically ignorant of the Bible How come?
Because
for them, which is an effect of Evangelical doctrine, the only good way to
read
the Bible is devotionally; Biblical scholarship is an alien concept.
.
My book also includes a section about Biblical testimony about sodomy
-the word used to describe homosexual acts, since the term "homosexuality"
did not exist until the 19th century. To be sure, sodomy might also refer
to
other kinds of sexual indiscretions, but anyone who has bothered to study
Jewish or Christian history knows that in by far most cases the word was
usually -overwhelmingly- taken to refer to same-sex sexual behaviour.
.
In any case, which is relevant because the subject is referred to often
enough
in modern-day discussions, the myth that is propagated by homosexuals and
their servants in the press, and elsewhere, that the Bible says little on
the subject
and therefore is basically indifferent to it, is utterly false. There
wasn't the least
doubt among Hellenistic-era Jews that the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament)
regarded sodomy as among the very worst sins and said so in a number of
passages, an interpretation that was followed by Christians in the first
century AD
and added to when the New Testament was finalized by about 300 AD.
.
Still, what, exactly, does the Bible say?
.
My book is explicit and cites all the verses known to me at the time that
discuss
sodomy. In 2000 I had identified twenty such passages, ten each in the Old
Testament and another ten in the New Testament. Since that time other
verses
have been identified and the number now stands at 15 for the Hebrew Bible,
16 for the New Testament, and one in the Apocrypha, in Wisdom of Solomon,
a total of 27 passages. Indeed, few subjects in the Bible are discussed as
often.
Most references are just one sentence long, but some are extended passages,
which is the case for Ezekiel and the book of Romans.
.
This is a far cry from the claim still made by the uninformed that there
are just
four verses, or six, and that is all. What is more, Biblical commentary
on the
issue of sodomy is remarkably consistent. Although some ersatz "scholars"
try to explain it all away, to contort the Bible into an ancient version of
Cole Porter's "anything goes," that is not what it actually says. Like it
or not,
on the issue of homosexuality the Southern Baptists have it exactly right
and
Orthodox Jews have it exactly right. It is completely dishonest to insist
on
anything else. Which I do not say with any glee, since on other issues
(evolution,
women's roles in religion, etc) I strongly disagree with their views and do
not
think that the Bible supports their conclusions. Its just that where they
are right,
they are right, case closed.
.
Not at all incidentally, the same goes for the Greek Orthodox, other
eastern
Orthodox, for sincere Catholics, for most Anglicans / Episcopalians despite
the
pervert wing of the Church, for the vast majority of Evangelicals, and for
actual
Lutherans who look to Martin Luther for inspiration; Luther regarded sodomy
as one of the worst possible sins
.
You cannot be a Christian or a believing Jew and tolerate homosexuality.
.
Anything does not go, some things are heinous sins that merit eternal
punishment
in Hell, or, according to the theology of Conditional Immortality, complete
annihilation at death. It isn't only Atheists who think that at death there
is Nothing.
Adventists think so, too, except that this applies only to the damned, who
at death
have one fleeting look at what they will miss, eternal life in Heaven for
the saved.
.
But do we need to wait for the grave to eliminate homosexuality from
society?
Of course not. Homosexuality should be annihilated in the here-and-now,
totally, without compromise, using whatever methods are effective.
There is no justification for tolerating homosexual psychopathology.
Or, s'il vous plait, homosexual evil.
.
The LIBERAL Case Against Homosexuality was the subject of a 3 hour
interview
on CBS radio in Oregon, on Victor Boc's show, in 2000. It had the 26th
highest
listener response rate for the entire year. That is, it was in the upper
10% of all
shows, which was not bad considering that my name was anything but well
known
and there was no fanfare for the show. On the air it went and listeners
wanted to hear my comments, and more and more did as time progressed.
.
While I cannot begin to remember everything that I said during those
three hours, I am fairly certain that I stressed a major conclusion in the
text,
namely, that critics of homosexuality are up against the effects of
Political
Correctness; the establishment will try and shut you up if you speak out.
There is a new orthodoxy in the country, enforced by political authority,
which demands assent to three fundamental principles:
1. Homosexuals can do no wrong,
2. No criticism of homosexuality under any circumstances, and
3. Homosexuals are victims; give them whatever they want.
.
You will be ostracized if you take any other position in public. Which is
why,
it should be obvious, I seek to destroy the reputations of everyone
who has had any part in enforcing any of these rules. Such people are
the enemy, they deserve to lose everything.
.
This means everybody who has been involved, no exemptions. I could care
less
about anyone's losses. Or to put it in more understandable terms, no-one
can
expect any more consideration than they showed me in the past.
I trust you will agree that this is fair.
.
The book still deserves to be published although some up-dating would be
useful.
However, another book is also needed, which would discuss subjects that
were
not possible for me to deal with adequately 15 years ago. For example, the
re should
be discussion of the philosophies of Foucault and Wittgenstein, neither of
whom
I have said much at all about -ever. Each has influenced modern
philosophy
-to the detriment of modern philosophy. Foucault's views have been
especially
damaging, he is someone whom I regard as thoroughly evil. About
Wittgenstein,
the damages he wrought have been more subtle, he offered some actual
insights
into the processes of thought, but the issue is his motivation and how he
believed
his new ideas could influence social values to favor homosexuality. In each
case
the objective is to look at their ideas as expressions of homosexual
values and
the effects those ideas had on other philosophers.
.
These are the questions to ask: What price do students of philosophy pay
for ignorance of homosexual motives in a system of thought? How do the
homosexual motives which are the subtext of philosophies like Foucault's or
Wittgenstein's compromise the kinds of values sexually normal people need
to live fulfilling, good lives? What false premises are built into
homosexual
systems of thought as a result of homosexual psychopathology?
.
The study of philosophy sometimes demands congruent study of psychology and
this is a prime case of exactly that. Because homosexuality is a mental
illness
we need to ask how the psychological dynamics of that illness have poisoned
the philosophies of homosexuals. And we need to root out everything from
other philosophies that has its origins in homosexual values and beliefs.
All of which should be self-evidently important tasks.
.
Nothing should be left to homosexuals when the war against homosexuality
is over with. Absolutely nothing.
.
Needless to say, this war should have the objective of discrediting all
cultural
productions that promote homosexuality in any way whatsoever. This means
popular songs, movies, TV shows, novels of all kinds, poems, religious
tracts,
even for-public-consumption religious beliefs. This must be total war, a
war
against everything homosexual.
My 2000 book was intended to launch that war.
.
The book was reviewed by no less than Michael Medved in a private letter
to the author, remarking that it was convincing and represented
considerable work.
A Canadian publisher expressed interest also. Then there was no more;
reaction
ceased all at once, completely.
.
That was William Clinton's final message to me.
--
--
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.
