In the Shadow of Leftward Movement
This blog is on record as not caring much about The Gay Problem. Of all the identity groups in the West, gays are the least problematic. A decent number seem to be natural aristocrats and right-wingers, but even if all of them were virulent leftists, they make up a tiny percentage of the population. And, honestly, what’s the worst they’re gonna do? Have a few gay weddings, prance around in chaps in a few parades, and gentrify a few ghettos? Two things they won’t be doing any time soon are setting off bombs and lowering home values.
Nevertheless, there’s a lesson about the ever-leftward zeitgeist one can learn from the recent pizza and bakery scandals: it happens in the blink of an eye.
A few months ago, to be in good standing with the Left, one needed only to agree that gays should have the full right to marry and that no state should bar them from marriage.
Today, to be in good standing with the Left, one needs to agree that all private businesses must get involved with gay weddings if called upon to do so, upon pain of mob outrage and state-levied fines.
In the blink of an eye—a couple incidents in Nowheresville—the goalposts of respectable opinion have been shifted a little further to the left. The articles of leftist faith have been expanded, and ipso facto, the realm of opinion designated “right-wing” has been expanded, as well.
Today, you can agree that gays should have full right to marry one another, but if you do not also agree that private businesses must be forced to get involved with gay weddings regardless of the owners’ religious scruples, you now have a conservative opinion. The culture has moved leftward, and if you have not moved with it, you are stuck in the reactionary shadow of that movement.
The Gay Problem demonstrates just how swiftly a society can approach a Left Singularity. Even a few years ago, the suggestion that religious people should be forced to get involved with gay weddings against their beliefs was not being floated anywhere in the media and not many places online. But all of a sudden it is an opinion that you must share if you are not to be labeled conservative by the elite progressive class.
In another year, the culture will find it odd that private business owners used to get away with refusing to involve themselves with gay weddings. How terrible! Were we that backward, once? And, of course, the culture will not have reasoned itself to this conclusion. It is pure sentiment. To some extent, it is a manufactured sentiment, but the whole Comskyan notion of “manufactured consent” is far too leftist for my tastes. The reality is that human animals are always very happy to attach their sentiment to ideals and rituals. As soon as their body chemistry has developed an emotional tolerance to a certain ideal or ritual, they will move quickly to find a new one. Perhaps leftward movement is just the consequence of a people bent on chasing its emotional high.
habitableworlds.wordpress.com 
Pingback: In the Shadow of Leftward Movement | Neoreactive
Comskyan?
April 10, 2015 at 3:04 pm
Chomskyan, I guess.
April 12, 2015 at 6:36 pm
What the hell else would it be?
April 22, 2015 at 1:37 pm
Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2015/04/10) | The Reactivity Place
I’m on record as saying the gay thing is a really big deal, which anyone can read about on my blog, searching for “Fred Phelps”. Briefly thought tolerating homosexuality means tolerating pederasty, and all kinds of sexual vice. Gays go to great lengths to portray themselves as harmless but they are anything but.
April 11, 2015 at 8:35 pm
How do you define “pederasty”? There’s nothing unnatural about being attracted to post-pubescent teens even if they haven’t reached the age of consent, which is a new invention in the history of humanity.
Beyond that, I don’t see how you get from tolerating gay marriage to tolerating child rape.
April 22, 2015 at 1:39 pm
I hold the formal definition of pederasty. Being attracted to sexually mature, but not legally mature, individuals of the opposite sex is biologically normal but socially constrained. Attraction to any individuals of the same sex is biologically abnormal and *should* be socially constrained.
The greater point is where do you draw the line. Theoretically the line is drawn with legally mature individuals, but as a matter of practice homosexuals don’t recognize these, and don’t think the constraint should exist.
In polite society they pretend to follow this, but among themselves they don’t. Gay culture being as in-your-face as it is, you don’t even have to go looking to see this is the case.
The apparent reality is that not only homosexuality but pederasty are very widely tolerated in Anglophonic society and probably have been for centuries. This is what Fred Phelps seems to have discovered on his visit to Gage Park in Topeka.
If you tolerate gay marriage you are tolerating something grossly unnatural that mocks nature and society, and having accepted this imposition from gays, you are going to have to accept others.
April 22, 2015 at 5:03 pm
Pingback: Outside in - Involvements with reality » Blog Archive » Chaos Patch (#57)
but this was always the problem with gay marriage they were not asking simply to be allowed to do something they were asking for our blessing and recognition and to say that what they were doing was no different from what we were doing,which is asking us to redefine ourselves, and the question of child rearing astoundingly was a given. and so it was with gay rights generally no sooner were gay citizens recognized as a protected class then the law suits began to allow them to be scoutmasters soldiers adoptive parents priests and all sorts of things common sense had good arguments against.
so while i agree its an example of ratchet id disagree allowing the socket to be put on the bolt was a good idea.
Of course theirs a progression to the bolt torque pattern; without women’s immigrant or black rights their could not have been gay rights and so on.And of course it goes back to the notion that, all men are created equal; and farther to, do onto others.There has been a system worth considering,of winking at exceptions deemed worthy of a pass, of course this could be seemed to be where entry ism gets a toe in, Its also easily attacked as dishonest or used for attack as examples of what total capitulation would look like.
. I think all these examples prove Christianity no matter how integral to our culture thus far is also its Achilles heel.
So while I could live with gays and women being stripped of their rights of citizenship and all non Europeans being humanly repatriated im not convinced we could hold the situation.indefinitely,after all the ideal most reactionaries describe seems to me quite a lot like the united states just after the revolution. [or just before for the monarchists] and most of the problems we complain of were actually fairly expressly anticipated. what went wrong? was it our christianity, our [genetic?] need for high individual freedom or the “altruistic gene” ? Or was it an accident of history that a tighter contract could solve. Honestly i think a fundamentalist constitution would be an easier sell to americans, a Reboot to the 18th century rules with some tweaking. Im not sure it would play out any differently. Well obviously an all european citizenry would change things considerably.and perhaps knowing the outcome of certain paths might help. But Im not sure most of us are uncomfortable with this or that , I have a daughter as capable of any man Ive met at almost anything Id like to find a way to allow the outliers of the fairer sex to lead fuller lives if they wish , you dote on buggerers, some are fond of robots and east Asians, And I think think this Idea of making ourselves subjects of some all powerful king gives many of us pause.
Are we to remain in this state of pretending these three elephants in the living room dont exist so we can pretend reaction is larger than it may be or are we ever to begin to work out a practical new culture that has a chance in hell of taking hold.
Ive asked on more than a few blogs what for instance is the reactionary solution to the woman question, how would out patriarchy differ from say the muslim one. This is not a trolling question Im quite serious. I asked my second generation yemenese american deli man in NYC when he casually supported stoning if he was ok with his daughter being stoned, he said he was.So much for assimilation. Now I have reasoned with my leftist 19 year old daughter that while Hester Prynnes story is sad and perhaps even a bit unjust. BUT not only is it an example of the radical rules, it does not stand up to scrutiny we know now that liberalizing the morals of chastity will lead to millions of abortions millions of broken homes falling marriage and birth rates 50% divorce rates VD epidemics and women as unhappy as ever.so would it not be better that a few fallen women and even an occasional innocent be sacrificed than all that suffering.. Ive argued perhaps jews and east asians and some others could be allowed as guest workers with no political input, but thats going to sound to jews like 1930 maybe another compromise can be found for them . my point is practical solution must be worked out not dreams of king arthur and the round table. we would all be in favor of Downton Abbey if we got to live in it as lords but honestly the cathedral is exactly that a bunch of elites maintaining their privilege I think we dont really have a problem with the system so far as it goes the problem we have is its not us and our values that control that system, yes we see that system will not survive if those values continue but i doubt we really could find no use for a propaganda re education military industrial technologist complex in a reactionary state.
The left keeps power by sharing it, by scaring factions, by free stuff etc typical political strategies interchangeable with any state. their ideology is not really consistent and the rational and scientific basis is negligible.but parts of it cant be ignored. neither can reason. I had a fellow traveler upbraid me for defending reason im told its not reactionary it liberal- yeah we get the age of enlightenment I also get HBD and Capitalism.he seemed to think the plan was to push a new white christianity. Its not that i dont get race and religion are efficient binders but the cats out of the bag the elites are not going to convert so at best you have them paying lip service until a generation or two later some young ins see the opportunity for a revolution in the hypocrisy rinse and repeat.I came to reaction from the right not the left reason not feeling. we need permanent ideas founded on reality. if we need a religion it might have to be a new one- and im sad to say that, maybe a compromise can be found between christianity and reaction but as a life long catholic i warn you its will be a tortured reading of scripture. maybe it could be simple fixes gays are fine but no kids no gay culture no special protections the same with women maybe exile for non whites that attempt to subvert the culture but how to sell it? its not going to revert to reaction after the collapse its going to revert to thunderdome not Downton Abbey. .
April 12, 2015 at 1:44 pm
Thanks for the value-added commentary. And you’re right that gays’ asking for blessing and acceptance is something that needs to be pushed against. It’s the move from wanting equal rights (gay marriage) to special rights (everyone has to participate in and give blessing to my gay marriage) that defines the true leftist. But still, I think it’s a vocal minority of gays who feel this way.
April 22, 2015 at 1:42 pm
This idea makes me think that some folk surely are quietly drawing a line in the sand on some of these issues. If one day you’re happily labeled one of the team, only to have your liberal teammates turn on you the very next day… well, that must get old eventually. Maybe white flight to the republican party is a demonstration of that? How do we convert those left in the shadows?
April 13, 2015 at 2:33 am
I don’t think you do convert them. Most are happy to live out their day in the shadows, becoming, in turns, apolitical, quietist, or hedonistic.
April 22, 2015 at 1:43 pm
Let us not lose sight of the central point here; these people are nuts, they are getting nuttier all the time, and will slowly, inch by inch, drag us to Hell (both literally and figuratively) if we let them. We’ve been sliding down this slippery slope for a long time now, and it just keeps getting steeper and slipperier. I don’t know what the way back up the slope is, or if there even is one, but the first thing we have to do is dig in our heels and stop sliding, right now. The gibbering, hate-filled lunatics who “lead” our society are already preparing the next big slide downward…
April 15, 2015 at 5:47 pm
If a tiny percentage of dudes prancing around in chaps is enough to drag a society to Hell, then I’d say that society was doomed anyway.
April 22, 2015 at 1:44 pm
I think that while discussing homosexuality most people kind of miss the elephant in the room….The natural, strong and propably genetic disgust a huge percentage of normal men have towards homosexual men. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2292426/
This basicly means that seeing open displays of homosexual sexuality will have a similar effect on normal people like seing feces or maggots or other extremly disgusting things.
The homosexual movement dosnt just want to alow homosexuals to do their disgusting things (like eating feces and puting objects into their rectums) in the private of their homes, they want to make homosexuality “normal”, and make it just as much part of everyday life as heterosexuality…They want a society in which we would be exposed to homosexual couples in comercials, in videogames and in movies, without an option to evade this homosexual stimuli. Basicly a constant exposition to homosexuality would be like a constant exposition to feces, it would disgust normal people and lower their quality of life and comfort in it.
We are most likly born “homophobic” and forcing us to like homosexuality to make lives of 2-4% disgusting freaks a bit more comfortable is to sacrefice the wellbeing of the many for the wellbeing of a few which I think is a bad exchange…..
Basicly to understand my point imagine a group of people born with a sexual atraction to feces….they would smear themselves into them and go this way in public because its their “lifestyle” and we have to “respect” and “acsept” it…if we dont like the smell its our “fecephobia” talking and we make them uncomfortable and prone to suicide by showing them our disgust…..basicly I think thats the main problem with homosexuality.
June 13, 2015 at 3:24 pm