Originally posted 2019-01-18 04:57:31.
‘Gay’ is not an orientation or a preference, it is a lifestyle. In fact it is two lifestyles, transgressive and conservative. In the West, from its beginning in the 1950s, it has become strongly transgressive, after the ideals of homosexuals like Harry Hay, one of the founders.
Hay was a card-carrying Communist Party member who finally realised that Communists hated homosexuals even more than mainstream society did; so his solution to destroying the culture he lived in was to organise and use homosexuality as a battering-ram. Naturally, he had learned how to do this from his Communist Party mentors. So right from its inception, the Western transgressive form was completely rooted in Communism and a desire to overthrow the status quo.
This is completely different from the situation outside the West, where gay lifestyles are usually conservative both socially and politically.
Peter Tatchell, a Western ‘gay rights’ activist, first noted for the deliberate exposure of other people’s private lives said, in a 1996 polemic:
‘Those who advocate gay rights alone, without any deeper commitment to the transformation of sexua1ity, are concerned only with removing homophobic discrimination. They want to reform society, not fundamentally change it. Their insistence on nothing more than equal rights for queers, and their typical view of lesbians and gay men as a distinct class of people who are destined to remain forever a sexual minority separate from the straight majority, have the effect of reinforcing the divisions between hetero and homo. It encourages the false essentialist idea that gay and straight are two preordained, irreconcilable sexual orientations characteristic of two totally different types of people. Such attitudes preserve society as it is’
The underlying intention of the Western gay lifestyle could not be more clearly stated. Those struggling for ‘gay rights alone’ are to be condemned because they only ‘want to reform society, not fundamentally change it.’ To ‘preserve society as it is’ becomes an epithet.
But from whence does the idea that ‘fundamental change’ is either a desirable or an achievable thing come, or that society should not be preserved as it is? It would be spectacularly stupid not to see the clammy hand of Communism pulling the strings here. After all, how do we improve, fundamentally, a free, democratic society in which the rights of the individual are respected?
Modification and improvement may be desirable, but ‘fundamental change?’ How so and in what direction? What, if it is not Communism, is the nature of Tatchell’s ‘fundamental change’?
The ugly face of transgressive homosexuality.
Humanity spent thousands of years arriving at a model of civilisation in which the rights of the individual were paramount — doesn’t ‘fundamental change’ mean they must no longer be?
Are activists like Tatchell seeking a return to Feudalism, in which they might well be burned at the stake, as homosexuals, then called catamites, were, by the Inquisition? No, of course not. The ‘reform’ they seek is the imposition of Communist totalitarianism and they have been using sex, sexuality and gender to try to do this, for fifty years and more.
Note: ‘insistence on nothing more than equal rights’. In other words, homosexuals, according to Tatchell, a notorious shrew, were to be what? Greater than equal?
The Freudian slip is clear. And then: ‘the false essentialist idea that gay and straight are two preordained, irreconcilable sexual orientations characteristic of two totally different types of people’. Why is that false?
If homosexuals are not essentially different, then why is there a rights issue at all? And on the other hand, if it is not true that ‘gay and straight are two preordained, irreconcilable sexual orientations’ then what are they? A matter of choice? I thought that was directly counter to gay lifestyle dogma.
If sexual orientations are not pre-ordained, then surely they can be changed — but if that be so, why do ‘gay activists’ rail so against ‘reparative’ therapies? Why not embrace them, if ‘being gay’ were a mistake that might be rectified? What can be changed in one way can be changed in the other, surely?
Instead of changing society, one changes oneself, and the ‘discrimination’ goes away: simple. Except that the point of ‘gay’ activism, just like feminism, has never been to get rid of discrimination. Oh yes, that is seen as a desirable by-product, to be sure; but the real end has always been, and remains, the destruction of free democracy — because it was invented by largely heterosexual, European men.
Western transgressive activism
‘Gay’ activism in the West does not seek to live happily within a society that accepts it. It is seeking to destroy that society; it is one of the vehicles being used, by the Left today, to undermine free and democratic societies from within and replace them with the collectivist hive.
To that end it long ago put the destruction of democracy and Capitalism at the centre of its programme. It was and remains an utterly cynical project that is specifically and deliberately transgressive, as this quote and thousands like it show:
“Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society.”
— (US) National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy director, Paul Ettelbrick
In other words, the family had to be disgraced and got rid of, because it suited the interests of Leftist Western homosexuals. This quote sets out the underlying political imperative of Western ‘gay’: to use alternative sexualities and gender to compromise and ultimately destroy the society that tolerates it. Just as Harry Hay had always intended.
Note too, the compulsion: if one is queer then one must be transgressive, must work towards the destruction of society. That is the true meaning of ‘queer’; same-sex attraction is just a by-product of a militant political ideology. No backsliding permitted.
Pride in Protest, a transgressive, extremist ‘gay rights’ group in Australia, attempted to take over the 2019 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras. The group posted to social media
‘It may not be 1978 anymore, but we know that the fight for Queer rights isn’t over. What we have we won because we rioted, we protested, and we campaigned in the community for decades.’
The post outlined a series of left-wing policies that they wanted to see adopted by Mardi Gras, including endorsing BDS (a notorious anti-Israeli movement widely linked to antisemitism) and banning any police presence or that of the Australian Liberal Party, from the event. The group failed in its attempt and its proposals were voted down at the AGM, but the illustration of its transgressive, iconoclastic and, indeed, Communist agenda is clear.
Despite the manifest changes in Australian society, which has become one of the most politically correct on the planet, the transgressive gay lobby will not be satisfied until the society that supports it fails completely. This is something which the whole of modern ‘gay’ culture intends, for the entire planet.
Good luck getting that past Islam, boys.