Tag Archives: E. Michael Jones

Marxist origin of the homosexual movement

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.
~Éowyn
Photo credit: Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, www.aftah.org

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

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:
error0
 

We have met the Halloween monsters, and they are us

monster
Today is Halloween.
Three years ago, I wrote this in my post, “Sick Halloween“:

When did Halloween morph from a holiday for little kiddies into an obsession with the morbid, the macabre, the grotesque, and the demonic? […] All living things have the instinct to live, which expresses itself in our natural attraction to the life-affirming beauty of nature — of flora, fauna, animals, sea and sky — and a concomitant revulsion toward death.

But our society seems increasingly fixated on exactly the opposite — Thanatos — morbid images of decay, psychopathy, and death. Have you noticed the ubiquity of the skull, even in women’s fashion and baby clothes?

See also DCG’s post, “People PAY for this: ‘Extreme’ haunted house is the stuff of nightmares“.
In his insightful book, Monsters From the Id: The Rise of Horror in Fiction and Film, Dr. E. Michael Jones’ thesis is that our culture’s obsession with horror and the macabre is a result of our denial and suppression of morality. Horror is a product of a guilty conscience that will not admit its own wrongdoing. Individually and as a culture, we can escape the eternal dynamic of horror only by acknowledging the demands of an objective moral order.
In other words, Americans’ enthrallment with horror, which reaches its apogee at Halloween, is the product of our suppression and denial of an objective and transcendent morality — that there are such things as right and wrong, good and evil, irrespective of our self-serving proclivities rationalized as “moral relativism.”
Any psychologist can tell you what happens when something is suppressed: It inevitably “bubbles up” from the subterranean depths of our subconscious and “projected” outward. Our projection of the denied and suppressed morality is expressed as a morbid fascination with the macabre — with fictitious zombies and vampires, and Hollywood’s Texas chain-saw psychopaths.
But all along, the monsters are inside us: We have met the monsters, and they are us.
You want to see Halloween horror? Here’s a real-life horror that’s taking place in America.
It’s not enough that in the 40 years since Roe v. Wade, more than 54.5 million American babies were murdered through abortion — a figure that’s more than the population of many countries, such as South Africa (pop. 51.77 million).
It’s not enough that we have in America today so-called doctors like Kermit Gosnell who abort kill babies by twisting their heads off.
There are women in America today — where abortion is legal and available at your neighborhood Planned Parenthood — who give birth and then kill their babies or abandon them to die from starvation and exposure.
Winona Sheriff Dave Brand is haunted by a dead baby found floating in a bag in the Mississippi River near Winona two years ago on Sept. 5, 2011. The tiny infant was nicknamed “Angel Baby” because of angel statues that were found inside the bag in which someone had stuffed the still alive baby.
On April 7, 2012, Sheriff Brand and his wife Pamela gave “Angel Baby” a baptism, a funeral service at St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, and a proper burial that was attended by other law enforcement officers and firefighters.

Angel Baby burialWinona County Sheriff’s Department honorary pallbearers carry Angel Baby’s 2-foot coffin to the burial site at Woodlawn Cemetery, April 7,
2012, in Winona, Minn.

Then there’s the Victoria’s Secret dead baby.
On October 16, 2013, a 17-year-old single mother of a two-year-old, Tiona Rodriguez, was detained at a Victoria’s Secret store in mid-town Manhattan for suspected shoplifting. The store associate found a $44.50 pair of skinny jeans in Rodriquez’s canvass bag, together with a black plastic bag that emitted a “strong odor.” Rodriguez’s bag contained a dead baby.

Tiona Rodriguez

Tiona Rodriguez’s pic from her Facebook page

Rodriguez reportedly told police that she had suffered a miscarriage when she was six months pregnant and had not known what to do with the fetus. But the medical examiner determined that the baby had been born alive, nearly full term at eight months, and that the cause of death may have been asphyxiation.

John Jalsevac writes for LifeSiteNews, Oct 17, 2013, that that Victoria’s Secret baby is just the tip of a disturbing trend:

[…] what if I told you that this sort of thing is happening routinely, all across the country, as well as in other parts of the world? And that the only reason that it’s making national headlines this time is because the discovery of the baby’s body was at a Victoria Secret store, which gives the story that extra bizarre twist, with just a hint of weird sexuality, that will grab attention?

Take a look at the following list…which is far from complete. I’ve simply compiled some of the most shocking, and most recent incidents. Here are the incidents in just the past eight months or so:

  • October 17 – A 17-year-old girl is stopped at a Victoria’s Secret store in Manhattan for suspected shoplifting, and admits that in her bag she has the body of a baby that she gave birth to the day previous.
  • October 11 – A newborn baby is found, bleeding but alive, with part of his umbilical cord still attached, abandoned on the concrete in the back yard of a house in Queen’s, New York. The baby survived.
  • September 19 – The body of a baby is found at a garbage dump in West Yorkshire, in the United Kingdom.
  • August 28 – A woman gives birth in a bar bathroom in Pennsylvania, stuffs the baby in the water tank of a toilet, and then returns to the bar to watch a fight on TV. The body was subsequently discovered by the bar owner.
  • August 7 – The body of a baby is discovered at hospital rest room in Texas.
  • July 9 – Police discover the body of a baby abandoned in a diaper box in the bushes at a public park in Roseville, California.
  • June 21 – The body of a small baby is found in a solid waste tank in a waste disposal plant just north of Montreal. Police say the baby was likely flushed down the toilet.
  • June 21  – The body of a newborn baby is discovered in a trash can in Oildale, California.
  • June 20 – An Iraqi-born UK woman is found guilty of causing grievous bodily harm after stuffing her baby in a garbage bag and throwing her down a 44 ft. garbage chute.
  • June 14 – A garbage truck driver in Thailand sees a small hand emerge from a garbage bag during a pickup. The baby had a balloon tied around her throat.
  • June 12 – Brittany Cole is arrested in Altheimer, Arkansas, after dumping her infant son in the trash can. She reportedly told police that she was tired of caring for the baby and could no longer do so.
  • June 5 – Twenty-seven-year-old Virginia resident Shavaughn Robinson is charged after allegedly giving birth in a toilet, then placing her daughter in a trash can, and then taking the garbage bag with the baby in it out of the can and tossing it in a dumpster.
  • June 4 – A dog discovers a living baby in Thailand that had been placed in a white plastic bag in a dump. The baby, which was premature, survived.
  • May 30 – Police announce that charges will not be filed against a Kansas teen who gave birth and dumped the body of her baby in a trash can. The teen claimed the baby was stillborn.
  • May 27 – Video footage of firefighters in Jinhua, China, rescuing a baby who had become stuck in a sewage pipe, rockets around the globe. The baby’s mother apparently gave birth on the toilet, and by her own account “accidentally” flushed the baby down the toilet. The mom reportedly hid the pregnancy because the baby was not considered legal under China’s brutal One-Child Policy.
  • May 2 – Cherlie Lafleur, 19, is arrested in Pennsylvania after allegedly attempting to flush her newborn baby down the toilet at her school. When that didn’t work, she reportedly deposited the body in the trash can.
  • Dec. 10, 2012 – The body of a newborn baby is discovered on the conveyor belt of a garbage sorting facility in La Puente, California.

I’ve been working in the news business for nearly 10 years, and I can’t ever recall a similar string of incidents. […]

So why is this happening all over the place? Good question. Last month, a prominent Catholic deacon speculated that the rash of such incidents signals the return of the ancient pagan practice of “exposure,” in which parents would simply leave their unwanted newborn babies on a rock or in the wild to die. “It was the Christians who saved [these babies] and transformed those cultures from cultures of death into cultures of life,” wrote Deacon Keith Fournier. However, he said, the rise of the abortion culture seems to be bringing the custom back in an unofficial form, with numerous gruesome stories emerging in recent months of parents unceremoniously discarding their newborn children. “These contemporary examples substitute a trash can or a dumpster for the rock,” Fournier wrote. But, he said, this trend isn’t surprising, since “babies are treated as trash” in abortion clinics across the country.

It’s hard to argue with that logic. Take a look at these other recent incidents:

  • May 14, 2013 – Three former workers at a Texas abortion clinic run by abortionist Douglas Karpen step forward alleging that babies are routinely murdered after being born alive during failed late-term abortions at Karpen’s clinic.  One of Karpen’s former assistants said the abortionist would even “twist” the babies heads off.
  • May 13 – Kermit Gosnell is found guilty of murdering three babies born alive during failed abortions by “snipping” their spinal cords. His former employees alleged that “hundreds” of babies were killed in this way. In some cases their dismembered feet were kept in jars, or their bodies stuffed into plastic containers and stored in the clinic freezer.
  • May 8, 2013 – Live Action release undercover footage of renowned late-term abortionist Leroy Carhart telling a woman seeking an abortion that after he kills the baby in her womb, it will soften up like “meat in a crock pot,” before the body of the baby is removed three days later.
  • April 29, 2013 – Live Action releases undercover footage of a worker at a late-term abortion facility telling a woman seeking an abortion to just “flush it” if the baby is accidentally born alive during the abortion. “If it comes out, then it comes out. Flush it…if anything, you know, put it in a bag or something or somewhere and bring it to us,” the counselor says.
  • April 19, 2013 – A former employee of late-term abortionist Kermit Gosnell testfies in court how on one occasion a fully formed baby was born alive into a toilet. Kareema Cross said the baby was making “swimming motions” as if it was trying to get out. Another of Gosnell’s employees, Adrienne Moton, then took the baby out of the toilet, and slit its spinal cord.

Then we have the students at George Mason University (GMU) in Washington, D.C., who were captured on camera on July 24, 2013 signing a petition “demanding” that lawmakers legalize “fourth trimester” abortions.
In other words, they want to legalize infanticide. (See “Americans sign petitions to kill old people and newborn babies”)
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4v8–9R0I2Q]
And so as Americans “celebrate” the pagan holiday of Halloween by dressing ourselves as monsters and watching horror movies, just remember that the real monsters are all around and inside us.
See “Reclaim Halloween as the holy All Hallows’ Eve!
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
error0