Get PJ Media on your Apple

Works and Days

Confessions of a Counter-Revolutionary

April 9th, 2013 - 12:49 pm

Gay Marriage

Sometime about a year ago, the long-held position of Barack Obama and the Clintons on gay marriage — No! — became, in Emmanuel Goldstein fashion, abhorrent. Indeed, they’ve become harsh critics of those who still believe as they recently did.

Most Americans are fine with civil unions and, in live-and-let-live fashion, don’t worry all that much about gay marriage. Nonetheless, why the sudden dramatic change, if not for brilliant messaging and well-funded liberal gay donors whose pledges were made contingent on fluidity on the issue?

Key to the transformation in popular culture was the radical change in the perception of male homosexuality. In the 1980s and 1990s — read the work of the late gay investigative journalist Randy Shilts, or the old videos of San Francisco parades or arguments over bath houses — there was the general impression that male homosexuality was both more promiscuous than either heterosexual or lesbian practice, and that passive sexual intercourse was a catalyst for the spread of the AIDS virus and hepatitis (suddenly a venereal disease in a way it had not been in the past) in a manner that “normative” heterosexual intercourse was not.

Mention of male homosexuality in the news was usually linked with sexual practice, and the result was not favorable to the majority of the public. The age-old word “sodomy” was not then the taboo term that it is now. That perception — reality, whatever one calls it — has now vanished. “Gay” is a non-sexual sobriquet that involves vaguely defined expressions of affection. To suggest that anal intercourse is statistically more likely to be unhygienic or, if practiced with frequency, to run the risk of either hepatitis or AIDS is now proof of homophobia. Indeed, so is the use of “homosexual” for “gay.”

Most of us do not think too much about it, other than to ensure that we treat people — in my case whether in evaluating students, grant applicants, or scholars — equally, with no interest at all in their sexual lives.

That said, the transformation in gay-advocacy strategy has been nothing short of remarkable, its signature achievement being that there is absolutely nothing much different between gay male and straight male sexual congress — and that those who believe there is are themselves bigots.

If so, we should soon expect the liberal popular culture — from the movies of Quentin Tarantino to the recent Spartacus series — to stop presenting anal penetration as an especially unwelcome sort of act, or a particular nasty sort of sexual coercion.

In the logic of gay marriage, liberal culture — art, cinema, movies, journalism, politics — will soon represent gay male sexual practice as an act as natural as any other, without value judgments of any sort attached to it. Also, I would expect in the years ahead that the law, as it does now, will not add enhanced charges like “anal penetration” or “sodomy” to sexual criminal complaints. I am confused in this progressive era why I still read that a particular sex offender suspect is to be considered especially odious, by adding details to his charges like “sodomy” or “anal penetration.” Why qualify, much less legally enhance, the particular details of rape?

Incidentally, in matters of sexual consistency, there should be no longer suspicions of adult males being Brownie or Girl Scout Masters, given that the gay rights movement has made the Boy Scouts themselves suspect for unfairly discouraging gay Scout Masters. Is a forty-year old heterosexual male any more likely to look upon young girls in untoward fashion than a forty-year old gay male would young boys? Gay marriage is not the end of a long struggle, but the very beginning of a brave new world whose contours we can only imagine.

Illegal Immigration

In good 1984-style, the Associated Press just outlawed “illegal immigrant.” Apparently “illegal alien” was so odious that its banishment was automatic and not worthy of citation. Yet what does “undocumented” mean, given one usually never applied for documents to be un-anything?

As Orwell saw, imprecision, or rather deliberate distortion, in language is always the first characteristic of the totalitarian.

Here are the public’s problems with illegal immigration, from 1-5:

1. The law: Once one group feels that it is exempt from federal law, others might as well, too. If I choose to break a federal statute of my own choosing with impunity, why would I fear doing the same with others? Who needs to file a 1040 or worry about car registration, a building permit, a fishing license, or rabies pet vaccination?

We forget that the illegal immigrant serially violates the law in obtaining all sorts of fraudulent documents (how can one with a false Social Security number be “undocumented”?), any one violation of which would harm the job or education prospects of a U.S. citizen.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
The fundamental flaw in this exposition is it's reliance on fact, reason and logic and, therefore, it is anathema to the left.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
They've commandeered the language. Up is down, down is up. Giving a history lesson that doesn't bash Western Civilization as a whole is now practically a hate crime. Facts are now subjective and our ruling elites expect us to ignore outcomes and instead celebrate their "good intentions." Never mind your lying eyes, everything is fine. And if you don't think it's fine well then maybe they'll unleash the media hounds to publicly shame you into behaving.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The idea that Scalia saying "homosexual" is like a racist says "negro" is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a few years. "Homosexual" is about the most sterile, descriptive term I can think of. "Gay" is a political and personal label.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (66)
All Comments   (66)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Very well written and I share his views completely!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
By "classically liberal position on immigration" I think VDH means "liberal" in the 18th century British sense, not the current American political sense.

The tightening of US immigration voted in in the early 1920s was, according to Schales' "Coolidge" the idea of labor unions and Democrats like the KKK. It was very racist in intent and execution.

Of course, one wonders why contemporary labor unions don't choose to serve their members and demand a halt to immigration.

And don't be in such a hurry to import more engineers either! You will just lower the incomes of American engineers in the process as our experience with the H1B system shows. That program is just a white collar bracero system.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The new senate bill allows doctors to call anyone mentally ill without that person knowing it. Thus the ACLU and big pharma are happy. And now the government has a way of attacking the Second Amendment. Since physicians will be Federal employees this is a win-win situation for everyone concerned except that of the private individual.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It's mid-April in Southern California at 11:00 in the morning and I'm freezing my tuchis off. Global warming my tuchis.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Counter-revolutionaries, UNITE !

Oh, wait.

That won't work.

Counter-revolutionaries today are the independent thinkers and are not those who naturally collectivize like sheep.

Thus, our Achilles heel, thinking for ourselves ensures our repression.

Drat !
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Ugh, I messed up punctuation:

"Thus, our Achilles heel, thinking for ourselves, ensures our repression."

That's better.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
You articulated more in 3 sentences than many pundits do in 3 pages. The thing is, how do we heal our Archilles heel? How DO we unite?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"You sense that you – not just your opposition to 'fundamental transformation' — must be destroyed."

Yes. Over the years my Progressive friends have become less cordial, less tolerant of debate, and are now openly hostile, impatient for their socialist dreams to become real. During the Bush years, they began to shun me. Now, in the Obama years, they're angry over any opposition, and I don't doubt they'd support jailing me for political differences if they could.

But they're an island of academia in a mostly conservative, Red State community. And I wonder if therein lies a path of action. What if we, the counterrevolutionaries, began concentrating in Red States? Abandon California, Michigan, Massachusetts, New York to the morass their Blue State policies have created. I know it would break some hearts -- VDH probably couldn't pull up stakes from his beloved CA -- but young counterrevolutionaries have nothing to lose but a life wasted in declining states. Virtually every Red State is growing economically. An influx of counterrevolutionaries will tilt the electorate there, too.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Salt Lick: "Over the years my Progressive friends have become less cordial, less tolerant of debate, and are now openly hostile, impatient for their socialist dreams to become real."

Very true. The past several years, I have let my friendships with progressives fall by the wayside. They just don't know when to shut up, and every conversation ends up being a one-sided conversation. Lord knows I like to learn, but I hate being "taught," especially by an ass.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Yep. I STARTED my campus ACLU back in the 70's to protect vigorous debate. But there's no such thing as "debate" with Progressives anymore. People like us are either going to take affirmative action to protect ourselves from their will to power, or we're going to find ourselves hunted like rabbits.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
If they follow the jobs, they will. The "safety net" cannot survive without the creation of new wealth and continued growth. States with low business taxes, no income tax on the state level, and right to work laws, will attract entrepreneurs and also young workers looking for a new start. The nation is splitting ( we have always been a divided country except for WW II ) and the possibility of 2 "confederations" may be in the future, possibly in this century.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I'm interviewing for a new job now. When asked where I WON'T move to, I say Illinois and New York. When I'm asked "why?" (they usually suggest the weather since I'm in California), I say its their governments.

California is bad enough but I'd prefer to stay and fight, if I can earn a living here.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Whitehall -- I've a sister in Austin, TX who says the competition for jobs from Californians moving there is intense.

VDH makes California sound hopeless. The situation he describes reminds me of what I encountered with white Kenyans (descendants of British colonials) when I lived in Kenya. They were surrounded by people who hated them, powerless except where they could bribe a government official, and deeply depressed as they watched a fabulously beautiful country sink into bread and circuses, corruption, and sometime outright political murder. Why "stay and fight?" Family obligations? Memories? Roots? Sentiment?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Except that most of the red states also have big cities, which are very blue. It is almost as much an urban-suburb-rural thing as it is a state thing.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Before I state my issue, lets be clear that with the communists on the left, EVERYTHING is political and therefore must be governed, laws must be made, and adherence to the law is a two tiered operation. Think of this as you recollect that the first order of business when the left passed obamacare was to exempt themselves from it.

Of course these dots of blue in the big cities are the hell holes they are because of leftist policies. They are going broke and are crumbling under the weight of their massive beaucracies. The obama solution?

Take a hard look at Agenda 21. The people of common sense who left these blue hell holes for the burbs took their leave and their tax dollars with them. This will not stand with the obama crowd. In order to remain viable obama is pushing hard for "regional taxation redistribution."

In short, the blue dots have patronaged their futures away with a plethora of bad policy to the point of being insolvent. To the left, it is unfair that the burbs have it so good, and they have so little. Agenda 21 is the scheme to normalize the dysfunction on a wider scale.

Just another part of the "fundamental transformation."
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Some truth n that, Dwight, but the tendency toward blue seems muted the more local the government. Thirty governorships is not a bad place to start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_United_States_governors
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
As for the issue of "shooters" and how we much "outlaw assault rifles, magazines, etc" it appears that most if not all of these "shooters" were on legally prescribed SSRI's (anti-depressants) which do have both "side effects" (some become violent when on these drugs) and "withdrawal symptoms" (violence is one). Note that before we started drugging children and young adults, these sort of "shootings" didn't happen even though semi-auto weapons have been available since the end of the 19th Century. The popular M-1 carbine (with its 15 shot magazine) was available via "mail order" back when Ike was still in the White House!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Yes, exactly Muskegon, here is a video treating that theme.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgCpa1RlSdQ&feature=youtu.be
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Exempt half the U.S. households from federal income tax."

Is this actually now true and are progressives actually pushing for it? If I have figured things correctly, a single person making $20,000 per year who has no deductions would pay $1,106 in federal tax. If there are progressives trying to reduce this, let me know, because all I am hearing is how they want to raise taxes on the rich (which is a waste of energy in my opinion).
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Households, JFP, Parent(s) with children. I do not have the IRS chart
handy, but a family of four with zero income receives $40K in Govt.
subsidies/exemptions, which decreases dollar-for dollar until income
reaches $40K, above which taxes are levied.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Global warming is a cult belief of the elite: the latter conveniently opposed fracking and horizontal drilling, while subsidizing costly wind and solar"

Yes, in order to be a member of the leftist cult you have to believe in the building large reclamation facilities and plunging sharp objects into the spines of newborns.

It appears that to be a leftist means being careful not to throw out the bathwater with the baby.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 4 Next View All