Daily Archives: October 17, 2010

Against Nature

 There has been a flurry of stories about homosexuality recently. The US military are fighting a rearguard action against openly gay troops,  Tyler Clementi, 18, a student at Rutgers University in New Jersey, USA, committed suicide after a video of him having sex with another man was posted on  the internet, the Serb capital Belgrade saw violent protests against a Gay Pride march and  the BBC recently made public research they had commissioned that found one in four of those questioned was ‘uncomfortable with gays on TV’, nearly half said that they would rather not see two men kiss and  21 per cent of viewers were  uncomfortable seeing two men as much as hold hands on television.   In addition, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (a British public body) report  found that:

“Our groundbreaking new research shows that in 21st century Britain, despite legal advances, homophobia still has an unacceptable everyday impact on the lives of LGB [Lesbian and Gay]  people. Attitudes have undergone a sea change over the last few decades, with much greater understanding and tolerance. However, the fact that LGB people feel that they can’t be open about their sexual orientation in their local neighbourhood, that LGB students still experience unacceptably high levels of bullying, and that LGB people would not even consider certain jobs for fear of other people’s reaction, is a worrying sign that prejudice and discrimination still limit people’s choices and chances in life.” http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/research/beyond_tolerance.pdf

This did not surprise me because I  sincerely doubt whether any heterosexual man is entirely comfortable with  the idea of  homosexuality, vide, the normal hostile reaction of a heterosexual man when it is suggested that they are homosexual. I  put the  short questionnaire below out on several usenet newsgroups  to test the feelings of  heterosexual men.  The overwhelming majority  who replied gave answers which showed them to be uncomfortable with homosexuality.

1. Would you be comfortable if you were taken for gay?

2. Would you be comfortable if a gay man made sexual advances to you?

3. If a gay man had expressed sexual feelings for you, would you be  comfortable working or socialising with that person?

4. If you live in circumstances where there was communal living, for example in  the services, would you be comfortable sleeping in the same  room as men you knew were gay?

5. Would you be comfortable appearing naked in front of a gay man, for  example, where there are communal showers?

6. Would you  be comfortable  being in the same place as a gay couple  engaged in heavy petting?

7. Would you be comfortable in the company of a gay couple who were  holding hands?

8. Would you be concerned that any gay man might be HIV positive or have  Aids?

9. You go on a business trip with a gay man. The only accommodation you  can get is a room with a double bed. Where do you sleep?

10.  A gay man is making persistent sexual advances to you despite your  rejection of them. What do you do?

11. You have two children, both sons. They both announce they are gay.  Your natural ambition  for grandchildren vanishes. How do you respond?

12. Your gay son brings his partner home with him to stay for the night.  Do you let the two of them share a bed ?

Despite  worldwide  evidence, both present and historical,  of unease at best and outright hostility at worst  towards homosexuals,    liberals would have us believe that such feelings and behaviour is  unreservedly irrational, merely a matter of social conditioning.  There is an obvious difficulty with  that assertion, namely, if a behaviour is dysfunctional, how is it that evolution would favour it so universally and frequently?   The same objection can be made about the core tenets of political correctness  which hold that homo sapiens is a single entity; that race is simply a social construct; that there is no innate mentality or behavioural difference between men and women and that discrimination on any ground is both irrational and morally wrong.

Natural selection is blind. It shapes organisms and behaviour in response to the chance of genetic  variation and physical environment. If human beings in many different places and times display a  behaviour  then the logical conclusion is that it is of evolutionary benefit. Hence, if homosexuals are viewed as abnormal, woman are seen as having a special role to play in childcare and men and women maintain racial and ethnic separateness by overwhelmingly opting to mate with those from their own race and ethnicity,  such behaviours are  not to be casually discarded as being vicious relics of a primitive past but seen as indicators of the innate nature of human beings, both as individuals and as social actors.  

What political correctness does is stand reality on its head.  It asks humans to behave in ways which are profoundly unnatural to them, to ignore their  evolved behaviours .  In that lies danger.  The groups who are protected by political correctness in the West  – ethnic and racial minorities, gays and women – have been given a de facto hierarchical  superiority which is a manufactured l superiority , while those who  have always had a natural superiority in the West – native whites, heterosexuals and men – in public terms at least,  have been relegated to an unnatural inferiority.  This is an unsustainable situation because that which asks men to call black white can only survive as long as the elite can sustain the ideology. History tells us that is not very long – even the Soviet Union lasted little more than 70 years.

The liberal bigot

    Like all organisms the liberal bigot is an evolved creature,  although the character traits which made him – hypocrisy, the wish to create the world in one’s own image, paternalism, a sense of moral  superiority, a desire to  gratuitously interfere with the lives of others, false humility, self- indulgent masochism and a pathological refusal to accept evidence which contradicts emotionally based beliefs – are as old as civilised man. Those who know their history will readily recognise the basic personality of the liberal bigot  for it is that of the Puritan.

   Very primitive types existed in the ancient world – Plato’s Socrates has much of the Liberal Bigot’s smugness and ability to ignore the facts of human nature – but it was not until   eighteenth century that creatures displaying most of the modern Liberal Bigot’s general features emerged in the shape    of men such as William Wilberforce and Jeremy Bentham.

   But Wilberforce and Bentham still had some moral sense and it  is  Shelley who perhaps first displays  the  peculiar humbugging amorality of the modern liberal bigot with his  continual  prating about his love for “mankind”, whilst  behaving abominably to all and sundry.

   The nineteen thirties saw the first indubitably modern  liberal bigot described by Friedrich Hayek when he had found  one called Harold Laski at the LSE. To be sure Laski did not   have certain of the detailed traits associated  with the  liberal bigot of our time, for example the hatred of academic    success in the working class, nor did he possess the instinct   to dissemble his paternalism, but he had that quintessential    quality  of  the  fully developed  Liberal  Bigot,  an    intellectualised pseudo-morality or, to put it more exactly,  ethical rules without moral context.

   Since the discovery of Laski, liberal bigots  have become   increasingly common and they are now a very widely spread  pest. They are particularly fond of habitats such as  politics, the arts,  universities, the media  and  the    social services.  The liberal bigot can be found in all   western societies, but nowhere does the creature have such  success as within the precincts of the Anglo-Saxon world,  where  they have  captured political control of  their    societies.  

   The liberal bigot’s ideological and psychological  starting  point is the fantasy, which he maintains in the face of all the evidence, that man is a generally malleable creature who can  be changed by social engineering to create a world fit  for Liberal Bigots,  although in so thinking the liberal  bigot misunderstands his own psychology for he would find  such a place supremely uncongenial. No more would he be able  to posture in the public eye because there would be no  matters  occasioning  expressions of liberal bigot moral  outrage or excuses for paternalistic action.  Even more alarmingly, in a realised liberal bigot society, the liberal  bigot might be forced to match his behaviour to his words.    However, the liberal bigot may rest easy in his bed for such  a world is but fit for dreams.

   The liberal bigot has but one general principle but what a    principle it is, being so all embracing that no other is  needed. The liberal bigot holds as an article of faith that   no discrimination should be made between human  beings  regardless  of man’s natural inclinations and  Nature’s  distinction by  sex, sexual inclination, race,  colour,   culture, class, talent, intelligence, education, personality,

   physical condition and age,  unless, of course, the person  judged is female, homosexual, non-Caucasian, poor, stupid,  uneducated, old or crippled. Then the liberal bigot may discriminate to his heart’s content, although in the weasel  wording manner of Lenin’s ‘democratic centralism’ he calls it    ‘positive discrimination and thinks it not in the least   “judgemental”. This he has institutionalised  in  a  totalitarian system called political correctness.

   Above all things the liberal bigot delights in what he calls racism, which in practice means the white man defending his own interests or extolling his own culture. This the liberal  bigot  has raised to the status of the great  modern  blasphemy.  Just as once the Holy Office caused men to be  burned for denying the literal truth of transubstantiation,  so just as surely does the liberal bigot wish to immolate those  who distinguish amongst their fellows on the most natural grounds of all, a sense of kinship, of shared culture and experience. So central is this tenet to modern liberal  bigotry that the liberal bigot has moved in the past forty  years from believing that racial discrimination is bad to   asserting that multiracial societies are a positive good.

   The fact that such societies always experience considerable  friction between their various racial components is not, of course, taken as evidence by the liberal bigot that he is  wrong, but as ammunition for promoting more restrictions on  the white population and further reason for indulging in positive orgies of European cultural denigration.

   At some level the liberal bigot realises that his creed  is at odds with reality.  So, following in the footsteps of religious intellectuals such as Acquinas and  political theorists such as Marx, he creates an elaborate  fictional  world which is baldly represented as “natural” or “right”,    and  reality  “unnatural”  and  “wrong”,  even  though   intellectually the liberal bigot would deny any objective   morality or measure of cultural worth.    Like  all those who adopt  intellectually  indefensible    ideologies, the liberal bigot makes disbelief a heresy and   punishes it with a gamut of sanctions which range  from    exclusion from public life through simple expressions of    distaste to  the passing of laws  threatening fines and   imprisonment for those who express the “wrong” opinions.

   Morality exercises a peculiar difficulty for the liberal  bigot for he is caught between believing in moral relativism and a desire to impose his own standards on the world, for which he cannot, necessarily, have any absolute  sanction.  This dilemma is partially solved by the development of an   amoral personality and by using doublethink to hide the  intellectual contradiction.  

   The liberal bigot decries “nationalism” but he is also a  firm advocate of cultural expression provided, of course,  the people concerned are within his approved ideological  circle of deserving causes. That a sense of cultural worth  and  identity  is  practically  indistinguishable  from nationalism the liberal bigot cannot accept so he represents the two as opposites. When pressed with disloyalty, he  often    makes  a  spurious  distinction  between  patriotism  and  nationalism   and  says  he  is “proud”  of  such  things  as  Britain’s history of providing sanctuary for refugees,  which  trait,  when  translated to the nature and  level  of  modern population movements,  is of course of the greatest  possible  disadvantage to the receiving country.  If he is in the media  he  will crudely mock the idea of national feeling  by  being  absurdly jingoistic in trivial matters  as in  the statement

          “The space shuttle took off today.  The plastic wrappers  for   the  food  were  British.”  His hysterical  laughter  at  any   suggestion  that Churchill or Wellington might be  worthy  of   respect  changes to a childlike reverence when  his  thoughts  turn to such vicious charlatans as Che Guevara.  

          The  liberal  bigot   wishes to enjoy  the  material  wealth,  physical security and intellectual tolerance of the  advanced civilisation  in which they live,   whilst decrying  all  the  institutions and habits which have produced this happy state.  He  publicly laments such things as poverty,  but  he  reacts most strongly to suggestions that his personal wealth  should  be expended on those causes supposedly dear to his heart – it   is  to the public purse that the liberal bigot looks,  first,   second and last. He extols the virtues of “working class”  or   “ethnic”  customs and values,  but takes good care  to  avoid   contact with unreconstructed members of such groups by living  well away from or cocooning himself within a gentrified  part  of their areas.

          In  truth,  the liberal bigot has little knowledge   of   the  groups whom he purports to champion.  Loving humanity in  the  mass,  he  finds their individual reality at  odds  with  his           ideology and personal inclinations.  Even worse he cannot but   suspect that the downtrodden prole or black does not take him seriously,  that in some curious way he is patronised by  the  very  people  he imagines desperately need his help.  Now  if  there is one thing which enrages the liberal bigot above  all   others  it  is not being taken seriously.  While  uttering  a  great deal of cant about how much he is against snobbery, how  he is just a common man no different from anyone else in  the         street,  the  liberal bigot is mortally offended when  he  is  taken at his word.

          The  liberal bigot  decries privilege but excepts it  eagerly when the beneficiary is himself or  other liberal bigots. How  cleverly he creates jobs and status for  those  of a like mind.  He is always pushing for more ,  and  better  paid, Social Workers, teachers and Race Relations operatives,         whom he constantly refers to as “professionals”.  Indeed,  on  the  question  of formal status he can be  decidedly  touchy.  For one who supposedly embraces egalitarianism this is rather strange,  but  then  not  so odd  when  the  Liberal  Bigot’s   propensity for hypocrisy  is considered for there is  nothing  he likes so much as having his cake and eating it.

          The liberal bigot is the enemy of social opportunity for  all   but  his likeminded fellows.  The happy recipient  of  social  and  educational opportunities which permit him to enter  the   magic  circle of Liberal Bigotry,  his voice is always to  be  heard  berating  the value of such things for what he   calls “The underprivileged” . To this end he speaks of the worth of  “working  class”  and  “ethnic” cultures  which,  of  course,   cannot be preserved if “middle class” values are foisted upon          their  members.   And this is scarcely to be wondered at  for   the liberal bigot is essentially undemocratic.  A politically   sophisticated   and   educated  working  class   capable   of       effectively challenging liberal bigot ideas is the last thing    the liberal bigot wants.  Besides, without them who would  he   have to patronise so superbly?

          The  self-conscious masochism of the  liberal bigot knows  no  bounds.  Like  the  medieval Christian who cried  “I  am  the humblest  of  men”,   he  commits  the  sin  of  pride  in  a   peculiarly  distasteful manner as he seeks approbation  under   the  guise of self-denigration.  How diligently he vies  with   others to prove that his society is the guiltiest of colonial and cultural oppression;  how relentlessly he denigrates  his   own people’s cultural and intellectual achievements.

          What  will  be  the future of the  Liberal  Bigot?  Like  the   nautilus with its ever increasing spiral,  the liberal  bigot  continues  to  evolve regardless of  specific  advantage.  He  acknowledges no sense of belonging or cultural  indebtedness,   whilst exhibiting a truly unthinking arrogance in his  belief  that  no matter what he does or what cause he  supports,  his   own  person  will  be  inviolate,   both  intellectually  and  materially.  In fact,  the liberal bigot exhibits the classic  behaviour of the parasite.  He enjoys benefits gained at  the expense of  the host, in this case Anglo-Saxon  society.  But   parasites  can only be successful in the long run if they  do not  so  weaken  the host that it  is  eventually  unable  to  support them.  Consequently, the liberal bigot is unlikely to survive in his present form  for very long  because he  shows   no  capacity  for  controlling  his  voracious  appetite  for   incontinent abuse of his environment.

%d bloggers like this: