Back down to the vaults . . .

[The following article was written in 2015, at a period when I was not publishing on-line, and therefore has remained unpublished until now.  In a certain sense it is now mainly of historical interest, yet it contains sufficient otherwise hard-to-access information to make it still worthwhile printing at this time.]

                                                                -----

In the Sunday Independent of February 1st 2015, Keith Mills, who describes himself as ‘an agnostic gay man supporting a “No” vote in May’ speaks of his opposition to the attempt to redefine traditional marriage, which campaign he sees as being driven by ‘a tiny but vocal minority’.  He supports the concept of a family ‘that can provide a mother and father, which all evidence suggests is the best environment for children’.  He is also a supporter of civil partnerships and sees them as ‘a better way [than marriage] of reflecting the reality of most same-sex unions’.  He also suggests that he is not the only homosexual to feel this way, most of those of a similar mind being afraid to speak out.

The reason for this reluctance was amply demonstrated when in March, Dolce and Gabbana, the fashion designers, and both homosexual, spoke out against same sex marriage, gay adoption and test-tube births.  They were forced to recant after a world-wide fatwa was called against them and their products by Elton John and others—John describing the designers as ‘judgemental’ and ‘archaic’.

Peculiarly enough, another fashion designer, Giorgio Armani, who is also homosexual, has decided to join the fray from a different direction.  ‘A man has to be a man,’ he says.  ‘When homosexuality is exhibited to the extreme—to say, “Ah, you know I’m homosexual”—that has nothing to do with me.  A man has to be a man.’

Now it long ago struck me that the ‘gay’ idea of the feminised man was something likely to be anathema to the old-style homosexual.  Indeed, it struck me at times that the gays weren’t really homosexuals at all.  That they were sufferers from a variant of neuroticism—or just dedicated followers of fashion trends.  Indeed, the more I look at it, the more I am convinced that many of them aren’t homosexual at heart.  Rather they are fellow-travellers—what Lenin in a related domain called the ‘useful idiots’—basically in search of a fashionable cause and the safe opportunity for an ‘I am Spartacus’ moment.

Homosexuality, or at least its ‘gay’ variant, is at the moment ‘cool’.  It used to be in times gone by that people talked in cliché of ‘the lovely young priest’, now it’s more likely to be ‘the lovely young gay’.  For the liberal media (and what other media is there?) is pouring the stereotype of the universally gentle, compassionate, empathic gay into the popular ear from all directions—print, movie, television.  Think of the last time you saw a negative representation?

The debate that is going on in Ireland at the moment over marriage equality is on the surface a spurious one.  It’s like a slave saying, ‘I won’t accept freedom—I want liberty instead!’  As I say, on the surface it seems to be a tautology, a way of speaking about the same thing in different terms.  Differences of rights between civil partnership and marriage are of so little significance as to be in practice unimportant.  Yet at the same time the matter is of tremendous importance.

If gay marriage is rejected then civil partnership effectively becomes the end of the line for the gay movement.  There is nowhere for it to go beyond that.  But if gay marriage is passed and installed in the constitution, then it will immediately become a prise-bar for breaking things up further.  One of the first demands (notwithstanding that it is supposed to have been ruled out in advance) will be for access to marriage in the churches, again on the grounds of a spurious ‘equality’.

The question arises: how did a relatively small category of people manage to capture the high ground in the current debate to the extent that they have? One in ten is the usual percentage given for the number of homosexuals in any population.  Now in an article in 2003, the eminent American academic, Philip Jenkins took a microscope to this claim.  He wrote: ‘In 1993, the Alan Guttmacher Institute reported that between 1.8 and 2.8 percent of men surveyed reported at least one sexual contact with another man  in the previous decade, while only about 1 percent had been exclusively homosexual in the previous year.  This was in accord with the findings of a national survey recently undertaken in France . . . Contrary to Kinsey’s “one in ten”, a figure of one in 30 would offer a more accurate assessment of the male population that can be described as homosexual or bisexual; and one in 60 would best represent the exclusively homosexual.  The corresponding figures for women reporting sexual contacts with other women are somewhat lower.’

The Alan Guttmacher Institute mentioned is a prominent liberal sexual research centre in America, an off-shoot of the pro-choice Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

On the percentages given, and based on 2014 figures, there would be some 40,233 exclusively homosexual males in the Republic of Ireland.  Be generous and double the number to notionally include lesbians and you get a total of 80,466.  Hardly enough, you would think, to swing a referendum in a total population of 4,595,000—especially given that a significant number of homosexuals seem to be against it.  And particularly on such a controversial matter with many as yet unclear implications.

But the fact is that the marriage debate and the broader gay liberation movement aren’t stand alone phenomena.  They are merely fronts in a bigger war, inspired by liberals and mainly leftists, to reduce society to a rubble—Lenin used to use the analogy of a bomb in the basement when speaking to the same end—out of which will arise the fabled (and fictional) classless society.

Even as we speak, the broader war is being taking place on other fronts, too: immigration, education, the strangling of free speech (as with Dolce and Gabbana above), the war on religion, the sexual wars, the rise of protest movements (all generally comprising the same people) etc. etc.

Another dictum of Lenin’s concerned the definition of morality.  Morality was whatever served the ends of the revolution.  Murder, extermination, lies, betrayal, enslavement—all were legitimate to the extent that they served the needs of the revolution.  And who decided the needs of the revolution?  Why, Lenin, of course.

It would probably be unfair to see the exaggeration of gay population percentages as part of this process.  Yet it seems to be a common liberal tactic.  Jenkins’ article appeared in a book of essays dealing with disinformation, including how biased statements and figures, if repeated often enough, can take on the appearance of holy writ and be almost unchallengeable.  Jenkins’ contributions set out to take a critical—and successful—look at some of these sacred cows.

The collection of essays is called: You Are Being Lied To: The Disinformation Guide to Media Distortion, Historical Whitewashes and Cultural Myths.  It is published by The Disinformation Company, an award-winning countercultural publishing phenomenon, with an initial target audience of ‘hipsters, thinkers, anti-establishmentarians, and the merely curious’.  This particular series of essays contains contributions from different areas of the political spectrum, including the well-known liberal doyen Noam Chomsky.