The Power of Popular Culture Chapter 11 Homosexuality in American Culture
Part #1 The uncensored history of the homosexual movement in America . . Isn't homosexuality as a political issue over and done with? Isn't it settled law? For now, but so was slavery settled law at one time, so was male-only suffrage, and so was prohibition against drinking alcohol. What we have is law that has been decided by judges and Justices that have been ignorant of every salient fact, and who are ignorant of the history of homosexual activism and of the news that there would be no "homosexual rights" movement except for the actions of Harry Hay, a true believer Communist in the 1950s. There simply is no way to deny that Harry Hay launched the homosexual movement under Communist aegis, in Los Angeles, a story told in detail in various sources including a 1990 biography by Stuart Timmons, The Trouble with Harry Hay. . Other sources used here are available online, found in the Wikipedia article about Harry Hay, the Wikipedia article about the Mattachine Society, and an article by Leslie Feinberg dated June 21, 2005, available at Workers World, an overtly Communist website. . A few words about the genesis of the homosexual movement would be a help in understanding where and when it all began and how far we have traveled in the years since that time, further and further into the Cultural Marxist orbit. Which the Left will never admit and the Right, disinterested in such topics, much preferring Wall Street arcana or historical boilerplate about how America was founded as a Christian nation, which it was and was not. In any case, if that is someone's dominant focus, it is no help at all towards learning exactly how the reviled homosexual cause of the Eisenhower years was able to eventually prevail and become a widely recognized system of politics in the 21st century based on a contrived theory of homosexual "normality." . The story of Harry Hay, while a great deal could be said about him, can be abstracted into several major themes. These themes start with the influence on him of the 1948 Kinsey Report which, we now know, was a horribly flawed study in which, among other shortcomings, convicted sex offenders (approximately 25% of the total sample) were folded into the male population, heavily skewing the results toward sexual deviance as somehow 'normal' for average men. There also were passages which recounted sexual manipulation of infants and other young children to demonstrate sexual feelings in the underaged -an activity that was a felony crime and which the news media never made an issue of. To be sure, Kinsey "explained" at least some of the hundreds of examples of sexual manipulation of babies and young children as derived from published sources or from recollections of subjects who witnessed such behavior, and the like, but there simply was too much in the 'research' that defied such rationalizations to be believable. Moreover, although not known at the time, or not known generally, the Kinsey studies featured a good deal of lying -falsifications- that fit a pattern of deceptiveness. . That is, among the subjects in the 1948 report were 1,400 incarcerated sex offenders out of a total of 5,300 normal males. To present findings of these combined figures as typical for males as a population clearly was a distortion of fact. Especially since among the five-thousand-plus there were some (unreported) number of male homosexual prostitutes, a group that takes part in activities that normal males would never dream of indulging in under any circumstances but which Kinsey, a bisexual, regarded as unobjectionable. And in that 5300 number were 317 abused children. Also, while statistically not a crucial factor, Kinsey also cooked his books by using information from one particular pederast which he presented as derived from several such individuals. But not many people caught these discrepancies. One who did was Abraham Maslow, who concluded that, as one study put it, "Kinsey's sample was unrepresentative of the general population." But almost no-one paid any attention to Maslow at the time and reporters went about their business as if there were no problems. Reporters also ignored similar criticisms from no less than Margaret Mead, Ruth Benedict; Karl Menninger, Lionel Trilling, and Socialist leader Erich Fromm. And Fromm, not at all incidentally, remained opposed to homosexuals throughout his career, as did probably most Marxists of that era, both Democratic Socialists like Fromm and hard line Trotskyists and neo-Bolsheviks. After all, Marx and Engels had trashed homosexuals and homosexuality as unambiguously as conceivable and characterized the sexually perverse as a population of degenerates. Harry Hay was unconcerned about such demurers. He now had a well known 'authority' in Kinsey who could be taken as supportive of homosexual rights. Which is ironic inasmuch as Kinsey, as far as politics went, was to the Right of center, not the Left. It was in late Summer of 1948 that Hay took the first steps toward organizing what became the Mattachine Society. The Wikipedia article about the Mattachine Society tells us that Hay was joined by Chuck Rowland and Rudi Gernreich -at the time Gernrich was just starting his career as a fashion designer, before he became famous. Additional information is discussed in an article by Leslie Feinberg for June 21, 2005, at Workers World. . 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 from 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 took place in early 1953 and by May of that year there were about 2000 members mostly recruited from Los Angeles; later there would be many from San Francisco and outside of California. Exactly what the sequence of events was is unclear but it is also known that in February a newspaper in LA had published an article in which Hay was described as a "Marxist," a usage that suggested the clinical truth that he was, in fact, a Communist. The problem was that Stalin, who expired on March 5 that year, was still alive, and even with his death, his "spell" over the party would continue in some form for several more years. Moreover (this would be true until at least 1970 or even later), the party was officially anti-homosexual. Yet the Los Angeles cell was homosexual-tolerant. Or it was as long as homosexuals in the party did not say anything publicly about their sexuality. Hence at some point that year Harry Hay resigned from the party. The official break came at a ceremony during which he was feted for years of service to the Communist cause. Hay, for his part, reaffirmed that he had no reservations about Marxist-Leninism but explained that he did not want the party to suffer from negative publicity because he was now a known homosexual, therefore he must resign. It was all "parting is such sweet sorrow." The precaution was well advised. In mid 1955 Hay needed to testify before HUAC, the _House Un-American Activities Committee_ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-American_Activities_Committee) , then investigating Communist Party activities in California. By that year the Mattachine Society was undergoing major changes. At the beginning it had organized itself closely on the party's model; it was very secretive, its activities often were clandestine, and its ideology was quasi-Marxist, if not Marxist per se. But by then we can see the beginning of a split in the homosexual movement that remains a major part of the story today, between take-to-the-streets activists and the accommodationists. . With the society then established in a dozen states, with a major presence on the East Coast, the accomodationists gained supremacy and acted to replace Hay as its leader and move the organization in a "respectable" direction. Which was to remain its modus operandi until late in the 1960s when the more zealous homosexuals again took control, re-christened as the "gay rights" movement. Hay was once more a leader of the movement although, by then, he was simply one among a number of leaders, each with a somewhat different agenda, not all of whom were serious Marxists in any orthodox sense. . Indeed, to jump ahead of the story, there would be less and less Marxists after the news broke in the Journal of Homosexuality in 1995 that Marx and Engels regarded homosexuals as "ass fu*kers" and beneath contempt. Still, years before that time the popularity of Marxism among homosexuals had begun to wane. Especially since, with upscale enclaves coming into being in several cities, new opportunities for making money opened up and a class of filthy rich homosexuals became conspicuous, a development expedited by success in becoming dominant in sectors of the Hollywood film industry. All of which may be more than you wanted to know but it is useful to be aware of such matters. . As a final note about early modern homosexual history..... . By the early 1970s, homosexual activists were increasingly well organized and had made strides toward self-promotion. It was in these years that a strategy of smearing critics was devised that became very successful during the coming decades. This consisted of focus on the word "homophobia," a coinage of a homosexual psychologist named George Weinberg. . The neologism had first appeared in print in Screw magazine in May of 1969 but was then picked up by Time magazine which also used the term that year. At first the definition of the word was somewhat plastic and could mean either homosexual self-loathing and feelings of fears about being homosexual in a heterosexual society OR it could mean heterosexual aversion to homosexuality, regarded as bad for homosexuals but nonetheless a normal frame of mind. . Then in 1971 a writer named Kenneth Smith used the word homophobia to describe negative psychological reaction against homosexuality, and that definition stuck, to be augmented by Weinberg his 1972 opus, Society and the Healthy Homosexual. In collusion with _Alan P. Bell_ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_P._Bell) , Weinberg next advanced the idea that there was strategic value to using the term to demonize opponents of homosexuality, to smear them as troglodytes, rubes, uneducated lowlifes, etc., and in the process discredit the opposition as uncivilized and backwards, especially if they were religious believers. . At first, few homosexuals availed themselves of these new semantics but gradually the idea caught on and eventually spread to opinion leaders in the media and, down the road, to much of the general public. . What should be made clear, is that Weinberg, from almost the outset, understood what he was doing. The word "homophobia" was never intended to be a clinically accurate description of negative feelings about homosexuality. On the contrary, it had propaganda purpose. It was supposed to stigmatize all critics of homosexuality as the equivalent of racial bigots regardless of who these critics might be, whether respected psychoanalysts like Dr. Charles Socarides or Abram Kardiner or Dr. Rubin Fine or anyone else of similar stature, or fire-and-brimstone preachers who were basically uninformed, or "average" middle class Americans, or anybody who is sexually normal and has natural aversion to homosexuals. . That is, the objective was to pathologize sexual normality by the time-tested method of name calling, viz, ad hominem attacks. This worked like a charm. Even journalists -who should have known better- fell for it. That is, the same people who are ever alert for the ad hominem fallacy, decided that it now made excellent sense to adopt this approach, it henceforth was "enlightened," unarguable, and long overdue. In any case, for anyone who reads these comments, who uses the word "homophobia" reflexively as if all that needs to be said is the magic word homophobia when confronted by someone who opposes homosexuality and regards it as a mental illness or moral failing of the first magnitude, has been duped. Which in our society is so easy when all that matters with respect to social issues is public opinion. The axiom, 'one person with the truth counts more than a million who are deceived,' eludes them entirely. . _Bell_ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_P._Bell) and _Weinberg_ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_S._Weinberg) weren't done, of course. Their 1978 book, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women, was written as a tribute to Kinsey, who had wanted to publish a third "report," about homosexuality. However, he never lived to see that day. . Kinsey died in 1956. As Judith Reisman noted in her text, Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences, the real cause of his death was covered up until much later researchers learned the unappealing facts. Officially, in 1956 and for many years afterwards, it was said that Kinsey died from pneumonia caused by overwork and a resulting enlarged heart. His followers had to make this story up. After all, he had claimed that the kinds of sexual behavior he advocated were perfectly healthy, and represented no dangers. And these behaviors could be almost anything, literally. Kinsey, despite his more-or-less political conservatism, had, in effect, championed extreme sexual libertarianism, viz, libertinism with no limits. . What had actually happened, as Reisman discovered, was that Kinsey, along with his devotion to free-for-all sex, any partner, any age, any level of pain desired, was also addicted to genital self-mutilation. His actual cause of death was orchitis, sometimes euphemistically referred to as a pelvic infection. Orchitus is what happens either as a result of disease such as gonorrhea, syphilis, or, less embarrassing, tuberculosis. However, on other occasions orchitus is brought on by trauma. In Kinsey's case the likelihood is that what this trauma consisted of was some combination of his favorite sexual activities, sado-masochistic sex with others, very common among homosexuals, or "his compulsive genital self-mutilation." At the end of his life, his scrotum had become a medical mess, with numerous scars and injuries from times he tortured himself in various ways to bring about pain that he regarded as erotic. Such was the life of the 'man' who brought us 'modern' sex education. Which is only a small part of the picture inasmuch as he bribed or coerced many others to take part in his sexcapades, but that is a story for another time. The point is that "Homosexualities" was intended as a tribute to Kinsey and as the book he had wanted to write. The point is also that Harry Hay was almost as much under the spell of Kinsey as he was of Marx or Lenin. . As a sidebar, the Institute for Sex Research, Kinsey's organization at Indiana University, took an active interest in Bell and Weinberg's work, which Hay found valuable for his own purposes. Especially inasmuch as, at least at the outset, the Bell and Weinberg study was ostensibly objective. It would become unabashedly pro-homosexual in a couple of years but at the beginning there were "conservative" consultants like psychoanalyst _Irving Bieber_ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Bieber) , and a number who, whatever their interests, were decidedly independent, such as psychologist _Albert Ellis_ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Ellis) . But the deck was stacked with people like _Evelyn Hooker_ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Hooker) , _Judd Marmor_ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judd_Marmor) , and _Wardell Pomeroy_ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wardell_Pomeroy) , and the resulting report was predictable in its conclusions. Or nearly predictable. . Oddly, from a 21st century perspective, one of the findings was that homosexuality usually was a psychopathology. Or as one review of the book put it, "Bell and Weinberg found that homosexuality was not necessarily related to pathology." In other words, it generally was. Much of the book, therefore, focused on trying to make a case for homosexual normality. This was regarded as necessary since, although the American Psychiatric Association had declared homosexuality merely a disorder and not a mental illness in all cases, there still was considerable opposition from APA members and many outside psychology professionals, including one of the other APAs, the American Psychoanalytic Association -which continued to regard homosexuality as a psychological sickness. And public opinion was still predominantly of the view that homosexuals are mentally diseased, an outlook reinforced by reading of Sigmund Freud himself, Anna Freud, Adler, Jung, Abram Kardiner, and still very active experts like Reubin Fine. No-one of stature could possibly be believed at that time if they had said that homosexuality was not psychologically damaging. Which also explains another finding that, no matter how true it still is, is no longer acceptable among most of today's psychology establishment. This is the conclusion that many homosexuals do, in fact, want to change their sexuality and become sexually normal. By Bell and Weinberg's own admission, which understated the facts, about a third of all homosexuals did not want to remain homosexual. Of that number, more than half actually attempted to make the change. Some of the book's findings were pretty much non-controversial such as the fact that there is a great difference between the values and life styles of male homosexuals and female homosexuals. What was also non-controversial and which has remained as true as ever was the finding that 25% of white male homosexuals had sex with underage boys, everything from early grade school to age 15. This conclusion has been repeatedly denounced from that time to this -by homosexual leaders who do not want the public to become aware of the fact, and by supporters of homosexuals in the news media. Not incidentally, while underplayed just about everywhere, Bell and Weinberg also gave support to the psychoanalytic theory that an important cause of male homosexuality is the simultaneous existence of a hostile or aloof father (or an absent father in some cases) and a 'suffocating' or domineering mother. The key in this is a father who is, to use idiom, basically a sonovabitch, especially if the mother is irrational. There actually are far more common causes of homosexuality, especially child sexual abuse, but the point deserves note inasmuch as it is very important in the work of Socarides and many of the people at NARTH. The Bell and Weinberg opus, so that the wrong impression is not given here, mostly argued that homosexuality should (usually) be considered normal. These conclusions were contested from the outset, particularly because sampling methods were substandard, with Stanton L. Jones and Mark Yarhouse still unknown for their (albeit somewhat later) criticisms, but even they had to concede the book had a major impact on the issue of homosexuality from then on. Not even Masters and Johnson's Homosexuality in Perspective, published a year later, could change the narrative then becoming entrenched in the news media. Even though Masters and Johnson, after several years of laboratory 'experiments' had conclusively demonstrated that homosexuals could, indeed, cease being homosexual and become heterosexual. The process was not guaranteed in every case, but it was successful approximately 2/3rds of the time, with promise of better results if psychotherapists and others used the techniques they employed and refined them through experience with patients. Which, of course, is the exact opposite and anti-empirical view of today's homosexuals and their errand boys at the New York Times and other papers. Instead the preferred approach was that the new narrative should be advanced insistently, no matter what, because, you see, it was the new cause célèbre of the urban gentry and the entertainment business, and, besides, nihilism was becoming chic. "Anything goes," which is also the libertarian mantra and of anarchists like Noam Chomsky, was the wave of the future. And who needs morality or religion, anyway? And psychoanalysis was so passé. . All of this was the foundation for the new dispensation and Harry Hay, who, with his homosexual comrades, was leading the charge. . As a rough estimate about 99.999% of everyone now making fools of themselves proclaiming each and every demand of 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 . You can certainly excuse "average citizens," the working class. Been there, done that. After a tiring day hauling lumber or installing appliances or moving furniture or many other physically demanding tasks, what can anyone realistically expect of Joe the plumber -or Jessica who works on an assembly line- who, at 5 PM wants nothing more that a nice hot meal and a few hours of relaxing with the family? . However, what about everyone else? What about white collar people who have college degrees, who know what research is all about, who have learned critical thinking skills? And not just them; there are many self educated people, including working class people, who know a helluva lot, who take pride in following the news and reading serious literature. Not to mention the chattering classes who earn their livelihood by pontificating about serious issues, viz, journalists, teachers, clergy, consultants, science writers, historians, psychologists, and so forth. And people elected to office at various levels, city, county, state, and national. What explains their unwillingness to make themselves informed about issues that directly effect their kids or others in their family? . The fact is that most Americans -the impression is inescapable that we are discussing in excess of 95 %- are ridiculously ignorant of the evidence that homosexuality is an unmistakable psychopathology, are unaware of how homosexuals were able to persuade decision makers in the news media that their's was a civil rights cause, who are ignorant of the infiltration of the American Psychiatric Association by Left-wing psychiatrists in the 1960s, ignorant of virtually all the research literature written by the founders of psychology that discuss how dysfunctional homosexuality really is, who are ignorant of more recent work by NARTH, the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, in few words, ignorant of everything that matters: All the while as judges and Justices, who are equally ignorant, make binding law for everyone else and who in the process destroy religious freedom for the sake of promoting a grievous and harmful sexual and personality disorder. . . There is even more to that is horribly wrong, however. . -- -- 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.
