Originally posted 2019-01-18 04:57:31.
‘LGB’ culture in the West, from its beginning in the 1950s, was strongly transgressive, after the ideals of men 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 use homosexuality as a battering-ram.
Peter Tatchell, a ‘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 Western LGB 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? 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 is the nature of Tatchell’s ‘fundamental change’?
The 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 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 LGB dogma.
If sexual orientations are not pre-ordained, then surely they can be changed — but if that be so, why do LGB 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 LGB 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
LGB 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, 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 politically motivated Western homosexuals. This quote sets out the underlying political imperative of Western LGBTx: to use non-conforming 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 lobby will never be satisfied until the society that supports it fails completely.
The Curse (of feminism)
Feminism, since the ‘Second Wave’ has had exactly the same intention — to destroy traditional, liberal, democratic society and freedom of speech alongside Free Market Capitalism and to apply and enforce a Neo-Marxist Utopia, in which there will be no genders (and nothing but misery.) This is the feminist answer to Tatchell: okay, so we can’t repair our sex, but if we get rid of gender, it’s almost as good.
Sex, sexuality and gender have been weaponised by the demagogues behind these movements, not to ensure tolerance, acceptance or egalitarianism, but so that the Collectivist hive-mind is enforced, in a society in which women and homosexuals are not equals to heterosexual men but have supremacy over them. Heterosexual men, especially white ones, are to be Helotised or at least put under curfew, to be locked up like dogs at night. This is just a precursor, as many feminists openly desire to eradicate men altogether.
Theorists and thinkers
This desire is explicit in the writings of ‘queer theorists’ like Foucault as well as ‘feminist thinkers’ like Dworkin, Steinem, Greer and many others. It is to be done using anti-democratic methods, by suppression of free speech, by ‘shaming’ or ‘de-platforming’ those whose views do not align with the hive mind’s, by pretending that political activists represent groups that are somehow ‘oppressed minorities’ whose ‘rights’ transcend everyone else’s, and so their claims must simply be accepted.
This is the most dangerous, toxic philosophy extant and it has one end only: the destruction of its host culture. To make matters worse, the people behind these transgressive political movements will not hesitate to use violence if they are gainsaid, as we have seen time and again since 2016.