Marxist origin of the homosexual movement

Rate this post

Lana, a reader of FOTM, recently made a very insightful comment, citing the thesis of E. Michael Jones in his book Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control. Lana writes:

…the further the sexual deviance and permissiveness i.e. sexual liberation, the inevitability of the need for social control. In other words, there is a method to the madness. TPTB promote this extreme excess because it has been scientifically shown that it paves the way for political control and repression…. [T]he end-game of the so-called “sexual liberation” — of which women’s “liberation” and the homosexual movement are part and parcel — is a way for the state to gain control.

As constraints on behavior increasingly are loosened, the social fabric increasingly becomes frayed, resulting in increasing chaos and disorder. But a society cannot function under such circumstances, so citizens increasingly turn to the state as a solution, thereby expanding the powers of government.
Indeed, Numbers 26 and 40 of the 1963 Communist Goals For America, which was entered into the Congressional Record (Appendix, pp. A34-A35) on January 10, 1963, state:

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
40. Discredit the family as an institution.  Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

On March 16, Mike published a post on “Communists Conceived Women’s Liberation Movement.” Here’s a companion piece on the Marxist (aka communist) origin of the homosexual movement.
Photo credit: Americans For Truth About Homosexuality,

A scene from San Francisco’s Folsom Street Fair, 2010. Photo credit: Americans For Truth About Homosexuality

The revolution of the family: the Marxist roots of ‘homosexualism’

by Hilary White
Life Site News
Aug 23, 2013
A few days ago in The Guardian, Peter Tatchell wrote a pretty good description not only of that ideology’s goals but its origins. This political ideology, often called “queer theory” by its proponents in academia, is what is being pushed, quite openly these days, by the “gay rights” movement. Despite what we are told all day by their collaborators in the mainstream media, from the six o’clock news to your favourite sit-com, this movement is not about “equal rights”. It is about re-writing the foundational concepts of our entire society. I predict that it will not be much longer before the pretense of “equality” is dropped, having done its work.
… Others have pointed out the Marxist origins of the Sexual Revolution as a whole, and it is clear that the sudden explosion of homosexualism is merely the next logical step in a systematic programme. A close cousin to radical feminism and grandchild of Marxism, homosexualism was developed out of the politico-academic pseudo-field of “gender studies” and has, for 30 or 40 years, been pushed on a mostly unwilling public, through “anti-discrimination” and “equalities” legislation by a coalition of lobbyists, NGOs and politicians on the extreme left, and in increasingly powerful international circles.
Peter Tatchell is a prominent British homosexualist, which means he is a proponent of a specific political and social ideology that he wants to see adopted in British society and elsewhere. He is also a homosexual man, that is, he experiences sexual attraction for other men, a condition whose origin is still debated by doctors, psychiatrists and geneticists. The two things are not the same. This is a fact that tends to escape a lot of people who read and write about the Culture Wars, especially in its current manifestation that seems to have suddenly become all about homosexuality. Not all homosexuals are homosexualists, and not all homosexualists are homosexuals.
Tatchell’s Guardian piece was a paean to a document put together in 1971 by what he describes as a collective of “anarchists, hippies, leftwingers, feminists, liberals and counter- culturalists” to bring about “a revolution in consciousness”. He called the “Gay Liberation Front: Manifesto” “a pioneering agenda for social and personal transformation” that started with the proposal that “subverting the supremacy of heterosexual masculinity was the key to genuine liberation.” Tatchell said it was the book that changed his life.
The Manifesto sums it all up, Tatchell says, by “critiquing” “homophobia, sexism, marriage, the nuclear family, monogamy, the cults of youth and beauty, patriarchy, the gay ghetto and rigid male and female gender roles” … the whole kaboodle of the sexual revolution.
The Manifesto itself is quite blunt about identifying the main enemies to defeat: “The oppression of gay people starts in the most basic unit of society, the family.”
“Consisting of the man in charge, a slave as his wife, and their children on whom they force themselves as the ideal models. The very form of the family works against homosexuality.”

Most tellingly, the Manifesto says that “reform,” in other words “equality,” is never going to be enough; what is needed is a total social revolution, a complete reordering of civilisation. Reform, it said, “cannot change the deep-down attitude of straight people that homosexuality is at best inferior to their own way of life, at worst a sickening perversion. It will take more than reforms to change this attitude, because it is rooted in our society’s most basic institution – the Patriarchal Family.”

Far from being “the source of our happiness and comfort,” it says, the family is the oppressive “unit” in which the “dominant man and submissive woman” teach children “false beliefs” about traditional “gender roles” “almost before we can talk”.
The core concept of gender ideology is given: there is “no proven systematic differences between male and female, apart from the obvious biological ones. Male and female genitals and reproductive systems are different, and so are certain other physical characteristics, but all differences of temperament, aptitudes and so on, are the result of upbringing and social pressures. They are not inborn.”
“Human beings could be much more various than our constricted patterns of ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ permit – we should be free to develop with greater individuality.”
“Our entire society,” the Manifesto says, “is built around the patriarchal family and its enshrinement of these masculine and feminine roles. Religion, popular morality art, literature and sport all reinforce these stereotypes. In other words, this society is a sexist society, in which one’s biological sex determines almost all of what one does and how one does it; a situation in which men are privileged, and women are mere adjuncts of men and objects for their use, both sexually and otherwise.”
It is this that must be overturned, entirely eradicated, before the true freedom we all deserve can be put in place.
It does not take a degree in political theory to recognise the origins of this kind of language: throw off your chains, comrades! Indeed, a very little digging will take you directly to the origins of the Gay Liberation Manifesto in the writing of the first Marxists: in this case, Friedrich Engels, who wrote a document describing what most of us call the traditional family in terms nearly identical to that of the Manifesto.
Engels called it “monogamous marriage” and said that it exists “not as the reconciliation of man and woman, still less as the highest form of such a reconciliation. Quite the contrary. Monogamous marriage comes on the scene as the subjugation of the one sex by the other; it announces a struggle between the sexes unknown throughout the whole previous prehistoric period.”
“The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male.”
“The modern individual family is founded on the open or concealed domestic slavery of the wife, and modern society is a mass composed of these individual families as its molecules.” Engels’ solution, of course, we all know already.
The Gay Liberation Manifesto, like Mr. Engels’ work before it, proposes that once we throw off the ancient shackles of “heterosexism, male privilege and the tyranny of traditional gender roles” we all get to live in a glorious and shining “new sexual democracy” in which “erotic shame and guilt would be banished”. This means, in practice, more or less what we now have: everyone gets to sleep around with whomever, and nobody gets to have any long-term claims on anyone else either in marriage or as parents.
Now that it has started the global “gay marriage” snowball, the ideology’s promoters seem to have only a few mop-up operations left to accomplish. The pressure is already starting to widen the burst-open definition of marriage to include multiple partners of either sex and to legalise and accept paedophilia – as an expression of “children’s rights”.
But as with all utopian visions, homosexualism’s great weakness is the failure to consider the entirety of human nature. It proposes, essentially, a permanent state of self-indulgent adolescence, and to other self-indulgent adolescents, this sounds pretty good. Have all the cake you want, eat it for breakfast, lunch and dinner, and never get fat.
Unfortunately, since the 1960s, most of us have been raised to think that this programme is the very meaning of freedom and securing it the whole purpose of democracy. The ideology was already being promoted to children on television to children when I was a child. I remember the huge splash made in 1974 by an animated TV show called “Free to be you and me” that told us through a series of cute animated sketches, narrated by the icons of the 70s lefties Marlo Thomas and Alan Alda, that it was wrong to assume, or adopt, traditional sex roles. Gender ideology for tots.
For those who actually try to put it into practice, however, it quickly becomes obvious that humans were simply not meant to function this way, and basing an entire culture on the proposition, as we have since the 1960s, is going to create dismal state of emotional and social chaos, misery, loneliness, poverty and selfishness such as the world has never seen before.
The main problem with the homosexualist version of the Marxist dream is that you have to get everyone to agree. And I mean everyone. Marxist theorists have always known that utopia will only work if no one is allowed to raise any objection. Everyone has to agree, and no voice of dissent can be tolerated to pop the soap bubble logic of the enterprise.
The first voice to be aggressively silenced, as always, is therefore the Church that proposes something rather more rich and (ahem) fertile for man’s destiny than this facile materialism and sensualism. The Church that, furthermore, has a more comprehensive understanding of human nature, and knows that total license is not a recipe for human happiness… far from it.

Please follow and like us:

0 responses to “Marxist origin of the homosexual movement

  1. Great article Mike.
    PS: I didn’t put an exclamation point at the end of my statement because I am not at all surprised that your writing is great. I’ve come to expect it. 😀

  2. The late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote an essay some decades back titled, “Defining Deviancy Down.” Ever since the Sexual Revolution of the 1960’s we have seen the deconstruction of Christian sexual mores. Satan knows that the best and quickest way to destroy a person’s character and personality is by attacking the sexual function—its God-given character and purpose.
    What I see staring at me right from the article here is ideology triumphing over truth. Think about it: Our parents grew up with Freud having laid the foundation, only to have Kinsey and Hefner build upon that. That’s on the sexual angle itself. And they also witnessed the propaganda techniques of Edward Bernays be implemented upon society department by department. Think of it as the methodology of Antonio Gramsci applied to socially accepted norms itself—from one “department” or area of life itself, down the checklist, until every area of everyday life itself is infiltrated and infected.
    With sexual temptation, the matter is not so simple: It is no mere temptation to steal an apple or a bicycle or a car. It is not mere temptation to seek revenge for an injustice. It is like being lost in a House of Mirrors: The attacks upon each facet of the personality is so complex, so multi-faceted, it becomes not merely overwhelming, but DISORIENTING. And this is the Devil’s “Grand Symphony” of evil, as it were: to implement a DIABOLICAL DISORIENTATION upon the world as a whole.
    Our parents grew up in the age of the preparation for the Sexual Revolution. I grew up in it. Our children, having been born afterward, have not known normalcy, but have seen the deviant presented as the norm. Is it any wonder that so many parents today cannot understand why their daughters are sluts? (Is it any wonder that a large number of mothers actually take their daughters to the doctor for a contraceptive injection or device—and think they are doing their parental duty?)
    And I see in this sickness your article describes the Nietzschean—and SATANIC—idea of an awareness of this sickness—yet the idea of “not that we would want to get rid of this sickness.” I see the ideological drive of having fallen into moral chaos and disorder (sin—on the personal and societal level) and the self-righteousness of intellectually and morally degenerate men whose “Manifest Destiny” is to live in this disorder and call it normal. An ideological self-righteousness about their sin, and to manifest it as truth upon the rest of the world.
    Now I can understand Orwell, who in “1984” has O’Brien tell Winston Smith, “My dear Winston Smith, you do not understand! In the future the orgasm shall belong to the Party!”


    • I disagree, Truth Be Told: St. Alphonsus Liguori and other saints have told us that the damned want all men to be damned, while the saved want all men to be saved. Yes, we do live in a laissez-faire world, a supermarket if you will, where is man is free to do what he wants. But at the same time, the movement of people remains a real if unrecognized influence. Sociologists have noted, in many times and places, that it does not take 51% of people to effect the societal change: A mere ten percent of people is more than enough to start effecting the change.
      Again: The damned want all men to be damned. The saved want all men to be saved. That’s a moral judgment, all right!

    • EVIL prevails when good men do nothing…

  4. Another thing just occurred to me. Forty years ago, Merv Griffin had Julian Huxley on his show. He asked Huxley, “Why is it that you don’t believe in God?” Huxley answered, “We found the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.” There’s the answer.

  5. Another Communist Conspiracy.

  6. Some links on Obama’s involvement in this movement…
    ● Kevin Jennings is the militant homofascist activist that Obama tapped as his “Safe Schools” Czar. Despite public outrage, Obama kept him in the administration’s closet working for two years.
    [Quoting] Mr. Jennings wrote the foreword to a 1998 book titled, “Queering Elementary Education.” The book he endorsed was a collection of essays by different authors who supported teaching young children about homosexuality. [End quote]
    ● An excerpt from ‘Ascension of Evil: Obama’s Fist F**king “Safe School Czar” Kevin Jennings’:
    [Quoting] Obama has appointed Kevin Jennings, founder of GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network) — which sponsored the conference that produced the notorious “Fistgate” scandal (in which young teens were guided on how to perform dangerous homosexual perversions including “fisting”) — to head up “Safe Schools” efforts at the Department of Education. Jennings is a vicious, anti-religious bigot who once said “[F–k] ’em” to the “Religious Right.” He supports promoting homosexuality and gender confusion as normative to even young students. He made that comment in a New York City church. [End quote]
    ● Jennings had a very disturbing past before that. Here’s an excerpt from his ‘Discover the Networks’ profile:
    [Quoting] In 1988 a Concord Academy sophomore confided to Jennings that he and an adult male were having a homosexual relationship that had begun in a bus-stop bathroom. Jennings failed to report the boy’s situation (which technically amounted to statutory rape) to authorities. Instead he actively encouraged the relationship, counseling the youngster to use a condom in his sexual encounters. [End quote]
    ● Knowledge of the this didn’t stop Obama’s Education Secretary Arne Duncan from expressing support: Jennings is “uniquely qualified” for his job.
    ● Bill Ayers, the domestic terrorist whose living room Barack Obama held his political “coming out” party in, endorsed Kevin Jennings’ 1998 book.
    Bill Ayers’ gay agenda for your kids
    ● Graham Spanier is a former Penn State president and the architect of the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal cover-up, What happened after he was forced to step down? The Obama administration hired him!
    Washington Post’s Emily Heil wrote about it in the article, ‘Graham Spanier’s gig as a federal worker is a mystery’:
    [Quoting] Spanier might have been ousted from his post at the helm of Penn State over the sex-abuse scandal that engulfed the university, but it seems he’s found a backup employer: the American taxpayer. … His lawyer confirms to the Loop that Spanier is working on a part-time consulting basis for a “top-secret” agency on national security issues. But the gig is so hush-hush, he couldn’t even tell his attorneys the name of the agency. In April — months after his ouster as president but before the release of the internal report — he told the Patriot-News of central Pennsylvania that he was working on a “special project for the U.S. government relating [to] national security.” [End quote]
    Graham Spanier still faces charges of perjury, obstruction, endangering the welfare of children, failure to report child abuse, conspiracy to hide child abuse, hiding evidence from investigators, and lying to the grand jury. IOW, this “expert at cover-ups” fit in perfectly with the Obama administration.

  7. Wow, excellent points all that you made Steven. And I would also add to TRUTH BE TOLD, yes we have to be mindful of taking care of our own backyard, however in this particular case, if we don’t fight back they will succeed in making sure they are in your backyard ! There is no detante in this matter. This now becomes a battle to protect our children as well as who’s vision of society will prevail. There is absolutely no way that folks can keep silent and expect that this will all turn out OK. Gay activists like Masha Gesson have admitted that the Gay marriage agenda is not about equal rights, but about destroying traditional marriage.

  8. Now you are attacked if you call homosexuality a sin, but thought “cool” if you see it as no big deal or just another lifestyle choice. After all, it must be ok because the tv sitcoms say so. You nailed it Steven, it’s Diabolical Disorientation. What our society says is normal is not normal. Sexual sins are a one way ticket to hell. The Church isn’t going to cave, so get ready for a rough ride.

  9. Pingback: Marxist origin of the homosexual movement -

  10. I have been witnessing this social change since the 70s and surprised how little notice it’s been getting throughout the decades, and wondered how things would have devolved if the AIDS crisis had never happened. Perversely, I was even thankful that the crisis kept the Gay movement in check.
    Homosexualism and feminism may be a Marxist plot, but it is also clever marketing. By blurring the lines between the sexes and promoting homersexual behavior, the business world profits immensely. They don’t want a coherent family unit because it doesn’t make enough money. They want everyone of us to over-consume our lives away and not be concerned about much else. Women now want their own cars, houses and a room full of shoes. Gays have long been great customers for business mostly due to their love of the ‘Pleasure Principle’, which has now become mainstream. If you look at the media today, you can almost swear that at least half of the population is gay.
    I am also surprised that the author didn’t mention the role of Jews as a group in this social transformation. The destruction of the family unit is well on its way in the West, and countries like Russia, China and others don’t like it. Their culture is being threatened not by bombs, but by this insidious and sexy influence of degeneracy.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *