The first version of this paper was written in 2014.
Part 1. The Ideology of Perversion David Horowitz's critique of homosexuality in his 2000 book, The Politics of Bad Faith, tells us how the homosexual movement has been inseparable from the ideology of Cultural Marxism. There is not just a little irony in this development since, of course, Marx himself, and Engels, were thoroughly anti-homosexual. The proof of this can be found in an article by Hubert Kennedy in Volume 29 (1995) of the Journal of Homosexuality under the title "Johann Baptist von Schweitzer: The Queer Marx Loved to Hate." The complete article is available online at www.marxmail.org/schweitzer.pdf . In letters to Engels, Marx was adamant in his denunciations of perverts, a sentiment shared by his long time friend. Indeed, Engels expressed pretty much the same views and explicitly condemned ancient Greek pederasty as well as modern era homosexuality. . Marx's view was based on his belief, quoted in the article, that "the relation of man to woman is the most natural relation of human being to human being," an opinion that reflected his marriage to Jenny von Westphalen; the couple had seven children. . Marx was insulting toward homosexuals, whom he regarded as creatures of decadent and immoral capitalism at its worst. At one point Marx said that the motto of homosexuals was "Guerre aux cons, paix aus trous-de-cul [War to the cunts, peace to the assholes]." Marx also remarked, "just wait until the new North German Penal Code recognises the drois du cul [rights of the asshole]." It is safe to say, in other words, that Marx would have regarded the entire homosexual rights movement of our era as completely absurd and a moral outrage. . While few people knew of the Marx-Engels correspondence until the 1990s, their attitudes were shared by most other Socialists until some time after World War II. Revisionist Social Democrat August Bebel, for instance, called homosexuality a "crime against nature" even though he was against criminalization of this perversion. However, many other Socialists were not in favor of any such leniency and made an issue out of its criminal character as well as its immorality in their attempt to stop Hitler in early 1933 before it was too late. The German Socialists had discovered that the Nazi Party protected numbers of homosexuals, and gave political power to some of them, like Ernst Röhm, head of the SA. Röhm was eliminated in 1934, not because of his homosexuality, but because of his challenge to Hitler's political authority. About which much else could be said, but to give you some idea of this part of the story. For documented information about the Nazi-homosexual connection see Lothar Machtan's 2001 book, The Hidden Hitler. The evidence it presents is incontrovertible. . . David Horowitz is a former Communist who soured on the party to the extent that he became a conservative true believer and never misses an opportunity to condemn anyone to the Left of the Blue Dog Democrats. Hence, when he speaks it may be a case of learning more than you ever really wanted to know, but it Horowitz genuinely understands the Left. Unlike, say, Jonah Goldberg, who misrepresents the Left yet who claims he understands the Left because of the cardboard models of the Left he has constructed. Which is not altogether fair to Goldberg but to make it clear that there are decided limits to his scholarship because of his insistence that everything he writes about should be judged by whether or not it aligns with Right-wing values and philosophy. . There is a major problem with Horowitz, however. As anti-Communist as he has become, he nonetheless clings to one major element of Communist ideology, namely, the view that the "real Left" consists of Marxist-Leninism and everything else is no better than weak tea in comparison and more often is simply bourgeois posturing which isn't really real.. . Anyone with Democratic Socialist background has every right to object to that kind of characterization. From a Democratic Socialist point of view the Communists corrupted everything good and decent about the Left and caused so much harm in the process that they have no claim to identification with "Socialism" of any variety. . This qualification made clear, it is difficult not to recommend Horowitz as the person to turn to if you want to understand radical Leftist ideology. He "gets it;" he comprehends what makes an ideology tick, what the dynamics of an ideology actually are, and what an ideology is really all about despite the innumerable deceptions perpetrated by nearly all ideologues. . Unfortunately, hardly anyone on the political Right in America "gets" much of anything about any ideology. And the Religious Right, on this subject, consists of people who are constitutionally unable to understand any ideology professed by just about anyone. For them, and even for a some secular conservatives, an ideology is as simplistic as a Potempkin Village. There is a cabal of wrong-doers; they all are simple-minded, and nothing is complicated or multi-dimensional. It is a view of mental processes that is pre-18th century empirical philosophy, pre-19th century existential philosophy, and pre-20th century Philosophy of History. It is pre-Machiavelli and pre-Freud. It is devoid of the least understanding of sociology or any other behavioral science. In so many words, it has almost no objective value. That is their frame of reference and it essentially is useless if your objective is accurate understanding of an ideological enemy. . This helps explain why conservatives have had extreme difficulty in fathoming what homosexual ideologues have been saying in recent years, as a new homosexual ideology came to dominate the thoughts of the great majority of homosexual activists. . The core of this new homosexual ideology, said Horowitz, is "queer theory." Not that all homosexuals accept each and every proposition in this new outlook, but the ideas in it have circulated widely through the homosexual population and have influenced just about everyone in it to some extent. In an unknown but significant percentage of cases pretty much the entire ideology has been swallowed whole. . It can also be characterized as the homosexual interpretation of Cultural Marxism. . What this is, party follows from the structure of any ideology of the (Marx-inspired) Left. There is, first and foremost, an "oppressor and oppressed, victimizer and victim." The objective must be "liberation" of the oppressed from the "alien force" that animates the enemy -the oppressor. In classical Marxism, especially in Marxist-Leninism, this force is identified with such factors as greed, avarice, selfishness, in a word, ego run amok with no sense of community. All of which, indeed, are also classic evils in the Judeo-Christian sense. . The new wrinkle is that the cause of all this evil isn't seen as sin, but as social class, rich vs poor, and this isn't because the rich start off hating the unfortunate but because the wealthy are in love with their wealth and everything that goes along with it, especially exercise of power to sustain their gluttonous lifestyle -"gluttony" meaning not only food, or not meaning food at all except incidentally, but in general being a pig about everything. The question is: What causes some people to be pigs? . Piggery causes the system of antagonism between rich vs. poor and "liberation can only lie in the annihilation of the system that creates the antagonism." The goal is supposed to be the creation of a new order of society, as differentiated from such phenomena as peasant revolts that often simply seek changing places so that the rich become poor and the poor become rich. In authoritarian Marxism the idea is egalitarianism, everyone with some approximation of equal wealth even if there necessarily is a leadership group that ultimately is responsible for decision making. . The new order is justified on the grounds that the rich supposedly are parasites and the poor are those people who do all the hard work, the proletariat, who deserve far better than what they receive, which is only a small fraction of what they produce. In this system the bourgeoisie -the middle class- consists of exploiters who, in exchange for some wealth, make the total system work through such things as religion, political oligarchies.and "bread and circuses," that is, most forms of entertainment in culture. . This is a simplified version of the theory. It is important to know at least this much because this is what has been reinterpreted to serve homosexual purposes. The whole system of "queer theory" ultimately rests of this Marxist model of reality. However, the Cultural Marxists were the first to modify the system in anything like a fundamental way. For members of the Frankfort School, those most responsible for Cultural Marxism to begin with, classical Marxism overlooks the power of culture and all those social values that allow a rich vs poor society to exist. . At the head of the list is the family, seen by Cultural Marxists as society in miniature with oppressive father and oppressed mother substituting for social classes. The family, in turn, is enabled by traditional religion and its system of morality that maintains the social status quo. Hence the necessity of destroying the family and religion as the prerequisite for successful revolution. This is the theory intended for use in the industrialized West; different considerations apply to peasant societies elsewhere and are beside the point here. . Queer theorists start with this set of assumptions and build upon them. However, what is most basic in their schema is the view that, as Horowitz summarized things, "all identities...are the produce of the socially imposed ideal -hetero-normativity- which structures the system of oppression." What this amounts to is the homosexual view that the enemy isn't a class of rulers or the white race or the male gender but is the natural order. . Of course, homosexuals might not use this kind of vocabulary. Common preference is for them to claim that gender roles are social constructs that can be jettisoned at will according to personal preference or in agreement with some group one chooses to belong to. That is, since "choice" is generally out-of-bounds in conversation, a group one is destined to belong to is such because of innate inclination even if this is not recognized at first. . We can translate this into simple English easily enough: Where do the two sexes come from? While it is true enough that nature produces two types of plumbing that is all that nature does. Everything else is created by society. Borrowing the idea from political feminists, each gender, it is said, can do everything the other sex can do. Moreover every individual is about equally likely to be homosexual or heterosexual; nature, it is asserted, is indifferent to the outcome. The pattern of male dominance -supposedly the only model for heterosexual society- is the result of another social construct, invented by men in order to control the other for exploitation purposes. . The remedy for this situation is to deconstruct all of conventional society, abolish the family, and create a new kind of society. In historic Marxism the goal is a classless society of equals; for homosexuals the ideal is a "genderless planet." . As Horowitz said on page 157 of his book, the very idea of normal behavior is anathema to homosexuals. All social traditions are also evil. This is because, so homosexuals claim, heterosexual society is built upon oppression, what is "normal" is oppression, males over females and heterosexuals over homosexuals. The two genders exist as they have done so for millennia ultimately to give power to men to unjustly subordinate everyone else. This is "queer theory." . There are two notable exceptions to the rule although these are not discussed by Horowitz. Briefly, one is that of establishment homosexuals, the so-called assimilationists who want nothing more than admission to heterosexual society on its terms but with the caveat that there is no difference between them and heterosexuals except sexual preference, and homosexual neo-Nazis, primarily consisting of sado-masochists and sadists as such, who want the sexual order reversed so that homosexuals dominate heterosexuals, no argument about it. But what is most characteristic, said Horowitz, is "queerness" as basic to contemporary homosexual values and mentality. . The assimilationists make a case for democracy and willing to accept a republican form of government even if their loyalty to this system is half-hearted. After all, democracy provides checks on the powers of would-be autocrats who might otherwise clamp down on homosexuals, root them out, and persecute them. But since the heterosexual majority is often predisposed to marginalize homosexuals or even restrict their freedoms, there must be constant opposition to democracy by means of appeal to "enlightened opinion" on the part of the smallest of political populations, the judiciary. Everything depends on creating an environment in which judges feel that all of the right is on the side of homosexuals so that the will of the majority can be overthrown. About which, of course, we are pretty much there. Did the people of Colorado pass an Amendment to their state constitution to limit homosexual demands and maintain a social order in which marriage must be based on unions between men and women? So what? Throw out the legally achieved amendment because a new pro-homosexual ideology is now dominant among elites. To hell with democracy when you can have a pro-homosexual oligarchy instead. . This does not go far enough for "queer homosexuals," who are most homosexuals. For them, while for strategic reasons they believe they must use the rhetoric of democracy, the ideal of democracy is exactly the reverse of what they are after. Their goal is similar to that of the so-called "gay fascists" discussed by the Huffington Post. The ideal is homosexual-led authoritarianism in which homosexuality eventually is recognized as superior to heterosexuality. . This may sound not only bizarre but completely unrealistic as an assessment of contemporary homosexuality and its agenda. If there was some truth to the ideas the Horowitz discussed in 2000, that is, to the claims made by the sexually perverse, which seems doubtful, these things cannot be true today. However, not only was Horowitz reasonably accurate when he wrote, matters have become even more extreme in the here-and-now of 2017. -- -- 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.
