Chapter 23
.
Smearing the Critics
.
.
What should be remembered in all of this is the way that critics of
homosexuality are subjected to ad hominem attacks as a matter
of routine. Paul Cameron has been the target of ceaseless smears
for the past few decades; Charles Socarides was vilified from 1974
onward to his death in 2005. Now the attacks have
begun against Dr. Neil Whitehead.
.
Reference is to an article of March 28, 2015, by Damian Thompson
of the British publication, The Spectator. The article is unabashedly
anti-religion; it is also grotesquely pro-homosexual.
.
To be sure, there are looney-tunes among any number of religious
believers. The question is whether fringe groups characterize the
world's religions. And the question is whether it is in any way
legitimate to lump together "Muslims, Jews and Christians," as
this essay does, as if Islam's excesses deserve to be associated
with Biblical religions in any way. But this is an aside; the issue
of religion and its corruptions should be left for another time.
.
Thompson's article looks at research carried out by Whitehead
into the sexual character of identical twins. Here is the quote
that starts off the discussion of homosexuality:
.
"Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the US and
Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same
conclusion: gays were not born that way."
.
" 'At best genetics is a minor factor,’ says Dr Neil Whitehead, [who]
worked for the New Zealand government as a scientific researcher
for 24 years, then spent four years working for the United Nations
and International Atomic Energy Agency. Most recently, he serves
as a consultant to Japanese universities about the effects of radiation
exposure. His PhD is in biochemistry and statistics."
.
"Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured
in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics
or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin
should also be gay."
.
.
This is straightforward enough; the facts are presented for what they are.
And the article continues with a quotation from Dr. Whitehead to the
effect that since these twins have the exact same DNA any incidence
of homosexuality -if genetics is genuinely determinative- should be 100%.
But it is not 100%, it is 11% for men and 14% for women. And that
rules out genetic factors as being dominant. Therefore, no-one is born
homosexual and "the predominant things that create homosexuality
in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors."
.
What could be clearer and more obviously true? But that is not how
Thompson sees things. After all, so he tells us, " I looked him up and it
turns out he’s a ‘Christian writer...’ "
.
There is more to this sentence but here we find the crux of the matter;
Whitehead is a Christian and as "everyone knows" Christians are throwbacks
to the Dark Ages, walking anachronisms in a time of enlightened Atheism.
Whitehead is a Christian, therefore anything he says is necessarily wrong.
As hominem works like a charm every time, splatter mud on someone,
that is all that is necessary. No need to think about the evidence or
analyze
it thoughtfully. Christians are the enemy. Case closed.
.
Thompson went on the make things worse. Whitehead's critics accuse him
of "producing 'junk science,' " and indeed they do. But maybe it is worth
pointing out that those critics most often are homosexual activists with
axes to grind and who, in just about all other cases, do a superlative job
of projecting their flaws onto others. That is, as in this case, Whitehead
is blamed for a shortcoming that, in fact, is typical of homosexuals,
producing junk science. Tons of junk science, in fact. I'm not sure
how many studies done by homosexuals over the years since about 1990
have been demolished by reputable actual scientists but whatever the
number may be, something like 100% of their studies have been shown
to be bogus -non-replicable, based on errors of fact, based on faulty
reasoning, and are misleading or otherwise fallacious.
.
Has Thompson actually read any of Whitehead's research beyond the
quote he cited from a Muslim journal that Whitehead had nothing to
do with? For in fact, Whitehead's research is as close to impeccable
as anyone can hope for. But no matter. Thompson assures us that
Whitehead's views have been "rubbished" by an article in New Scientist.
.
Sure enough, there is a paragraph in the New Scientist article that can be
read to support the opinion that homosexuality is genetically determined;
here it is:
"A genetic analysis of 409 pairs of gay brothers, including sets of twins,
has provided the strongest evidence yet that gay people are born gay.
The study clearly links sexual orientation in men with two regions of
the human genome that have been implicated before, one on the
X chromosome and one on chromosome 8 …"
.
Thompson does admit that "the science isn’t settled, not by a long chalk,"
whatever "long chalk" means, it is totally obscure to speakers of normal
English, but the point to make is that the New Scientist article
acknowledges that the science isn't conclusive.
.
It is possible to look up the article referred to, which I did, it was
written by
Andy Coghlan and published on November 17, 2014, and can report
that Thompson misconstrued it badly. But then if you are pro-homosexual
it isn't necessary to get your facts right; smearing someone is all that is
necessary. This is standard operating procedure.
.
What the New Scientist article makes very clear is that with respect to the
"Xq28 and 8q12 regions on the X chromosome and chromosome 8" the
research does not say that any "gay genes" were found. This is because
"both regions contain many genes, and the next step will be to home in
on which ones might be contributing to sexual orientation."
.
Moreover, as emphasized by Alan Sanders of the NorthShore Research
Institute in Evanston, Illinois, cited in the article, "complex traits
such as
sexual orientation depend on multiple factors, both environmental and
genetic.
Even if he has hit on individual genes, they will likely only have at most
a small effect on their own."
.
Small effect? Did someone say "small effect"? If so, then any notion of
genetic
determination is false. Somehow Thompson missed this large point. But what
does anyone expect from someone who does not want to see any of the
points made by critics of homosexuality because, you see, he is an
"enlightened Atheist" and they are not.
.
Not that the New Scientist article is not without problems of its own.
For instance this sentence: "This study knocks another nail into the
coffin
of the 'chosen lifestyle' theory of homosexuality," says Simon LeVay,
the neuroscientist and writer who, in 1991, claimed to have found that
a specific brain region, within the hypothalamus, is smaller in gay men."
But this so-called "study" is one that has been shown to have been false;
it has no scientific standing. LeVay's claims were disproven. That being
the case, why cite his "findings"? The only reason that comes to mind
is that Coghlan wanted to confirm his biases. Which is a phenomenon
known, oddly, as "confirmation bias."
.
LeVay is cited as an authority? Well, if you like ad hominem arguments
so well, here is one you should enjoy: In the 1990s LeVay was a charter
faculty member of WHIGLE, the West Hollywood Institute of Gay and
Lesbian Education. The acronym is suggestive of both homosexual public
behavior and the (lack of) seriousness in the homosexual approach to
science and research. Exactly what does this say about a writer who
cites LeVay as an authority? And what does this say about the editors
of New Scientist?
.
Lastly on this subject, lost in the shuffle has been the research results
that
Dr. Whitehead reported -in the process telling us that if there is a
genetic
component to homosexuality its effects necessarily are small. Which ,
mirable dictu, is exactly what the New Scientist article said.
What am I missing?
.
Whitehead studied a population of identical twins, some of whom were
homosexual. The genetic makeup of all these twins were exactly the same.
But the results were not 100% homosexual twins, but in the 10+ % range,
which is about what you would expect if the process was random.
Actually, there is some statistical correlation even though it is slight,
so genetics cannot be ruled out, but basically you can't argue
against Whitehead's conclusions.
.
Try telling that to Thompson, however.
.
What he assures his readers is that "Dr Whitehead’s ‘findings’ are being
tossed around in a pool of counterknowledge, bogus information dressed up
to look like fact. What I find fascinating about counterknowledge is that
its
raw material – conspiracy theories, urban myth, fake history and fake
science
– spreads from one marginalised community to another..."
.
In reality it is Thompson who has provided "bogus information dressed up
to look like fact" -in the pages of The Spectator.
.
About those marginalized communities, "as soon as they find a study that
reinforces their worldview, they jump on it, without asking too many
questions about its methodology." Which, it must be conceded, is often
true for religious fanatics of many kinds. What Thompson is oblivious to
is the corollary: Left-wingers, "as soon as they find a study that
reinforces their worldview, they jump on it, without asking too many
questions about its methodology."
.
This is what we are up against, again and again and again..
.
Time was taken here to analyze the Spectator article because it is
so typical of what has been going on in the press since the mid-1990s
and before. You need to really know your stuff to see all of the
flaws in reasoning, specious facts, unfounded assertions, smears
and insults, for what they are.
People who are too lazy to read even one reliable book on a subject
as complicated as this can only be regarded as deluded if they think their
opinions on these issues have any value; they don't, they are worthless.
But "my opinion is as good as anyone else's" ? Like hell it is.
.
Your opinion demonstrates nothing but your irresponsibility as an
intellectual.
And your willingness to be led by the nose by the Cultural Marxist left.
In the bargain you make yourself into a "useful idiot" of homosexuals.
.
.
Of course, there is also the "with friends like these who needs enemies?"
phenomenon. A good example is Theodore Shoebat's September 3, 2013
article, "The Homosexual Empire." Not because Shoebat was wrong
in his characterizations of homosexuals -even if he was sometimes over
the top- but because he could not resist expressing Christian biases
as if they were fact -in the process giving ammunition to homosexuals
to ague that true-believer Christianity is based on historical ignorance
and narrow-mindedness. Take this paragraph from Shoebat's paper:
"In ancient Rome homosexuality was most common, it was not solely
a preferable activity, but interconnected with the religion, the state,
and the culture. Homosexuality was as ordinary as marriage, and
more preferable, and the pagan Caesars themselves were open sodomites.
Jupiter, or the tutelar god of the empire, was a homosexual deity who
satisfied his lusts with the Trojan Ganymede, and another
young man named Fabius."
.
This is as close to a 100% wrong piece of historical writing as you
are likely to find anywhere.
It accepts as "facts" each and every myth about Rome that homosexuals
want others to believe -for example, the original cupbearer to Jupiter
was Ganymeda, a minor goddess who administered to this very lustful
heterosexual God, not Ganymede. And the emperor who is most relevant
to the story of the New Testament, Augustus, was anti-homosexual and
passed laws against sodomy. The truth of much of what Shoebat wrote
about was the exact opposite of what he asserted. Shoebat's screed was
only possible because he had not made himself seriously informed about
ancient Roman history despite all of the assorted facts presented in his
article.
Sure, there are facts in his story. But unless you are an historian you
won't know what they really are.
.
But why make yourself informed if, for you, Christian faith is all about
belief, not belief grounded on genuine knowledge? Thus history has
value only insofar as it allows you to turn subjects like ancient Rome
into a Potemkin village as a backdrop to use for polemic purposes.
No need to show the least respect to the real people who lived
in those years. If that is your worldview, no need to study history
to master the subject as if truth mattered; all you need to do
is shoot off your mouth.
.
Do not misunderstand; my negative views of homosexuality are, if anything,
even more uncompromising than Shoebat's. But my interest is in showing
Rome to be what it was, in fact, as objectively as possible. This being
the
case, my purpose when studying Roman history (or any relevant history)
is to make sure that I am not accepting anyone's myths at face value,
especially not homosexual mythology.
.
And I regard what happened to traditional Greco-Roman religion,
widespread corruption of what had been a completely heterosexual faith
into something that Castro Street homosexuals might identify with, as
a tragedy. Yet it also is clear that this did not happen among rural
Pagans
who were the Roman majority until well into the 3rd century AD and,
at that, plenty of Pagan Romans, like Plutarch and Cicero, had no use
for sexual deviates and said so in their writings. None of which registers
on Shoebat and little of which is understood by perhaps a majority
of Evangelicals. So you can see the problem.
.
In so many words, many Christians seem determined to make themselves
into punching bags for their opponents -to be more accurate, for their
enemies. Do Christians sometimes end up with bloody noses?
Now you know why.
.
The point is that you cannot win a war if you do not make yourself
informed, and many Christians are anything but informed. Large numbers
of those who at least nominally oppose homosexuals are about as
useful as the tens of thousands of rabble who attached themselves
to the well trained soldiers who set out on the first Crusade; that
rabble was mostly slaughtered en route to the Holy Land.
.
Our opponents sometimes have it right in their criticisms of Jews and
Christians and others who regard homosexuality as an abomination;
it is right to point out fallacies in reasoning and to identify false
"facts."
Let's be clear about this. But let us also be clear that these same
opponents also are quite capable of lying, distorting facts, falsifying
the record, manufacturing evidence, and smearing people without a trace
of conscience about it. In effect, they are so many "Lee Atwaters"
of the Left, only worse.
.
.
These things in mind, there is the example of Paul Cameron to discuss.
Dr. Cameron would be the first to admit that he has made occasional
mistakes, has sometimes needed to revise his findings, and otherwise
is imperfect. But:
.
(1) this is the human condition, and
(2) he always does his best to be accurate, thorough, and conscientious.
.
There exists a veritable literature of smears about Dr. Cameron for anyone
who wants to look for it on the Web. For our purposes one example
will suffice to make the point that needs to be made. This refers to
a paper Cameron wrote in late 1994 for Family Research Institute
entitled "Revisiting New Republic’s Attack on Cameron."
.
What this was about concerned the new editor of the time, since resigned
in disgrace, Andrew Sullivan. Indeed, one of the reasons why I stopped
regular reading of the magazine about that time was precisely because
an overt homosexual, Sullivan, was its editor -even though, years
before,
I had not known about his sexuality and cited him in a couple of essays.
.
Sullivan declared war on Cameron through an article published in the
New Republic dated October 3,1994, which falsely accused
the doctor of having been expelled from the APA, falsely accused
him of conducting shoddy research, and falsely represented
homosexuals as model citizens who are as normal in their behavior as
anyone gets -knowing all the while about the many deviations that
characterizes them including high rates of child molestation, homosexual
vs. homosexual violence, homosexual rapes each other and of
non-homosexuals, and other manifestations of pathology.
.
Cameron's rejoinder is a pleasure to read, as much as a refutation
of slanders can be said to evoke positive feelings, anyway.
.
Cameron admitted that some of the New Republic criticisms sounded
plausible; some had actual facts lurking in the shadows. But saying that
is one thing, misrepresenting those facts is quite another, and how is the
press -or anyone else- supposed to know the difference? As it was the
story was picked up by the Associated Press and from there it took on
a life of its own, appearing as "gospel truth" in such publications as the
Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph, The Bangor Daily News and
the homosexual publication, The Advocate.
.
How do you fight against something like that?
.
What Cameron's article in reply does is to correct the errors in reporting
of his detractors and at least offer a protest against smears like the
false claim that his 1983 national sex survey was “discredited.” Actually
no such thing took place. Cameron's work is always professional quality
and when presented with new evidence he revises his previous research.
.
Needless to say, professional standards are meaningless as far as
homosexuals are concerned. As Cameron has noted: “Scientists besides
myself have noted the addiction to falsehood and deception that is
characteristic of homosexuals." Which is exactly what I learned when
doing research for my 2000 unpublished book. Similarly, Cameron's
observation that homosexuals "create myths for their political and
psychological comfort" can also be confirmed in my own studies.
.
Cameron's facts on a number of embarrassing behaviors of homosexuals
are also accurate to a fault. My 2000 book, written without knowledge
of Cameron's research, concluded that between 25% and 40% of male
homosexuals take part in anal sex, with the possibility that the numbers
might be higher. Cameron's data indicate a base rate of 40%. Similarly
he identified a close relationship between homosexuality and sadism
or sado-masochism. I had known about that connection in the mid 1980s.
.
No matter how much solid research you carry out, you can depend on
homosexuals to lie about you, your work, and whatever else they
may feel like lying about at the time.
.
This seems to be true for all critics of homosexuality including Judith
Reisman although she seems to have escaped the worst of it because
the focus of her scholarship is on such topics as pornography, fraudulent
data in Kinsey studies, abuses in sex education, damage to families,
and the like..
.
There is also a literature of smears against Dr Charles Socarides. He also
wrote a detailed rejoinder of some of the most unethical attacks
upon him; this can be accessed online if you look up:
.
"Sexual Politics And Scientific Logic: The Issue Of Homosexuality,"
The Journal of Psychohistory, 19(3), Winter 1992
.
The book you are now reading is intended to help all critics of
homosexuality fight back and fight back effectively.
.
.
.
--
--
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.
