Time Magazine is New World Order all the way. So they liked this passive conservative article. In this article the attitude is to roll over and die. In other words, the article gives very poor advice. [ ] are mine. -Ray
Discerning the meaning of the present moment requires sobriety, precisely because its radicalism requires of conservatives a realistic sense of how weak our position is in post-Christian America.
The alarm that the four dissenting justices sounded in their minority opinions is chilling. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia were particularly scathing in pointing out the philosophical and historical groundlessness of the majority’s opinion. Justice Scalia even called the decision “a threat to democracy,” and denounced it, shockingly, in the language of revolution.
It is now clear that for this Court, extremism in the pursuit of the Sexual Revolution’s goals is no vice. True, the majority opinion nodded and smiled in the direction of the First Amendment, in an attempt to calm the fears of those worried about religious liberty. But when a Supreme Court majority is willing to invent rights out of nothing, it is impossible to have faith that the First Amendment will offer any but the barest protection to religious dissenters from gay rights orthodoxy.
Indeed, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito explicitly warned religious traditionalists that this decision leaves them vulnerable. Alito warns that Obergefell “will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy,” and will be used to oppress the faithful “by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent.”
The warning to conservatives from the four dissenters could hardly be clearer or stronger. So where does that leave us?
For one, we have to accept that we really are living in a culturally post-Christian nation. The fundamental norms Christians have long been able to depend on no longer exist. To be frank, the court majority may impose on the rest of the nation a view widely shared by elites, but it is also a view shared by a majority of Americans. [Who were socially engineered by the elites!] There will be no widespread popular resistance to Obergefell. This is the new normal. [Passive, roll over and die. Why not expose the social engineering?]
For another, LGBT activists and their fellow travelers really will be coming after social conservatives. The Supreme Court has now, in constitutional doctrine, said that homosexuality is equivalent to race. The next goal of activists will be a long-term campaign to remove tax-exempt status from dissenting religious institutions. The more immediate goal will be the shunning and persecution of dissenters within civil society. After today, all religious conservatives are Brendan Eich, the former CEO of Mozilla who was chased out of that company for supporting California’s Proposition 8.
Third, the Court majority wrote that gays and lesbians do not want to change the institution of marriage, but rather want to benefit from it. This is hard to believe, given more recent writing from gay activists like Dan Savage expressing a desire to loosen the strictures of monogamy in all marriages.
Besides, if marriage can be redefined according to what we desire — that is, if there is no essential nature to marriage, or to gender — then there are no boundaries on marriage. Marriage inevitably loses its power.
In that sense, social and religious conservatives must recognize that the Obergefell decision did not come from nowhere. It is the logical result of the Sexual Revolution, which valorized erotic liberty. It has been widely and correctly observed that heterosexuals began to devalue marriage long before same-sex marriage became an issue. The individualism at the heart of contemporary American culture is at the core of Obergefell — and at the core of modern American life.
This is profoundly incompatible with orthodox Christianity. But this is the world we live in today.
One can certainly understand the joy that LGBT Americans and their supporters feel today. But orthodox Christians must understand that things are going to get much more difficult for us. We are going to have to learn how to live as exiles in our own country. We are going to have to learn how to live with at least a mild form of persecution. And we are going to have to change the way we practice our faith and teach it to our children, to build resilient communities.
It is time for what I call the Benedict Option. In his 1982 book After Virtue, the eminent philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre likened the current age to the fall of ancient Rome. He pointed to Benedict of Nursia, a pious young Christian who left the chaos of Rome to go to the woods to pray, as an example for us. We who want to live by the traditional virtues, MacIntyre said, have to pioneer new ways of doing so in community. We await, he said “a new — and doubtless very different — St. Benedict.”
Throughout the early Middle Ages, Benedict’s communities formed monasteries, and kept the light of faith burning through the surrounding cultural darkness. Eventually, the Benedictine monks helped refound civilization.
I believe that orthodox Christians today are called to be those new and very different St. Benedicts. How do we take the Benedict Option, and build resilient communities within our condition of internal exile, and under increasingly hostile conditions? I don’t know. But we had better figure this out together, and soon, while there is time.
Last fall, I spoke with the prior of the Benedictine monastery in Nursia, and told him about the Benedict Option. So many Christians, he told me, have no clue how far things have decayed in our aggressively secularizing world. The future for Christians will be within the Benedict Option, the monk said, or it won’t be at all.
Obergefell is a sign of the times, for those with eyes to see. This isn’t the view of wild-eyed prophets wearing animal skins and shouting in the desert. It is the view of four Supreme Court justices, in effect declaring from the bench the decline and fall of the traditional American social, political, and legal order.
We live in interesting times.
Playboy and the (Homo) Sexual Revolution
November 9, 2001
by Henry Makow Ph.D.
What kind of man is this?
He is fastidious about his appearance, his home and his possessions. He wants as much sex as possible and chooses sexual partners mostly on the basis of appearance. He is self-absorbed and doesn’t want emotional involvement or commitment. He thinks a woman would stifle him and children would be a burden.
Does this sound like gay behavior?
It is also the masculine ideal purveyed by Playboy magazine to men since the 1950’s. At the End of Time, when they open the envelope labeled “What is the essence of manhood?” I suspect it will say: “Looking after women and children. Men act as God’s agent by creating and supporting new life. The family is the cellular unit of human life.” But in 1972, 3 out of 4 male college students got their ideas about masculinity from Playboy, at an incalculable price to themselves, women, children, and society.
The similarity between the Playboy and homosexual ideal is no coincidence. “The Kinsey Report” (1948) shaped current mainstream attitudes to sex. It championed unfettered sexual expression and became the manifesto of the counterculture and sexual revolution. It inspired Hugh Hefner to start Playboy in 1953. Essentially it said that aberrant sexual behavior was so common as to be normal. Thanks to psychologist Dr. Judith Reisman, we now know that Alfred Kinsey and the “Kinsley Report” were frauds. Kinsey, a zoologist at the University of Indiana, pretended to be a Conservative family man. In fact, he was a child molester and homosexual pervert who seduced his male students and forced his wife and associates to perform in homemade pornographic films.
Kinsey’s agenda, in Reisman’s words, was “to supplant what he saw as a narrow procreational Judeo Christian era with a promiscuous “anything goes” bi/gay pedophile paradise.” (Crafting Gay Children: An Inquiry, p.4) More than 25% of his sample were prostitutes and prison inmates including many sex offenders. Kinsey, who died prematurely of disease associated with excessive masturbation, said 10 per cent of American men were gay when, in fact, only two per cent were. Kinsey and his team of pedophiles abused 2,000 infants and children to prove that they have legitimate sexual needs. Reisman concludes: “America’s growing libidinous pathologies…taught in schools…and reflected in our fine and popular arts, the press, law and public policylargely mirror the documented sexual psychopathologies of the Kinsey team itself.” (Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences)
Hugh Hefner said the Kinsey Report “produced a tremendous sexual awakening, largely because of media attention…I really view Kinsey as the beginning. Certainly the book was very important to me.” With messianic fervor, Playboy took its message of sexual freedom to the American male who, in the 1950’s and 1960’s, still consecrated sex for marriage. But the freedom was illusory. Playboy’s aim, the aim of all pornographers, was to hook men on the glossy fantasy. To do this, they had to prevent them from finding true satisfaction in marriage. In Reisman’s words, “Playboy was the first national magazine to exploit college men’s fears of women and family commitment. Playboy offered itself as a reliable, comforting substitute for monogamous heterosexual love.” (Soft Porn Plays Hardball, p 47)
Thus “sworn enemies,” Playboy and feminists, found common ground in hatred of healthy heterosexuality expressed in the nuclear family. As a result of the (homo)sexual revolution, society now suffers from epidemics of family breakdown, pornography, impotence, child sexual abuse, sadosexual violence, teen pregnancy, a cocktail of STD’s and, of course, AIDS. The birthrate has plummeted by 60% since 1960 and is now below replacement level. But we must not stand in the way of social progress.
Homosexuality is a developmental disorder caused when a male child fails to bond with his father. Psychologist Richard Cohen, in “Coming Out Straight: Understanding and Healing Homosexuality” (2000) argues persuasively that, by having sex with men, the adult gay is trying to compensate for father-love denied in adolescence. Cohen was a homosexual himself and is now married with three children. He attributes lesbianism to a woman’s reaction to being rebuffed or abused by her father. He has cured hundreds of homosexuals, but is under constant attack for undermining the gay political agenda, (i.e. redefining societal norms.)
Psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover has pointed to another cause of homosexuality. A 1990 survey of 1000 gays shows that an older or more powerful partner physically assaulted 37% of them before the age of 19. (Homosexuality and American Public Life, 1999, p.24). In addition, according to Anne Moir in “Why Men Don’t Iron,” some men may be “born gay” due to fetal hormone imbalances. They seem to be a minority in a minority.
For many decades, gays were told that they were “sick” and cruelly persecuted. Their solution: convince the world that, in fact, it is heterosexuals who are sick. In 1973, they bullied the American Psychological Association into proclaiming homosexuality normal. Together with feminists (who believe heterosexuality is inherently oppressive) gays began to dismantle all heterosexual institutions: masculinity, femininity, marriage, the family, the boy scouts, sports, the military, the education system and our Judeo Christian heritage.
Using their position in the media, gays and their liberal supporters now largely dictate our cultural sensibility. They are responsible for the childish obsession with pornographic sex that pervades television, music videos and the Internet. This state of arrested human development is characteristic of homosexuals who have difficulty forming fulfilling long-term relationships. With straight women acting like men and vice-versa, we have become like them.
Gay liberation manuals talk about “normalizing” their sexuality and “de-sensitizing” straights by flaunting it. I was livid when I took my 10-year-old son to see Adam Sandler’s Billy Madison and heard one teenage male youth in the film casually ask another: “Would you rather bone Pamela Anderson or a young Jack Nicholson?” Last week, on TV’s “Will and Grace,” Jack who is gay dons an apron that says “Kiss the cook” pretending he thought the second “o” was a “c”. Just as Communists once conned do-gooders to think radicalism was chic, gays define trendy for gullible liberals today.
Gay and feminist activists think traditional morality was invented to perpetuate an unjust status quo. In fact, morality is the accumulated wisdom of mankind regarding what is healthy and ultimately fulfilling. Perversion is deviation from what is healthy. Heterosexual morality places sex in the context of love and/or marriage because it “humanizes” the sexual appetite. It ensures that the most profound and intimate physical act between two people expresses a commensurate emotional-spiritual bond. This is the only way sex can be truly satisfying for both men and women. It is also healthy for society because it provides for the natural and necessary outcome of love, children.
With Hugh Hefner’s help, Alfred Kinsey detached sex from love and procreation. He reduced it to another physical function like urinating. Homosexuals seem to champion anonymous bathroom sex; some fornicate through a hole in a cubicle wall. Most have 10s-100s of partners each year. In less extreme form, this is the model heterosexuals have adopted. Recently a social columnist at the National Post enviously described straight couples she knows who have just broken up: “they’re out partying, having the timeand the sex, it seemsof their lives.”
In conclusion, the “sexual revolution” was really a triumph of perverse homosexual norms and values. The gay-feminist agenda is to redefine healthy as deviant and vice-versa and they have succeeded. In forty short years, almost all sexual constraints have dissolved and heterosexual society is reeling. The cultural and social breakdown will only get worse. We need a counterrevolution.