Homosexual Militancy, Sexual Licence, and the Undermining of Traditional Values

by Michael Woodbridge

THE DEPLORABLE decision by the National Union of Teachers under their General Secretary, Christine Blower, to demand that any incoming government should compel teachers to extol the virtues of homosexuality highlights the almost total victory of neo-Marxist “political correctness”. In case there was ever any doubt about Miss Blower’s Marxist credentials we can note, that before becoming NUT boss in 2009, she stood as a candidate for the extremist ‘London “Socialist” Alliance’ in 2000; obtaining a derisory 1.6% of the vote. (ILLUSTRATION: “Feminist” psychologist Susan Golombok)

In tackling the highly sensitive issue of homosexuality one is immediately aware of the taboos put upon the subject by an oppressive and all pervasive “liberal” clique; taboos which discourage any clear thinking or frank discussion. Indeed, it’s one of life’s ironies that the more sexually liberated we’ve become in theory, the more constrained our thinking has become in practice. Whereas, in happier times homosexuality wasn’t a problem for the vast majority of the population, nowadays, like propaganda for racial miscegenation, homosexuality has been constantly thrown in our faces and has obsessively penetrated into the heart of Western consciousness.

Even though homosexuality isn’t an obvious problem for the average family, our prurient mass-media ensures that no man woman or child is ever left innocent of the subject. It is now de rigueur for every television “soap” to have a homosexual intrigue running through part of its story line. And of course the theme is eagerly taken up by a scurrilous press, a press which having abandoned all pretence at serious or objective reporting takes refuge in the banalities of TV scriptwriters. Even the supposedly more cerebral newspapers are not immune. In fact The Guardian and The Independent have become virtual house journals for the homosexual lobby.

In their desperate attempt to normalise the abnormal our militant neo-Marxists of the intolerant “liberal” press are past masters at selective reporting. Any academic study which dismisses our fundamental identity as heterosexual beings is presented to the readership as holy writ, alternatively, any academic study which claims that our sexuality is socially constructed rather than a natural biological disposition will be lauded, and by contrast any studies to the contrary, which doubt the general efficacy of sexual licence (assuming such studies are able to receive university funding in the first place) are either belittled or ignored.

However, the onslaught against natural order isn’t confined to the championing of homosexual men. As the reader will be well aware, a whole new industry has gathered pace since the 1960’s with the express intention of attacking the soft underbelly of our culture by undermining the assumptions upon which each healthy individual and every healthy society has always dwelt. Having failed to recruit revolutionaries from among our working class, our neo-Marxist enemy has invented the L.G.B.T. phenomena with a whole army of homosexual, ‘Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender’ militants eager to promote their ’cause’.

Writing in the I, sister paper to The Independent, an L.G.B.T. apologist, Emily Dugan explained how according to a new Cambridge University study, conservative parenting assumptions have been challenged. She says the study found that children brought up by two mothers, two fathers or single parents fare no worse than those from traditional families. Not surprisingly, the Cambridge study was compiled by a feminist academic, Professor Susan Golombok [a Jewish name — Ed.]. With breathtaking chutzpah she wrote … “Whether children have one parent or two, whether their parents are male or female, whether their parents are of the same sex or the opposite sex, and whether they have been conceived naturally or through assisted reproduction, seems to matter less to children than the quality of family relations, the support of their community and the prevailing attitudes of the society in which they live.”

The preponderance of Jewish feminists, especially in American academia, is pronounced. The first female American rabbi to be ordained made her name through a lesbian interpretation of the Book of Ruth. She is Rebecca Alpert who despite bearing two children divorced her husband before entering into a lesbian partnership in 1986.

The pernicious influence and religious sanctification of lesbianism reached nightmare proportions however in October 2013 with a report in The New Observer. It was revealed that a “married” lesbian couple, Pauline Morena and Debra Lobel, a “marriage” sanctified by a local rabbi in Berkeley, California, had adopted an eleven year old gentile boy and brainwashed him into accepting the idea of hormone therapy in order to facilitate a sex change operation later in his life. To quote from The New Observer… “The “mommies” actually claim it was young Thomas’s idea to become a girl…If they can be believed, Thomas allegedly of his own initiative favoured headbands to baseball hats and picked out bras and dresses to start wearing when given a choice of clothing. Thomas is set to start hormone blocking treatment to stop him going through puberty as a boy, and has now been renamed Tammy”.

By gnawing away at the most sensitive spot possible, our personal sexual experience, the political enemies of Western culture and civilization have succeeded in immobilising our spirit in much the same way as a jujitsu practitioner would paralyse an opponent by pressing his finger on a pressure nerve. The Victorians had the good sense to treat sexual matters with a certain amount of reserve. However, Sigmund Freud, made famous by his grandson’s advertising of “Pal” dog meat on commercial television, changed all this in the early half of the twentieth century. Sigmund Freud, who could be classed as a pioneer of deconstructivism, asserted that all Art, Music, Literature and human love could be explained away as no more than a sublimated form of sexuality. In other words, the mystery and magic of existence was reduced to that of a bodily function!

Naturally, Freud and his fellow deconstructivists wouldn’t have been able to get a toe hold in their attempt to destroy Western norms if sexual matters were simple. Despite a significant down side, which we have no need to dwell upon here, many homosexuals as individuals can be both charming and gifted, so one is often tempted to regard them more with compassion than disdain.

The American, Alfred Kinsey, perhaps the most renowned psychologist after Freud to analyse sexual behaviour, came up with a scale in 1948 which categorized individuals from one to six (known as the Kinsey scale) according to how inclined they were towards homosexual behaviour. As Kinsey put it … “Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexuals and homosexuals. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats…The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects”. Despite Kinsey’s ostensible good intentions, here we can detect a strong subversive tendency undermining nature’s intended sexual role model. Having said that, it would be disingenuous for us to ignore the fact that we harbour elements of the opposite sex within ourselves.

For example, a man has nipples which can still form part of his erogenous zone. Likewise, although body hair is more predominant in a man it can still be regarded as a sexually attractive feature in a woman; this is despite unnatural fashions generated from America! Indeed it has been claimed by many psychologists that in addition to the obvious joy found in sexual differences it’s the twenty percent male in women and the twenty percent female in men which helps the two sexes to communicate more thoroughly. Furthermore, it is said that it’s precisely where the ratio varies that sexual problems begin to occur.

In their doomed quest for normalcy homosexual proselytizers are always keen to claim distinguished historical figures for their own. Great Renaissance artists such as Michelangelo and Leonardo have often been targeted on the flimsiest of evidence. However, with his lush paintings of pouting youths it’s probably true to say Caravaggio’s was a homosexual. Two distinguished and highly popular, twentieth century musical playwrights were the quintessential Englishman, Noel Coward, and the Welshman, Ivor Novello. Yet in an age of “don’t ask, don’t tell” they were able to sublimate their homosexuality into tender, often sentimental, yet passionate heterosexual romance. When Noel Coward wrote:

“I’ll follow my secret heart
My whole life through
I’ll keep all my dreams apart
Till one comes true
No matter what price is paid
What stars may fade above
I’ll follow my secret heart
Till I find love”.

He was expressing the inner torment of a lonely homosexual. Yet for all the world this talented man had transcribed his feelings into a heterosexual theme. This of course is as it should be. When asked about his private life he refused to divulge, saying no more than, “There are still a few old ladies in Worthing who don’t know.” The extent to which homosexuality is genetically determined and the extent to which it is acquired through social conditioning, the perennial nature/nurture question, will always be subject to endless debate. The reality is that both nature and nurture play their part, with the weaker souls more vulnerable to deleterious, outside influences. An example of this is illustrated by the increased percentage of younger, self proclaimed, homosexuals found in the population at large, compared to the percentage of homosexuals amongst the older generations, as attitudes have become increasingly “liberalised” through the maladroit influence of the mass-media.

According to a 2012 survey of 180,000 British adults 1.8% men admitted to being homosexual or bi-sexual and 1.2% of women admitted to being lesbian or bi-sexual. However, if we look at the different age groups 2.6% of those under 24 admitted to being homosexual, bi-sexual or lesbian, whilst only 1% of those over 50 admitted the same.

It can also be seen that there are strong regional variations. The breakdown into geographical regions makes fascinating reading with East Anglia having the lowest numbers of homosexuals at 1% of the whole, and London the highest with 2.5%. Just out of interest we can compare London’s comparatively modest percentage with that of the notorious homosexual ‘Mecca’, San Francisco, which boasts 15.4%. Rio de Janeiro comes a close second, by the way, with 14.3% and it is no coincidence of course that San Francisco has a proportion of Aids carriers which is proportionately six times greater than that of Britain as a whole!

Thought to have originated from the human consumption of chimpanzee meat, what started as a mystery virus was first detected in the Congo in 1959, but it wasn’t until the late 1970’s and early 80’s that serious concern occurred, following reports of rare types of pneumonia, cancer and other illnesses affecting homosexuals in Los Angeles and New York. As the effect of the illness was to break down the immune system, health officials begun to describe it as an “acquired immunodeficiency syndrome”, or “Aids”. In those days, before neo-Marxist “political correctness” had gained quite such a stranglehold on public discourse, the Chief Constable of Manchester, James Anderton, was able to describe Aids victims as … “Swirling about in a human cesspit of their own making.”

Since then we’ve seen a concerted effort by our government and health authorities to avoid any moral censure at all, despite Aids’ unfortunate association with some of the more squalid forms of human existence.

To some extent the avoidance of moral censure is understandable. While a slow terrifying death might be acceptable in Iran, Somalia or Saudi Arabia, where homosexual acts frequently incur the death penalty, amongst British people only the most fanatical “fire and brimstone” zealot could ever wish to see such a cruel fate inflicted on any fellow mortal. By avoiding moral censure it was assumed that homosexuals or drug addicts would not feel daunted when seeking medical assistance and so by coming forward help prevent the spread of Aids.

Unforeseen by the general public, a consequence of such moral neutrality has been an unprecedented breakdown of all sensitive constraints on sexual morality or normal behaviour. Our society is in a dire state of moral confusion. Conflicting messages abound; on the one hand there is what sometimes amounts to a witch hunt against suspected paedophiles, on the other hand five year old children are encouraged by the fashion industry to dress up as tarts and teenage girls routinely asked to pull a condom over a manikin’s penis as part of their sex education lesson in school.

One of the wonders of the modern World has been the orchestrated legislation of what is euphemistically called “same sex marriage”. What surer way to devalue true marriage and healthy family life than to reduce it to such an absurdity? How could any normal heterosexual couple ever again feel any sense of fulfilment in marriage once they know that the institution has been so defiled?

Those who doubt any alleged conspiracy to destroy civilisation might just ponder at the speed and thoroughness with which homosexual “marriage” has been instituted across the globe. It would stretch human credibility too far to claim that legislation for homosexual marriage was enacted in countries as diverse as Iceland (2010), Argentina (2010), Denmark (2012), France (2013), New Zealand (2013), and of course our own United Kingdom (2014) as a result of popular grass-roots demand! The list goes on. Naturally, our po-faced hypocrite of a Prime Minister added his comedy piece by announcing that he didn’t support “Gay” marriage despite being a Conservative but because he was a Conservative. In fact what ever else we may call David Cameron, his duplicity and willingness to insult the public intelligence ensures him his place as a true “heir to Blair”.

One of the most insidious aspects of the homosexual controversy is the way it has been framed, by the enemies of normalcy and natural order, as a dual between enlightened secular liberals and religious obscurantists. The implication being that amongst our own folk only Christians might have a legitimate objection to homosexuality: Christians, emasculated by their own liberalism have thus become an Aunt Sally to be attacked with impunity.

Taken with a degree of circumspection, an altogether more scientifically principled objection to the promotion of homosexuality as normal can be found in the writing of British psychologist, Raymond Cattell, who takes a somewhat extreme view when attacking the aridity of rationalism for divorcing sexual activity from procreation. In his seminal book, Beyondism — A New Morality from Science he quotes Aristotle as saying, “Nature never makes anything superfluous”… and goes on, “Any separation of satisfaction from functionality is sheer suicide”.

Cattell makes the interesting point, which would implicate the dysgenic effects of pornography, as well as all forms of non-procreative sexual abnormality, when he tells us that biologists have started to use a chemical sex stimulant which creates a false sense of sexual satisfaction as an ingenious way of wiping out insect pests. Perhaps we should take warning!

* * *

Source: Western Spring