Thursday, 5 May 2016

Vile homophobia? - Not a bit of it!

The following is the unedited version of an exposé currently featured in the 20th revised edition of Malleus Maleficus'  [title withheld]. If you wish to report intrusiveness, homophobia or inaccuracies, please email  To make a formal complaint under IPSO rules please contact IPSO directly at .  
      There are many things to be said about the British Parliament, but a dearth of generosity is not among them. Nor is there any indication of comparable magnanimity on the part of the homosexual. On the contrary, “freedom of sexual orientation and gender identity”, are part of a defense mechanism of blame and allegation that allows him  to adopt the role of victim. Or as Lord Taylor of Warwick
might have said: “Is it ‘cos I is black?”
            It is a means of protection against the world. Whereas both black and gay liberation ought to be about “learning to accept yourself for who you really are and finding pride in it”, the result has been the creation of a wall, a separateness. For if you are no homophiliac, you are a heterosexist trying to prevent “a wild and hard-fought freedom” from turning into bourgeois norms - “homophobic” in market parlance. Acquiescence must be given  or  harassment will ensue: "Drink with me and wish me well and those that don’t just go to hell.”
            Vile homophobia?
            Not a bit of it. But our  pasts are permanent, and our minds subject to the often painful conflict between natural instincts and the conscious requirements of an artificial social contract. As Jeremy Norman has said, “It is hard for those of us who live in the liberal, secular West to recall that just a few years ago being a gay man was illegal and deeply abhorrent.”[1] Which to an
unsophisticated native confronted by the advances of sexual liberation it still is, of course, except that now it is “illegal” to express any such abhorrence – a curious inversion  of the highly desirable principle, but not the slightest advance on the actual issue of human rights. Mental revulsion - the hidden endpoint of this enduring experiment in human enlightenment - is caused by an imbalance between intellectualised signals sent to the brain and those dispositions the subconscious perceives as inalienable. Which is, in
the strictest sense, a physiological issue. In medical terms, “the part of the brain that controls revulsion, the area postrema, reacts when the signals suggest a conflict and prompts nausea and sickness.” Or in Nietzsche’s philosophy,  “all suppressed truths become poisonous”. As Oscar Wilde omitted to say, if there is one thing worse than being "loud and proud", it is to 'criminalise' the mindset of some of the world's best and most socially conscious populace. Indeed, it is always a moot point to which extend  the unspoken public revulsion of  ‘queers’ is the consequence of a natural opposition to, say, the Chemsex excesses associated with HIV; and how far the support of an 'equitable cause' is driven by political correctness.  Which is, of course, what most ordinary people would ask privately,  provided they can still find the courage to think their own  thoughts. Gaystapo[2], therefore, is not the way to get the job done, self-esteem and forbearance is.
            So “Why” - demands Andrew Sullivan (not, presumably, referring to himself) - “do members of minorities not have the self-worth to hear bigotry and let it slide of their backs?”  Why? Who knows? My guess is that extreme agitation is compulsory on a planet swept by hate, recrimination and the emergence of a parallel sense of heterophobia; by an unnerving feeling, in fact, that time has stood still. Or to update that famous demurral of Talleyrand: “Positive discrimination, the guiding principle of the Sexual Revolution, takes on the mask of ridiculous equality. It casts its level over everyone’s head, so as to destroy those innocent priorities which sexual distinctions establish.”[3]

[1] Jeremy Norman, No Make-Up: Straight Tales from a Queer Life. Kindle
[2] David Skinner: “I am not alone in seeing a parallel here between the rise of homosexual power and that of Nazism before WWII.”
[3] “Envy, the guiding principle of the French Revolution, takes on the mask of ridiculous equality. It casts its level over everyone's head, so as to destroy those innocent superiorities which social distinction establish." Robin Harris, Talleyrand. Betrayer and Saviour of France. John Murray. (2007) p 311


No comments: