Part 2. The Ideology of Perversion . Reference should be made to an article by Mark Judge in the August 18, 2014 edition of Real Clear Politics, in the Real Clear Religion section, entitled: "When Heterosexuality Is Outlawed." After an introduction about the theme of homosexual fascism first overtly expressed in a 1955 story by Charles Beaumont called "The Crooked Man," something that tells us that this idea seemed natural to homosexuals long ago and was continued in fiction thereafter, the article then tells us about Robert Reilly's current book, Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior is Changing Everything. . There simply isn't any real question about what is going on among homosexuals as they progress from political success to political success. That is, if you never spend any time doing research you would be clueless, and almost no normal men or women do so, but for those that do make the effort it is impossible not to see things clearly; there is as abundance of evidence. . There is obvious movement toward totalitarianism in the Left generally and among homosexuals in particular. To understand why, first it is necessary to understand something that psychologists, psychoanalysts, and psychiatrists always knew with certainty until 1973, indeed, which most still understood well into the 1980s and which a significant number are certain about to this day: Homosexuality is a morbid psychological condition. It basis is, as Dr Charles Socarides said in his 1978 book, Homosexuality, so much self-loathing; it is this because it is utterly neurotic, all the while as its character and causes are suppressed by the conscious mind through a process of denial. Yet the self-hatred from which homosexuality springs never goes away because it is never looked at honestly. Feelings of deep dissatisfaction continue year after year. Only when a homosexual does seek therapy is the true nature of the problem addressed -sometimes in colorful language that makes the point with great clarity. As one of Socaride's patients told him: "I've got to get this homosexual monkey off my back." . In other words, to refer to Reilly, a homosexual "knows" at an unconscious level that his or her life is an abysmal failure. Homosexuality is the worst possible maladjustment to trauma or other problems that made him or her a social misfit to begin with, or that have to do with inability to achieve healthy self-identity, something which can be especially acute in adolescence. Homosexuality offers a way out through soul-less sensual gratification that does not require a fully functional mature ego; a damaged adolescent ego can suffice indefinitely. Yet an innate drive for normality is built into each human being by nature since we are, after all, a species that depends upon reproduction for survival. This basic need demands attention; it is part of our nature, and it manifests itself as one form of conscience. Trouble arises when conscience is overridden, and it is this overriding of conscience that makes homosexuality possible. . Hence, as Reilly said, all totalitarians (which by definition necessarily includes religious totalitarians such as true-believer Muslims), suffer from what he calls "the rebuke of conscience." In other words, your natural inner conscience tells you that what you are doing is wrong, and this is chronic because it is repeated over and over again, all of which results in the necessity to rationalize away dissonant feelings that are inescapable. . Rationalization can take many forms but one of them is abandonment of responsibility for one's actions. Simply disown responsibility and all is well, or, anyway, can be perceived as more-or-less well. Hence the attraction for assimilationist homosexuals of libertarianism. Everyone is a self-serving island, everyone stands alone, there is no communal imperative. Everything is reduced to questions of individual freedom because there is no such thing as moral right and wrong, only self-gratification . As far as other homosexuals are concerned, war is declared against democracy. Of course this war is never describe in such terms, it almost always borrows the vocabulary of democracy, but it radically reinterprets democratic language so that everything is judged according to whether it serves homosexual interests or does not. If it does, then fee speech is defended to the death. If it does not, then free speech must be curtailed or denied altogether. . About this, activist homosexuals are no different than other Leftists. Hence the phenomenon of Political Correctness, of speech codes, and sensitivity training whereby people are taught that honesty about one's feelings must be suppressed because a value judgement has been made which says that all "approved" groups in society must be given equal status. There is no such thing as objective merit; equality is assumed and decreed. The penalty for disobedience to a social decree is ostracism or denial of privileges of many kinds. This is the mechanism that enables the system to functions. . What we get as far as homosexuals go is something that takes the form of a pact between them and normal heterosexual people, which says: "If you don't judge me, I won't judge you." the unwritten assumption being false equivalence, as if sexual deviance is just as good as sexual health. . As Reilly explained, cited in the article: "The power of rationalization drives the culture war.....It may draw its energy from desperation, but it is all the more powerful for that. Since failed rationalization means self-recrimination, it must be avoided at all costs. This is why...rationalization is animated by such a lively sense of self-righteousness and outrage...This necessarily becomes a group effort. For them to succeed in this, everyone must accede to the rationalization... Since the necessity for self-justification requires the complicity of the whole culture, holdouts cannot be tolerated, because they are potential rebukes." . The only way for this to work is by using the media to redefine right and wrong, and the only way for that to succeed is to seek to destroy the authority of religion so that all traditional definitions of moral good and evil are discredited. The future must be amoral or even anti-moral as understood by almost all traditional religious faiths. The toughness required to carry out this kind of assault on social institutions and a nation's culture is found in an ideology, specifically some form of Marxist-Leninism, in this case Cultural Marxism. . What has been happening has been massive coercion disguised as a battle for individual rights. All of this would have been impossible except for the fact that opponents of homosexuality, with very few exceptions, mostly in the psychology professions and therefore apolitical animals, have been unable to make an educated case for their views. The scale of the coercion has been unprecedented and was made possible because homosexuals spoke much the same language as communications and political elites all educated to the behavioral sciences or, anyway, with enough knowledge of that kind of "discourse" to sound convincing. . Religion-inspired opponents have been ignorant of that kind of language and have sounded like throwbacks to another era of history, prior to modern education. Which, of course, is made worse by beliefs in, for example, the inerrancy of the Bible and an absolutist view of abortion which has made that issue more important for Christians than all other social issues combined. . These factors explained, we can return to the observations of David Horowitz. . America, by the middle of the 20th century, had fully adopted the ideal of a pluralistic society in which diverse communities should be able to co-exist in relative harmony by reliance on a "live and let live" set of values. Of course, in the 1950s this assumed some basics that few people ever took time to be explicit about, namely, this applied to adult sane people not to insane people or to children. It applied to religions that shared some kind of common morality. And it applied to everyone who shared a common understanding of American history with its panoply of "saint heroes" like the Founding Fathers plus Abe Lincoln and the Roosevelts. That is, a common culture was assumed. There was room in it for secondary themes like the special place of Jews in everyone's consciousness, but this concept was not infinitely elastic. And there certainly was no place in it for Communists and Fascists -or sexual deviants. . The rise of a homosexual movement changed all of that, at first very ineffectively, then increasingly successfully by alliance with the political Left in the aftermath of the Civil rights movement of the sixties and of Viet Nam war -which ended in 1975. . The task for homosexuals, who wanted to replace normative American culture with a culture based on nihilistic values, was to make full use of the language of civil rights, made easier by the fact that assimilationists did believe in that kind of solution to homosexual problems. However, queer theorists, the homosexual Left, the homosexual majority, sought something entirely different than mere acceptance into the heterosexual community: America had to be remade into a homosexual-friendly country in which positive value was seen in sexual deviance and gender abnormality. . What we are talking about really is deviant and abnormal. As Horowitz summarized matters, this isn't about assimilationist homosexuals in suits and ties, or "fem" female homosexuals dressed up to look like businesswomen preparing to go out on a date with a male colleague. That kind of thing is camouflage intended to deceive the gullible, most American citizens but especially naive Evangelical Christians. . What we are really discussing is "promiscuous anal sex" often carried out with total strangers in public bathrooms or in city parks, and, in general, sexual practices that are "unsanitary and dangerous" and "a threat to public health." Also on the list are such practices as oral-anal sex, aka "rimming," and a whole host of related behaviors like feces play and urination as a sex act stimulant. And what must be ignored and never admitted to the greater society are embarrassing truths like the fact that amoebiasis, a disease transmitted by tiny parasites that live in defecation, is 50 times more prevalent among homosexuals than in the population at large. By the time the AIDS epidemic began in the mid 1980s it was clear that syphilis and gonorrhea rates among male homosexuals was hundreds of times greater than among heterosexuals. Indeed, 80% of all sexually transmitted diseases reported in San Francisco in those years was associated with homosexuals, less than 20% of the city's population. . On pages 164-165 in his book Horowitz listed some of the sexually transmitted diseases that are common among homosexuals at rates far in excess of rates for heterosexuals. This list is entirely consistent with more recent lists prepared by medical professionals: . Hepatitis A Hepatitis B Hepatitis non-A, non-B Herpes Simplex Type 1 Herpes Simplex Type 2 Venereal Warts Amoebiasis and Salmonella Shigellosis Syphilis Gay Bowel Syndrome Giardisis Gonorrhea Nonspecific Arthritis Chlamydia Epstein-Barr Virus Mononucleosis Cryptosporidiosis . There is a unique homosexual history to some of these illnesses. For instance, Hepatitis B had been primarily a blood disease; in time it became what it had never been before, an STD. By 1981, as Horowitz pointed out, approximately 3/4ths of all male homosexuals in San Francisco were infected with Hepatitus B. This would prove to have even worse consequences than the usual horrible effects as an affliction that can lead to death on its own, but which almost certainly would facilitate death even on the part of survivors because it "permanently lowers the immune systems of the hosts it has invaded." . All of this was spread by the form that the sexual revolution of the era took as a homosexual phenomenon, which was different than the heterosexual revolution in important ways since basic hygiene was typical of sexual relations involving opposite genders. There was also a much higher rate of condom use among heterosexuals because couples usually wanted to avoid pregnancy and that limited exchanges of bodily fluids. . Indeed, even though most homosexuals understood the risks they were taking, they took them anyway. "Throw caution to the winds" was another motto of the homosexual movement and this had lethal consequences. Homosexuals disregarded just about all medical advice and doubled down on their irresponsible "lifestyle" even when AIDS became known as a disease that was killing homosexuals at very high rates and causing almost no deaths among heterosexuals. Nearly the entire homosexual population was in absolute denial. They were not about to give up on squalid sex in filthy flop houses, in so-called glory-holes, and even in back alleys outside of bars. Not to mention sex in physically cleaner settings like someone's apartment or house. They simply weren't about to quit, no matter what. . Horowitz asked the question: What about public health officials and medical professionals? Surely they knew the dangers. Why didn't they do something? The answer was what researchers of the time suspected was the reason for such official irresponsibility: Fear. . To say it a little differently, the doctors at the Centers for Disease Control were gutless, unethical, and a disgrace to their profession. What they did was completely inexcusable. Worse, their lack of action was partly motivated by a fact they all knew, namely, the White House -this means Ronald Reagan- would give them no support if they were to tell the public the facts, that the disease, although transmission needed to involve bodily fluids and did not spread as easily as illnesses that could pass on to others via breathing, was highly communicable and posed a serious threat to the population at large. Strong measures needed to be taken.with respect to all high-risk groups, especially homosexuals but also intravenous drug users and anyone in need of blood transfusions. As well, infected food handlers could transmit the disease to restaurant patrons. . None of these measures were taken, not even a basic precaution that is made use of in all other epidemics, notification of sexual partners of those who are infected. This deliberate choice of non-action condemns the CDC like nothing else in its history. But no other actions were taken either because, as one doctor quoted in Horowitz's book said: "We didn't intervene because we felt it would be interfering with an alternative lifestyle." . Some homosexuals were alarmed at what was happening but were unable to convince anyone beyond very limited numbers. Month after month hundreds of homosexual deaths due to AIDS were reported during the height of the epidemic, not curtailed until well into the 1990s because of development of powerful new drugs. But until then it was a plague of Biblical proportions. . Horowitz also quoted a homosexual journalist named Gabriel Rotello, someone who tried to be objective about public health officials. These medical people, he observed, "feared that by focusing on the diseases spawned by the gay sexual revolution they would be accused of homophobia. [Homosexual] leaders frequently made it plain to researchers that anyone who raised questions about gay sexual freedom for any reason...would be accused of anti-gay bias." . The result was predictable. Of course, these would all have been moot points if the office of the President had come down forcefully on the side of the CDC but that was not about to happen. The White House, CDC officials knew, was pro-homosexual. And we are not talking about the Clinton White House, nor the Obama White House, we are discussing the Ronald Reagan White House. . To be sure, Reagan was criticized at the time for not doing more to combat AIDS. However, his reluctance to do more was not because of anti-homosexual views. The exact opposite was true. The reason was simply that millions were already being spent on AIDS research but the disease was so intractable that throwing more money at it was not going to make an appreciable difference any time soon. The decision was practical. . Most homosexuals appreciated Reagan's political dilemma; he was on record as wanting to further AIDS research but could not make science conform to his wishes. Most of the static came from Leftist of homosexuals. And... Everyone who knew him or knew his story was sympathetic. After all, to cite one high-profile example, in 1984 after the actor had been diagnosed with AIDS, Reagan invited Rock Hudson to a state dinner at the White House, which was duly reported in the press. A year later, after Rock Hudson's death, Reagan eulogized the actor at his funeral, something that TV news covered coast-to-coast. . Stories about how friendly Reagan was toward homosexuals have circulated from his time to our's. For example, an article in Free Republic for November 04, 2003, has this title: "Rock Hudson’s Gay Lover Confirms Ronald Reagan Was Not Homophobe – Was “Kind and Considerate as Hudson Approached Death From AIDS." . This article cites a letter to Fox News from Hudson's queer "wife," Marc Christian, to the effect that "the Reagans were life long friends of Hudson, knew his sexual orientation, and accepted him for who he was." Also verified is the fact that "the President and Mrs. Reagan called Hudson a few weeks before his death and spent an extended time with him on the telephone," adding that "the Reagans reassured Hudson that they wished him the very best and he was in their prayers every day." . An article that first appeared in the June 10, 2004, issue of the Bay Area Reporter, "Reagan and Gays: A Reassessment," tells us that "during Reagan's presidency the first openly gay couple spent a night together in the White House." This was confirmed in a Washington Post column for March 18, 1984, by Robert Kaiser, who "described the sleep-over: " The personal interior decorator retained by the Reagans', Ted Graber, was put in charge of "the redecoration of the White House, spent a night in the Reagans' private White House quarters with his male lover, Archie Case, when they came to Washington for Nancy Reagan's 60th birthday party." The essay concluded by saying: "All the available evidence suggests that Ronald Reagan is a closet tolerant." . . Not incidentally, some Evangelicals have made the argument that because Reagan had a homosexual son, some latitude is due to his toleration of homosexuality. Except that he did not have a son who was homosexual. Reference is to Ron Reagan, who had been a student at Yale University until 1976 when he dropped out to become a ballet dancer. His father suspected that Ron might be homosexual, and said so to friends, but that idea was dispelled when Ron married a woman to whom, when asked about this for a magazine interview some years later, said that the idea was preposterous given the fact that he had been a faithful husband for 23 years. . But what if Ron Reagan had been homosexual? What would that justify? To use an imperfect analogy, what if he had been an alcoholic? Would that justify his father claming that alcoholism is perfectly acceptable? . The corollary argument that Ronald Reagan had no choice but to accept his [presumably] homosexual son since "what is the alternative?" -the implication being that the only alternatives consist of stoning him or burning him at the stake. Which, of course, isn't a valid argument either. . What was he supposed to do? Why is this difficult to understand? Take the child to a reputable therapist to seek to extricate the boy from a grievous sexual psychopathology. And do some serious research so that a father and mother can talk to their son and explain exactly why homosexuality is a self-destructive choice and how it can be eliminated from one's life. Is this too much trouble ? Is it more trouble than a lifetime of dealing with a child that is homosexual ? . In any case, Ronald Reagan's pro-homosexual views were deliberately concealed from Evangelicals. Not that Evangelicals, like anyone else, could not have found this out; most of the information was available from published sources. But no-one did the necessary research. No-one. When Reagan said that he believed in the Rapture to come, that was good enough for all concerned. . In so many words, while Reagan was busy reassuring homosexuals that he was accepting of their lifestyle and values, this was not what he was saying to his Evangelical Christian supporters who were under the impression that he was one of them. But Reagan knew, full well, that he had no reason to worry. No-one who followed Jerry Falwell's call to Christians to vote for Reagan had the intelligence to do any meaningful research anyway. -- -- 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] Popular Culture APPENDIX The Ideology of Perversion Part # 2
BILROJ via Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community Sun, 17 Sep 2017 19:27:02 -0700
