DICTATORSHIP OF SODOM. Part II.
New "democratic freedoms" and the funeral of traditional morals in the West

The organized political gay movement appeared in other Western countries, too. But it was the USA that became the flagship of this process, having some very significant consequences.

Continued. See the first part here: http://www.win.ru/en/win/3536.phtml

"Being proud of themselves" and all the consequences of that

As for the main cause of the beginning of the new and unprecedented era of "political homosexuality", it was the support of the influential elite communities. When the campaign for homosexual persons’ rights began winding up, some media persons were surprised to find out that a percentage of homosexuals is rather high among political, intellectual and financial elites of this country (the highest percentage was among the literati and mass media chiefs, according to the book by Patrick J. Buchanan). Those facts formed the basis of the numerous researches on sexual minorities’ being more successive in penetrating the important spheres of social and governmental life (as compared with other minorities and social groups in the Western countries).

But the violence was provoked first, in full accordance with political technologies. Dick Leitch, the president of New York group of the "Mattachine society" which defended homosexuals’ rights, succeeded in convincing a group of homosexual people that they should be "proud of themselves", and some day they tried to confront the police. In 1952, the US Congress prohibited active homosexuals from entering the USA as refugees (abolished in 1990). Dwight Eisenhower, who became the US President in 1953, ordered to obey the Senate legislation, which did not recommend employing sexual minorities’ members at governmental agencies, stating, among other things, "mental instability" of gays and lesbians. Moreover, the Senate voted for special investigation to be held in order to reveal gays and lesbians already working at those agencies and to fire them. But the number of homosexuals’ victories at US courts gradually increased (we shouldn’t forget that the US judicial system is precedent-based).

The principles of the enlightened secular justice in the "market democracy" atmosphere encouraged the American judges to authorize sending gay publication by post — it was one of the important steps to unite gays in a community which gave birth to what the researchers call the "homosexual subculture" and contributed to the formation of political gay movement. In 1965, the New York court prohibited to detain men for kissing in public, and some other court rulings made police to ease their pressure against the winding-up gay movement. The State of Illinois abolished the criminal prosecution for homosexual cohabitation as early as in 1961. Probably, in was somehow influenced by the fact of American Law Institute (financed by the Rockefeller fund (the capitalist world sees it normal to finance scientific and social institutions serving national interests by private businesses, even foreign ones)) developing and sending Model Penal Code, containing numerous references to Dr. Kinsey’s works, to every judicial authority (it was only a recommendation, but a highly influential one, taking the reality of the States being relatively independent in their legislative affairs into account). We should mention, nevertheless, that the sexual intercourse between two men was considered as a criminal offense in the Model Penal Code. The Supreme Court verdict, declaring laws, that demanded criminal prosecution for homosexual relations, unconstitutional, was issued as late as in 2003. The verdict states that "individual freedom implies freedom of self-expressing including freedom of thoughts, religion and personal relations".

The dam was crushed in June 1969, in New York, which was a capital of both UN and political gay movement (the first gay pride parade had taken place there). There were clashes between the homosexuals and the police, the so-called Stonewall riots (after the name of the bar at which the riot began). The original cause of the issue was bars’ clients behavior (they confronted the policemen who had asked them to produce their IDs), and despite that, these people got off with small fines and short-term imprisonments. But the numerous publications about poor gays and lesbians suppressed by the police appeared in the democratic press more than once. Of course, the population of "one-storey America" didn’t sympathize much to those people, but the intellectuals and the students, being prepared for that by a long series of "scientific researches" that were mass-produced by the above-mentioned funds, as well as by some artworks (including "Lolita" by Nabokov) considered homosexuals’ struggle as a "just cause". The most uttered fact was that the majority of those rioters were, besides all that, colored — that is, enjoying the "least possible rights" among the US homosexuals at that time.

Gradually, the gay movement reached its goals. Homosexual persons were officially allowed to occupy the important positions at large non-governmental organizations and unions, their right to create their own communities was recognized, their own churches, shops and publishing companies were established (i. e. their own infrastructure was formed). They were allowed to participate in executive and legislative branches of power (at local level), lesbians were granted custody of their children after a divorce (but the condition still was that they shouldn’t maintain the same-sex cohabitation).

But the most important thing was that these compromises were reached in dealing with people who declared their sexual orientation openly and were proud of it. This was the essence of the revolution of the morals, which took place in the country, which wasn’t the most liberal one (as far as citizens’ views are concerned) in the Western world (in Scandinavian countries, especially in Sweden, the "recognition" of homosexuals’ rights had begun earlier and ran more smoothly than in the USA). The political gay movement, which was formed then, and the gay community as the legal corporate social factor appeared in other Western countries, too. But it was the USA that became the flagship of this process, having some very significant consequences.

No diagnosis — no treatment

In 1971, the President’s National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws recommended the repeal of all state sodomy laws. In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) decided (by 13-to-2 vote) to remove homosexuality’s definition from the list of disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.

At the first stage, APA decided that in future the homosexuality diagnosis should only be applied if the case is the so-called "ego-dystonic" homosexuality, that is, when the homosexual orientation led to "visible suffering" of the patient. If the patient, on his own, felt comfortable with this sexual orientation, it was considered inappropriate to diagnose him as being homosexual. The unbiased criteria of the specialists were replaced by a criterion of biased psychological style, besides, the basic principle of the psychoanalysis stating that a neurasthenic that feels uncomfortable in his state of mind is healthier than one that isn’t aware of his illness, was quite distorted by making the following statement: "If I don’t perceive myself as a neurasthenic, I’m not the one".

At the second stage the words "homosexualism" and "homosexuality" were deleted from the Manual, for, as they had stated it in the comments to the 10th edition, this diagnosis was considered to be "discriminating". That decision was made despite the fact that the Committee on Public Health of the New York Academy of Medicine produced a report on homosexuality in 1963, and stated, that it was a disease (mental illness) and a homosexual person is a person having a disorder in his/her emotional sphere. These decisions, made by the APA Committee on Terminology, were preceded by the unprecedented campaign of pressure, carried out by gay activists who enjoyed forbearance or even support of authorities and society.

We have to state that this decision by APA (to delete "homosexuality" from the Diagnosis Manual) greatly affected those who wanted to overcome their sexual orientation (e. g. dreaming of the real family and children). The homosexuality problem was removed from conferences’ and symposiums’ agendas, and the level of ignorance towards what the homosexual orientation really was increased greatly.

The APA example was followed in 1974 by the national psychiatric associations of Australia and New Zealand and in 1992 by World Health Organization itself.

Meanwhile, the American Psychiatric Association ceased to use the term "perversions" which was replaced by "disorders", and, according to some sources, pedophilia and sadism were removed from that list as early as in 1995. In 1970s the main center of gays’ political activities moved to San Francisco which was safer to them (Harvey Milk, a homosexual, won a seat in the City Board of Supervisors). In 1977, information on sexual minorities was included into sexual education program for San Francisco schools, and the city witnesses the first cinema festival of gays and lesbians in history. In 1978 Harvey Milk was assassinated together with San Francisco mayor (in 2008 Hollywood decide to eternize their memory by shooting a film with Sean Penn) and the gay movement got their Rainbow Flag. The first gay pride parades took place, and even the gay Olympic games were organized in San Francisco in 1982. It was preceded in 1979 by the "National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights" organized by the Gay Power Movement. By the end of the 1970s, sexual minorities’ rights have been recognized at the federal level. In 1976, for the first time in the history of presidential campaigns, US politicians stated the necessity of defending sexual minorities’ rights, and in 1977 the US Department of State allowed the homosexuals to be employed in each and every position, including those abroad.

As a result of these multi-faceted and well-organized activities, the sexual equality in rights became one of the recognized democratic freedoms. In 1984 the first resolution was adopted by the European Parliament, protecting gays’ and lesbians’ rights. In 1993, the International Lesbian and Gay Association was accredited at the UN, and the latter in 1995 included violations of sexual minorities’ rights in the list of the major human rights abuses.

In 1996, the European Parliament banned all the kinds of homosexuals’ discrimination in all the European Union countries (so the special forces of Polish and Hungarian police have to waste their time protecting not-so-numerous participants of gay pride parades and homosexuals’ meetings from the opponents of those activities who outnumber those homosexuals greatly, as for the Lithuanian and Latvian authorities, they have to send to the EU their apologies for their MPs who try to put a limit to gays’ public activities and to promoting homosexuality in kindergartens and educational establishments). At the beginning of the XXI century, openly gay men, proud of their orientation, have become Paris and Berlin mayors. Tony Blair, a possible candidate for the position of the EU president, feels sorry about his failure to convince the Pope Benedict XVI to cease his opposition to homosexuality. In near future, it is possible that a homosexual becomes Germany’s Vice Chancellor; meanwhile, English police experts try to convince the authorities to stop providing quotas for sexual minorities for employment in police forces, because professional skills are what should be considered there first.

If an average Russian citizen could have a look at all that and at other examples of social "liberalization" consequences, he would be shocked.

One more "democratic freedom"

Putting aside the question about the possible goals of the Western political and financial gurus’ sponsoring turning homosexuality into one of the main democratic freedoms that is now instilled upon all the world, let’s consider the controversial issues related to the consequences of such actions.

So, the mankind has acquainted to the phenomenon of sexual attractions and relationships between the representatives of one and the same sex since the antiquity, and still we don’t have any trustworthy examples of putting the equality sign between these attractions and relations and between the heterosexual ones (the exception is the legendary cities of Sodom and Gomorrah). As for the legitimization of homosexual marriage, it hasn’t been known to the mankind until the recent times.

What do we see now? The powerful informational, financial and administrative resources of the world hegemon — the Western community — deliberately try to spread a counterculture at our planet. The struggle for democratic freedoms turns out to be a destructive farce, and the dogma of equality of both sexes leads to the degeneration of them. It happens so that the US men are afraid to offer their seat to a woman or to make her a compliment — in order not to be accused of sexual discrimination or sexual harassment. Political correctness and tolerance in the sphere of sexual, racial and ethnic relations lead to increase in unpunished crime and discourtesy among the Western minorities.

Homosexual persons are now entitled to church marriages (a ceremony may be held by a gay priest, if they want so), to adopting children, to becoming presidents. If you object to that, you may find yourself behind bars. So, the social world becomes chaotic, and the society falls into pieces, and the majority of its members start to behave as social animals or plankton. The pressure of institutions such as UN or EU (especially the latter) prevents individual states, their authorities, courts and parliaments from carrying out the organized resistance to that standards and principles which are imposed on them because of geopolitical hopelessness (how could small European countries escape from the EU in the globalization age?!). The degeneration of the Western society is, besides all that, a degeneration of Western politicians.

Really, we do not mean banning women from participation in the political life or getting education or occupying these or those high-ranking positions. We do not mean that newcomers or their children, having different skin color, must be second class people. We mean that good intentions, uttered in the West, lead to quite different results because of senseless formalism or even because of "time bombs" installed with purpose. The sum of relationships between sexes, races and ethnic groups becomes negative, not positive. As for equality in rights between two sexes, it doesn’t imply that men must lose their masculinity and women must lose their femininity, and that is what we see in the West. The absence of racial and ethnic discrimination and intercultural tolerance imply some kind of interplay and development of uniqueness, and instead of that the Western world witnesses social stir-ups and marginalization of its sub-cultures. If we look at that closer, we may come to the conclusion that the movement for the equality in sexual rights (and not for homosexuals’ rights only, but for "free morals" in general, meaning amorality) is what gives to the "struggle for democratic freedoms" such a destructive nature.

Really, it seems that the issues of the basic moral norms in a society are the cornerstones of its constitution; they define its strong and weak points, its talents for survival and development and also predetermine ways and results of such a development. "Enlightenment", first of all, targeted traditional morals and world outlook of the Western society, and we all see the results of that now.

On such a background, the "Russian question" becomes more important. The Russian factor at the international stage now is determined by its self-sufficiency. It is the self-sufficiency of our country that makes it possible for many international forces, not consent with hegemony of the alien values and mercantile predatory interests to regard it as an alternative. To be more precise, it is not our self-sufficiency by itself, it is also our ideology behind it. Due to these factors, Russian self-sufficiency, together with our potentials, can provide the world with an alternative to "unipolar" scenarios of globalization.

By Marat Kunaev