The Mail on Sunday’s disclosure of yet another judge who supported the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) in the seventies, ensures that this story will rumble on for a while yet so I thought it worthwhile to return to this issue and hopefully clear up some confusion from my earlier article here.
The first article on this subject was not an attack on gays and it would be wrong to see it in that vein. But at the same time it does highlight an issue that we cannot afford to ignore. The key point to grasp was that this issue is not about sexual orientation but about power and how gay rights has been used by the left to acquire power.
The story of Roy Jenkins, Anthony Crosland and the NCCL’s support for PIE is important. It tells us about the covert nature of the support that the sexual liberation movements had at the top.
It is also important to acknowledge that gay rights was a key part of a coalition of forces that have been used to smash traditional society.
At the same time it would be wrong to deny that the majority of campaigners for the Paedophile Information Exchange were gay men. That is a fact that cannot be denied.
But none of this is to besmirch nationalists – or anyone else – who is gay. There has always been far more tolerance of discreet homosexuality than is acknowledged.
To understand why all this matters we have to take a step back several decades and here I have to acknowledge Kerry Bolton’s excellent “Revolution from Above” which is an indispensable guide to the forces that have shaped the social disasters in the west over the 20th century.
It was Wilhelm Reich who first realised the revolutionary potential of sexual politics. He was a key figure at the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory in the twenties when it was beginning its destructive analysis of the foundation stones of Western civilisation such as religion, the family, morality, tradition and nationalism.
Reich propagated the idea that sexual repression was the product of capitalist society and that sexual liberation would precede the social revolution. This would require the destruction of traditional concepts of child rearing, the family and parenthood.
All this would become a mainstay of the sixties counterculture movement. In 1973 one of Reich’s supporters summarised his views. Today it reads like a manifesto for paedophilia.
“Suppression of the natural sexuality in the child, particularly of its genital sexuality makes the child apprehensive, shy, obedient, afraid of authority, good and adjusted in the authoritarian sense; it paralyses the rebellious forces because any rebellion is laden with anxiety; it produces, by inhibiting sexual curiosity and sexual inhibition in the child, a general inhibition of thinking and critical faculties. In brief, the goal of sexual suppression is that of producing an individual who is adjusted to the authoritarian order.”
Child sex was part of a wider revolutionary movement which aimed at normalising feminism, abortion on demand and the gay movement. As far back as the thirties Reich was calling for free distribution of contraceptives, free abortions at public clinics and the abolition of any legal distinctions between the married and the unmarried, training of social workers and teachers as advocates in sex education.
These have all come to pass so it is difficult to remember how shocking these ideas would have been in the thirties. But as Kerry Bolton points out, what is significant here is that Reich saw the revolutionary potential of extreme sex movements.
The next significant figure was the American sexologist Alfred Kinsey who began his studies in the thirties. He more than any other figure, is responsible for the new sexuality that became synonymous with the New Left and worked hard to achieve acceptability for feminism and gay sexuality in the mainstream.
Ironically while his supporters would often decry criticisms from the “well funded” Christian right, it was the Kinsey Institute itself which was rolling in money from corporate and plutocratic sources such as the Ford and Rockefeller foundations as well as many government sources. Kinsey’s studies were milestones in the normalisation of practices such as homosexuality and the acceptability of abortion. Kinsey’s biographer wrote: “Theoretically, therefore, as far as Kinsey was concerned, there was nothing automatically wrong with child-adult sex.”
This process continues today. The Kinsey Institute is still one of the largest and most lavishly funded in America in receipt of hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Kinsey’s successor Dr John Bancroft has been forthcoming about the political application of the Institute’s work:
“As the prevailing sexual morality, by definition, demands conformity, so sexual non-conformity becomes a vehicle for dissent. And as human societies have become more complex, so have mechanisms of social dissent played a crucial role, often through a socially disturbing dialectic process, in the evolution of each society.”
Bancroft sees the destruction of “patriarchal society” as the single most important factor in the evolution of human society. He lauds the phoney youthful rebellion of sex, drugs and music as being not only socially liberating but of have an international “major commercial impact” in that it created a malleable new consumer class befuddled by sex and drugs and demoralised by a lack of a family and traditional structure.
No-one is accusing homosexuals as a group of supporting paedophilia but this is not a question of orientation, it is a question of power and the fact remains that gay rights was a key weapon in the long campaign to fracture society which finally bore fruit in the sixties and seventies. To ignore this is to ignore reality.
At the same time it ill behoves gays to try and gain the moral higher ground and attempt to shut down debate on this. Sexual politics is a key weapon in the left’s armoury. It led to the creation of the victim culture. Today power flows from victimhood and we can’t allow someone to shut down a debate citing their victim status. That is playing the enemy’s game.
PharmaPhil
- Edit
Yes I think very much they’re used for a political process that in the end won’t benefit them.
Pushing the rights of many minorities over the rights of the majority is not only profoundly undemocratic but does also lead to conflict as these minorities all have competing demands that cannot be satisfied.
I think the end game is that they are not meant to be satisfied or to be benefited, they are being used to destroy our society, which then destroys them.
The proof of who gains from this will be seen standing over the smoking ruins.
David
- Edit
I’m homosexual and the picture of the queers in a line sickens me. One of the problems with the left leaning gays is they use past victimization to justify their depravity. In general Western Society suffers from a need to have immediate gratification. When one serves self then s/he cannot serve Nation. You cannot serve two masters.
Stefan
- Edit
I was watching a programme on the TV (Bad habit I know) (“Who are you?” I think it was) & there was a male couple with a child, one of them called himself “Queer” & said he didn’t like the term “Gay”.
I took it to mean that “Queer” defined him as a militant fighting for Homosexual rights of some sort, it defined his whole outlook on life.
Some deaf people were also interviewed & they had a similar sort of attitude, being very militant about being deaf.
Steven
- Edit
David, if you are a British patriot and vote and act in accordance with that then frankly I couldn’t care less what your sexual orientation is. One of the best things about the new BDP party is that it takes a more moderate and realist stance on this subject than the BNP did and that is to be commended.
I think that the more outlandish displays at some of these ‘gay pride’ events are bordering on the obscene and it wouldn’t be too out of order if the police used the public obscenity laws towards those who are unwilling to tone it down at these events.
The fact is most people in society are now fairly relaxed about gay rights and gays/bisexuals are now accepted in our society. It’s time those kind of gays returned the respect shown towards them. Whilst it is true that some people will always be bigoted against gays, such displays will increase the now fading levels of anti-gay prejudice and most of us (including me) wouldn’t wish this to happen.
David
- Edit
I will check into it. I’ve followed and donated to the BNP for over 20 years. I supported them when John still was in charge. I do appreciate your support because in my opinion the right’s proposition on the homosexual issue is a vote loser. Everyone these days is related to a homosexual and if half don’t vote, think of the votes lost? From a biblical perspective Jesus never addressed the issue but he did divorce. We are all under Grace and if I behave and am monogamous I believe I’m as accepted as a divorced and remarried person who devoutly loves his new wife. Love covers a multitude of sin. In a purely secular view what does it matter who I love? The Right is a divided house and the left is not. I’m a 6’1″ muscular power house and like Mr. Musson said we are single and can fight where my straight brothers and sisters can’t because I have no family for the left to threaten. So let the state bring it HOOAH! As long as you get me out of jail. Lol. I’ll check out the BDP.
Stefan
- Edit
I think the Left is not as united as they seem, just as Jews or moslems aren’t, there are blocks of them for sure.
I don’t think it is completely hopeless for us.