…by Jonas E. Alexis
The gay movement has certainly created a sort of brouhaha over the past few days and weeks in America, Europe, and even Asia (specifically in South Korea and Japan). Howard Zinn would probably have called this brouhaha a “quiet revolution.”
“At East 36th Street, the actor Ian McKellen, a grand marshal, waved his rainbow flag at spectators. An announcer asked the crowd for a brief period of silence in honor of those who could not be there: those who died of H.I.V./AIDS, those who committed suicide, those who fell victim to hate crimes.
“Moments later, the gravity gave way again to festivity. The actor Tituss Burgess broke into the national anthem, and scantily clad men wove their way through the marchers.”
Just a few weeks prior to the legalization of gay marriage in America, the Irish Central titled one of their articles “The ‘Gay Gaels’ who have enriched Ireland’s history and culture for the world,” in which leading lights such as Oscar Wilde were mentioned. However, the article never told us what happened to Wilde at the end of his life.
Justice Anthony Kennedy was the man who opened the Pandora’s Box in the United States. He wrote that
“decisions about marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make… It supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals… Rising from the most basic human needs, marriage is essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations.”
Emma Green of the Atlantic praises Kennedy, for he provides “the most striking argument of all, for it is an argument about the nature, significance, and dignity of marriage itself.” “Like his colleagues in the majority,” Green continues, Kennedy “delves into the history of marriage, even giving a nod to one of the favorite arguments of gay-marriage opponents: that legalizing gay marriage is essentially a slippery slope.”
Kennedy insinuated that the traditional definition of marriage is based on “the nature of injustice,” and then slammed the door on the majority of Americans who uphold that traditional definition by rhetorically asking, “Just who do we think we are?”
The queer thing, then, has begun. Fox itself “is planning a movie about the gay marriage Supreme Court ruling.” “Marriage equality has come to the United States,” the Entertainment Weekly tells us, “and now it’s coming to the big screen.”
America has obviously opened the door for a new revolutionary movement, which has started to ignite controversies in far-distant lands such as South Korea, which is where this writer currently resides. Just a few days ago,
“a prominent South Korean gay rights campaigner and movie director is suing officials for refusing to recognize his 2013 same-sex marriage. Kim Jho Gwang-Soo… and his partner Kim Seung-Hwan took their fight for legitimacy to a district court in western Seoul on Monday.
“The couple held an outdoor wedding ceremony in Seoul in September 2013 and submitted their marriage registration form to their local authority — only for it to be rejected. While homosexuality is not illegal in South Korea, same-sex marriage is not recognized.”
The fundamental questions which we will attempt to answer are simply these: Is the homosexual issue as simple as the gay movement would like us to believe? What are the metaphysical substratum that are at stake here? Are there detrimental consequences? Moreover, are there unlivable contradictions which are central to this whole debate?
We shall see. Before we move on, keep your thinking cap on. You are going to discover that some ideas sound plausible on the surface, which is what enable them to be used by people of various stripes, but we are going to give them a wee be of thought and discover that they are morally and intellectually worthless.
Emotion, by the way, is not part of our thinking cap. While emotion can be a good virtue, if used properly, when it comes to truth, facts, and ultimate reality, emotion should take a back seat. Therefore, the reader is asked to drop emotional feeling and be ready to look at the facts through the lens of logic, deduction, and most importantly through what Emmanuel Kant called practical reason.
A few months ago, some of my students came up to me privately and sincerely asked, “Why are you against gay marriage? Two people love each other, and you oppose this? Isn’t that hate and bigotry? Isn’t that what Christianity and religion have been proposing for years?”
“This is not as easy as it appears on the surface,” I said. “So, let me see if I understand the fundamental principles you are proposing here, and correct me if I’m wrong. Basically you are saying that love is a beautiful thing, and it would be morally wrong to oppose it at all time and space, most specifically when it comes to intimate or sexual relationship. Do I understand you all correctly here?”
“Yes,” they agreed. “That is precisely our point. When two people are burning for love, an outsider cannot say that it is wrong. ” They probably did not know that they were indirectly echoing the dogmas which the gay movement itself and even some so-called ministers have propounded for years.
Dean Barnes of Metropolitan Community Church of New York has postulated, “When people find love with each other, they should be equally treated.” When Ireland legalized gay marriage, the New York Times editorial board called it “love, common sense and justice.” The board added:
“[L]ove didn’t just prevail across Irish cities and villages. It triumphed. By becoming the first nation to approve same-sex marriage by popular vote, Ireland gave a powerful boost to the quest for gay equality, a movement that has achieved a string of victories around the world over the past decade but remains a distant goal in many countries where intolerant attitudes remain entrenched.”
When gay marriage was finally legalized, Law Street Media said: “Love is loud and now it’s legal.”
So, love, not the moral law, is to rule supreme. I told those students: “Point well taken. Now, you’re going to have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to explain the following phenomena to me.” I told him about David Epstein, a 46 year-old professor of political science at the University of Columbia who “fell in love” with his 24 year-old daughter.
That story, by the way, turned out to be a death blow for the gay movement precisely because, as the Columbia Daily Spectator acknowledged, “the relationship appears to have been consensual.” In other words, both parties love each other.
Yet Epstein, who also taught at Harvard and Stanford, was quickly condemned for his act by the media and indeed by his own university. He was charged with third-degree incest. William Saletan of Slate, of all places, was asking the same fundamental question: “If gay sex is OK, how can incest be wrong?” Saletan even gave an example of a man by the name of Patrick Stuebing who had consensual sex with his sister (Susan): “Of the four children the couple produced, three had physical or mental disabilities.”
“What about the Scottish woman who was sentenced to probation—and remains under threat of further prosecution—for sex with her half-brother? And last month, a 27-year-old Florida woman was sentenced to five years of probation for sex with her father.”
Saletan got the traditional view right when he said:
“The conservative view is that all sexual deviance—homosexuality, polyamory, adultery, bestiality, incest—violates the natural order. Families depend on moral structure: Mom, Dad, kids. When you confound that structure—when Dad sleeps with a man, Dad sleeps with another woman, or Mom sleeps with Grandpa—the family falls apart. Kids need clear roles and relationships. Without this, they get disoriented. Mess with the family, and you mess up the kids.
“That’s the basis on which the Ohio Supreme Court upheld Lowe’s conviction: “A sexual relationship between a parent and child or a stepparent and stepchild is especially destructive to the family unit.” This destructive effect, the court reasoned, occurs even if the sex is adult and consensual, since “parents do not cease being parents … when their minor child reaches the age of majority.” The German court offered a similar argument against sibling incest. ”
Yet instead of thinking this through to its logical conclusion, Saletan ended up defeating his insights by saying that “Morally, the family-structure argument captures our central intuition about incest: It confuses relationships.”
Saletan’s reasoning, as we shall see, does not follow. He said:
“Constitutionally, this argument provides a rational basis for laws against incest. But it doesn’t provide a rational basis for laws against homosexuality. In fact, it supports the case for same-sex marriage.
“When a young man falls in love with another man, no family is destroyed. Homosexuality is largely immutable, as the chronic failure of “ex-gay” ministries attests. So if you forbid sex between these two men, neither of them is likely to form a happy, faithful heterosexual family. The best way to help them form a stable family is to encourage them to marry each other.”
Saletan shot himself in the toes when he said,
“If the law bans gay sex, a lesbian can’t have a sex life. But if you’re hot for your sister, and the law says you can’t sleep with her, you have billions of other options. Get out of your house, for God’s sake. You’ll find somebody to love without incinerating your family.”
Why is he avoiding the fundamental principle? If love is to rule supreme, then why does Epstein need to get out of his house and find love elsewhere? If he already found love inside his house, what is the point of looking elsewhere?
Finally, Saletan proved once again that Augustine was right: when a person denies or attacks the moral order, soon or later the same moral order is going to slay that person. Listen to Saletan here:
“I wouldn’t prosecute David Epstein. It isn’t necessary. The incest taboo is strong enough to withstand the occasional reckless fool, and I don’t want cops poking around in people’s sex lives. But incest is wrong. There’s a rational basis to forbid it. And we shouldn’t be afraid to say so.”
I turned to those students and ask them to deconstruct those internal contradictions for me, and they were completely stumped and didn’t know what to say. I proceeded to ask, “Is Epstein wrong?” They struggled with it but reluctantly said, “Yes.” I moved on to say, “Doesn’t that overthrow the fundamental principle which you guys were proposing earlier?” Once again there was a silent for about a minute, because they have never understood or examined those metaphysical questions in those terms before.
A few months later, they came back and asked: “Isn’t homosexuality genetic?” “No one has ever been able to prove that homosexuality is genetic,” I responded. In fact, the American Psychiatric Association declared that “to date, there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality.”
This has been the conclusions of research scientists such as Neil Whitehead. Douglas A. Abbott of the University of Nebraska noted, “I believe that the genetic evidence for homosexuality is just not there. It’s the values and politics of homosexuals and their supporters that is driving the gay gene agenda, not good science.” Rhristl Ruth Vonholdt, a pediatrician and the Director of the German Institute for Youth and Society, wrote:
“It is true that scientists who are close to the homosexual movement have been trying hard to identify a special gene, specific brain structures and a modified hormone balance as possible causes of homosexuality, but none of these attempts have so far been successful.”
In 2008, the American College of Pediatricians blew everything out of proportion when it stated:
“During the last 40 years the majority of SSA [same-sex attraction] studies have been conducted, reviewed and/or published by homosexuality affirming researchers, many of whom are also openly homosexual. Virtually all of the studies were touted by the media as proving that SSA is inborn.
“In reality, however, every one of them, from gene analysis, to brain structure, fingerprint styles, handedness, finger lengths, eye blinking, ear characteristics, verbal skills and prenatal hormones, have failed to be replicated, were criticized for research limitations, and/or were outright debunked.”
Robert Alan Brookey of Northern Illinois University, a proponent of gay rights, declared, “[Gay scientist Dean] Hamer has gone on record as saying that lesbianism is not genetic but socially and culturally produced.”
But let us imagine that some scientists, as in many cases, cook up the evidence and declare that homosexuality is genetic. Why would they have to stop at homosexuality? If homosexuality is genetic, then could there be a genetic basis for monsters like Stalin and Mao? This is the fundamental question which many researchers have already raised. So, in order to be consistent, some have concluded that there was indeed a gene which caused people like Stalin to act the way they acted. In other words, they were not really responsible for their diabolical acts—their genes were. As Michael L. Brown humorously puts it,
“Perhaps a violent man who beats up a gay man is only being himself. Perhaps he is only doing what he is genetically predisposed to do. Perhaps he should no more be faulted for his behavior than a gay person should be faulted for engaging in same-sex relationships…
“On September 2, 2008, a provocative headline flashed across the internet, proclaiming, ‘Scientists identify ‘unfaithful’ gene in men.’ There you have it! ‘Honey, it’s not my fault I committed adultery. It’s not my fault I broke our marriage vows. I have an unfaithful gen. That explains it all.”
As we have seen in the past, this is where the Darwinian cosmology comes to a complete halt because it does not provide an adequate explanation. In fact, the Darwinian model would strongly support the view that rape has a biological basis!
Things get even murkier in 2004 when a woman asked “Sex Doctor,” Dr. Catherine Hood, to address the following issue:
“I am having an affair with one of my husband’s friends—and I don’t feel guilty. Since I had children my life has been one big chore, cleaning up for them and cooking for my husband. It has been wonderful for a man to notice me for the woman I am—my husband never does. I’m told being unfaithful is to do with the genes.”
In response, Hood reinserted “You may have the unfaithful gene but you can choose not to act on it!” The word “choose” itself does violence to the Neo-Darwinian paradigm precisely because we have been told over and over by Neo-Darwinists that man is just matter and chemistry and nothing more.
As we are beginning to see, the homosexual issue is not as easy as we have been led to believe. In fact, many gays are not as open-minded as they think they are. A few days ago, a friend of mine commented on an article which she posted on Facebook and which probably goes to the heart of what we are talking about here:
“The owners of a Christian bakery in Oregon have officially been ordered to pay $135,000 in damages to two lesbians who claimed that they suffered emotionally after they were told that the bakery could not make a cake for their ceremony because of their convictions not to participate in others’ sins.
“Aaron and Melissa Klein operate Sweet Cakes by Melissa in Gresham, which is now operated from the couple’s home after the Kleins’ shut their doors due to harassment. In January 2013, Aaron was approached by a mother and her daughter as the two were interested in a cake for the daughter’s upcoming wedding—to her lesbian partner.”
The Huffington Post reports that the family will have to pay up to $150,000. On what grounds? Well, they “violated the state’s anti-discrimination laws…” Now here is the vital contradiction. The couple received many death threats, but the state did not consider those threats to be discrimination!
“From claims that Aaron should be shot to one apparent threat that he be raped, the hate and angst being thrown the Klein family’s way is certainly serious in nature. Some have even wished for the couple’s five children to be stricken with illness.”
One email reads: “You stupid bible thumping, hypocritical bitch. I hope your kids get really, really, sick and you go out of business.”
Melissa admitted that she had gay friends and “I’ve had gay people in my life. I did what I did because I would not want to support somebody in something that would be a bad decision.” But that was too late. She had already committed a sin for which there is no redemption.
The friend who inspired me to write much of this article commented that the world is filled with “PEOPLE with NO HOMES and NO FOOD…but yea let’s sue for a stupid cake… What is happening to this world?”
Good question. Something has gone wrong.
There is another point which ought to be addressed here as well: whatever happened to “diversity”? Haven’t we been told for the past sixty years or more by the gay movement itself that “diversity” ought to be the norm? Why can’t homosexuals accept a different opinion, most specifically when Melissa was just exercising her free will and did not want to violent her conscience?
Melissa again says, “For me, personally … It’s my morals, it’s my beliefs it’s my convictions.” What perhaps she should have said is this: “For me, it’s my genes. They made me do it.” She should have paid some scientists a large sum of money to prove that her actions were purely genetic.
As I told some of my students, the homosexuality issue is actually about changing the most fundamental fabric of society, namely, the family. I also argued that the state, because it is involved in achieving the good, ought to be concerned with providing a framework within which the family is protected. As a corollary, the state ought to protect the rights of homosexuals to practice their behavior in private.
I ended up being a little graphic with my students. I said,
“Suppose a married man comes up to a public arena and declare, ‘I had sex with my wife last night.’ He then move on to detail what happened and bragged about it. Wouldn’t you think that this guy is weird? Isn’t sexual relationship sacred? Why is this man making a mockery of a conjugal life?”
Instantly, they all got the point and started laughing. I then moved on to say,
“Why do we honestly need ‘gay pride’ and ‘gay parade’? Why can’t those people keep their stuff sacred? Why do they sometimes have to show us their private parts during their ‘gay parade’? Why can’t they cover their butts and pull up their bridges? Why do they have to tell everyone that they are gay or that they want to change the moral law? When was the last time that government officials go to their homes and stop them from sleeping with each other?”
Again, there was a complete silence.
I moved on to make another point:
“If the state is concerned about preserving the next generation, then by definition they have to establish a law that is conducive to procreation. And homosexuality is not procreation.
“If everyone suddenly adopted a homosexual lifestyle, the human race would die out within one generation. Homosexuality is biologically unsustainable. America, Japan, South Korea, and many countries in the West are having a huge problem at this present time precisely because people aren’t reproducing!”
As medical doctor Tahir I. Jaz has pointed out, “An indisputable and universal fact about humanity is that everyone owes their existence to the union between their father and mother. This forms the basis for the family, the social unit of society.”
If the state does not keep an eye on those who are aggressively subverting the moral law and sexual order, then the state will beg for mercy within two or three generations. Moreover, who will protect traditional families from people like Michael Swift? Swift wrote an essay entitled “Gay Revolutionary,” in which he postulated:
“We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and feeble lies. We shall seduce them in your schools…in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms…wherever men are men together. Your sons will become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.”
Finally, the gay movement never tells us the consequences of a homosexual lifestyle. Last March, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said:
“Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM)a represent approximately 2% of the United States population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, young gay and bisexual men (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24, and 30% of new infections among all gay and bisexual men.
“At the end of 2011, an estimated 500,022 (57%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the United States were gay and bisexual men, or gay and bisexual men who also inject drugs.”
The American Public Health Association reported back in 1981:
“Most studies of sexually transmitted diseases in homosexual men have examined prevalence in clinic populations; for comparative purposes, we analyzed data from a survey of 4,329 gay men conducted in 1977. Among 4,212 respondents to the self-administered questionnaire, 66.8 per cent reported previous infection with pediculosis; 38.4 per cent, gonorrhea; 24.1 per cent, nonspecific urethritis; 18.1 per cent, venereal warts; 13.5 per cent, syphilis; 9.7 per cent, hepatitis; and 9.4 per cent, herpes. Number of different lifetime sexual partners best predicted histories of symphilis (r = .249), gonorrhea (r = .402), and the other diseases; frequency of checkups, years as a practicing homosexual, and furtive sexual activities were among the many other significant correlates of venereal infections.
“Gay men who participated in the survey reported frequent infections with many of the same sexually transmitted diseases often seen in private medical practices, public VD clinics, and gay health centers. Since high rates of disease are related to large numbers of different partners, frequent exposures with anonymous contacts, and anal intercourse, we recommend frequent examinations for those whose life-styles include these characteristics.”
In 1996, the Journal of American Medical Association discovered the same thing, that
“Men who have sex with men account for more cases of the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) in the United States than persons in any other transmission category. During 1994, 34 974 new cases of AIDS were reported among men whose only exposure to HIV was having sex with other men.
“In San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York City, and Chicago, the prevalence rate of HIV infection among sexually active gay men has at times reached between 35% and 50% since 1981.”
In 2012, a number of researchers and doctors in the Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases said: “At the beginning of a new millennium, syphilis incidence has been increasing worldwide, occurring primarily among men who have sex with men (MSM).”
In 2013, the New York Daily News itself reported,
“A 33-year-old West Hollywood man [Brett Shaad] who felt sickened by bacterial meningitis earlier this week has been declared brain dead amid warnings to sexually active gay men about the deadly strain of illness…
“Officials warned sexually active gay men to beware of the potentially deadly health threat because Shaad’s case was detected in Los Angeles County…Tests were being done to see if the strain of illness is similar to the meningococcal infections that circulated among gay men in New York City and infected 22 people, resulting in seven fatalities, since 2010.”
Victorica A. Brownworth, a lesbian and a Pulitzer Prize-nominated journalist who ended up having cancer at the early age of 26, lamented in the Huffington Post in 2013:
“We [meaning the lesbian community] are also getting—and dying—of cancer….
“Cancer isn’t pretty. It’s not pink. It’s not cute hats and infinity scarves and little pins on your lapel. When your hair falls out you don’t look sexy like women with cancer on TV or in the movies. Your skin turns a color that isn’t natural-mine had a greenish tinge for at least a year. Always in the back of your mind is the concern that it will come back.”
Oscar Wilde, Michel Foucault, John Boswell, among others, would have understood those reports pretty well, since they all died of venereal diseases contracted from homosexuality. Both Foucault and Boswell died of AIDS—the latter died at early age of 47. Foucault once declared,
“I would like and hope I’ll die of an overdose of pleasure of any kind.”
One of Foucault’s victims thought it was an honor to have been infected by Foucault’s own disease. “I die happy,” he triumphantly declared, “because I was infected by Michel Foucault.”
In 1983, Foucault, because he had already crossed the sexual rubicon, “collapsed.” Yet “he could still be found in the baths and bars.” He would brag:
“To die for the love of boys: What could be more beautiful.”
Foucault was “intoxicated by Nietzsche’s examples” and “projects them out onto a political sphere in which he has no real interest and for which he accepts no responsibility.”
It must be remembered that Nietzsche deliberately infected himself with syphilis and frequented brothels in order to largely manifest his hatred toward morality—and the culture which had embraced that morality. In fact, Nietzsche called for the transvaluation of all values.
At the end of her essay, Victoria A. Brownworth made an important point which bears repeating here:
“My life, your life, the lives of all the lesbians out there — we are all at risk. Pink stuff won’t help us. Information will. The best you can do for yourselves until that happens is cut your risk factors as much as you can. Do self-exams. Practice safe sex.”
Which brings me to my final point. I told my students that the best way to resolve the homosexual issue is through education. People ought to know the detrimental effect of homosexuality. The government and schools ought to be involved in educating people about these issues. I added that it is not real love if your dear friend is unknowingly going to fall into a snake pit and you let him do it anyway because you didn’t want to “offend” him.
The best way to “practice safe sex” is to have one man and one woman. That is the moral law, which is sustained or rooted in religious principles. Leo Tolstoy discovered that principle long before he began his spiritual and intellectual journey. He wrote,
“The estimation of the value of art…depends on men’s perception of the meaning of life, depends on what they consider to be the good and the evil of life. And what is good and what is evil is defined by what are termed religious.”
This moral law saved civilization from crumbling. If America and much of the West do not understand that principle, Vladimir Putin, who has been relentlessly and unfairly lambasted by Neoconservative talking heads, does.
Since sex is a sacred thing, says Putin, gays and lesbians, like straight people, ought not to be persecuted or prosecuted for things they do in their private lives. However, gays and lesbians ought not to be allowed to use aggression to change the moral law.
Since much of the West has progressively become a colony of sexual ideology, Putin quickly found himself in a tug of war, most specifically with the Neoconservatives in America. The Neocons and their puppets hate Putin because, as Kevin Barrett brilliantly put it last year, “Putin puts the fear of God in the New World Order.” Barrett, citing Putin, wrote then:
“Many Euro-Atlantic countries have moved away from their roots, including Christian values… Policies are being pursued that place on the same level a multi-child family and a same-sex partnership, a faith in God and a belief in Satan.”
Putin is the establishment’s worst nightmare because Russia has just recently featured a family flag with a mother, father, and three children. Certainly the establishment was not ready for that bang from a serious politician.
To counterattack, the establishment sent the Trotskyist group the Pussy Riot, a subversive cell which sought to destabilize the social order by having literal sex orgy at the Moscow Zoological Museum for ten minutes. The Moscow-based newspaper The eXile declared that the group
“stripped off their clothes and started fu$king in the middle of Moscow’s Biology Museum in an act they called ‘Fuck for Medvedev!’”
As we saw in another article, another member of the group went to a supermarket, opened a refrigerator, grabbed a frozen chicken, stuck it into her vagina, and walked out without paying—with the chicken still in her thing.
Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, leader of the Pussy Riot group, took the ideological cat out of the bag when she said:
“Yes, we’re part of the global anti-capitalist movement, which consists of anarchists, Trotskyists, feminists and autonomists….I want to destroy the things I consider the greatest evils. And I’m doing this by putting my ideas of freedom and feminism into practice.”
How did the Neocon establishment respond to all of this?
Well, Ben Shapiro told us that the Pussy Riot acted in the name of democracy and freedom, and Putin was the real “dictator”! Standing up for the Pussy Riot, said Shapiro,
“is the right thing to do. No matter what your religious belief system, no matter how you feel about blasphemy in a church, there’s no excuse for jailing political dissidents for exercising the right to free speech.”
In the same vein, Neocon whores like Pamela Geller declared that groups like Femen “were trying to help the oppressed.” Likewise, U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power met with the Pussy Riot and praised them, saying that they were “some brave ‘troublemakers.’”
So, the Neocon and Zionist establishment ended up proving that Putin was right. Commenting on Putin’s statement, Kevin Barrett wrote:
“Putin’s reference to Satanism was a pointed rebuke to the New World Order elites, who – though they push militant secularism on the societies they are trying to undermine – are closet Satanists.”
If you doubt that these people are “closet Satanists” or are indirectly involving in a diabolical project, then read the writings of Satanist Aleister Crowley, who explicitly postulated that the best way to destroy a culture is to destroy the family and create sexual deviancies. In fact, Crowley called the family “public enemy No. I.” How does that apply to the political realm? Well, let us hear from Benjamin Netanyahu on how America should destroy Iran:
“If you want to advance regime change in Iran, you don’t have to go through the C.I.A. cloak-and-dagger stuff — what you want to do is take very large, very strong transponders and just beam ‘Melrose Place’ and ‘Beverly Hills 2050’ and all that into Tehran and into Iran, because that is subversive stuff. They watch it — the young kids watch it, the young people. They want to have the same nice clothes and the same houses and swimming pools and so on.”
The question again and again is this: Who has been doing this in America for the better part of sixty years or more? Well, most readers should know the answer to that question by now. But for those who do not know, hear this from ideologue Michael Ledeen:
“Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law.
“Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace … We must destroy them to advance our historic mission.”
So, the next time some useful idiot or puppet tries to tell you that the Neocons are just creating democracy and freedom in the Middle East, or that they stand for family values, you need to grab your chair, have a seat, and then say,
“Humor me, bro. Sing me a Neocon song.”
 For reports on this issue, see for example Emma Green, “Gay Marriage Is Now a Constitutional Right in the United States of America,” Atlantic, June 26, 2015; Jim Dwyer, “A Victory for Same-Sex Marriage, With Roots in New York,” NY Times, June 25, 2015; “Sealed with a kiss: The telling image of American change,” New Zealand Herald, July 7, 2015; Matt Flegenheimer and Vivian Yee, “Jubilant Marchers at Gay Pride Parades Celebrate Supreme Court Ruling,” NY Times, June 28, 2015; Danny Hakim and Douglas Dalby, “Ireland Votes to Approve Gay Marriage, Putting Country in Vanguard,” NY Times, May 23, 2015; “This Map Shows How Gay Marriage Spread Across the United States,” Time, June 26, 2015; “Gay couple sue for recognition of their same-sex marriage in South Korea,” The Telegraph, July 7, 2015; “The changing landscape of same-sex marriage,” Washington Post, June 26, 2015; Kellan Howell, “Supreme Court’s gay marriage ruling applauded by businesses, CEOs on Twitter,” Washington Times, June 26, 2015; Julia Glum, “Gay Marriage In Japan? Group Files Human Rights Complaint Calling For Policy Review After US Supreme Court Decision,” International Business Times, July 7, 2015; Tomohiro Osaki, “Mainstream Japanese society slowly working to accommodate sexual minorities,” Japan Times, January 30, 2015; “Japan LGBT group files human rights complaint in bid for same-sex marriages,” Japan Times, July 7, 2015; “Japan’s Gay Marriage Push Faces Constitutional Barrier,” Bloomberg, February 19, 2015.
 See for example Julia Glum, “Gay Marriage In Japan? Group Files Human Rights Complaint Calling For Policy Review After US Supreme Court Decision,” International Business Times, July 7, 2015; “Gay couple sue for Recognition of their same-sex marriage in South Korea,” The Telegraph, July 7, 2015; “Japan LGBT group files human rights complaint in bid for same-sex marriages,” Japan Times, July 7, 2015.
 Matt Flegenheimer and Vivian Yee, “Jubilant Marchers at Gay Pride Parades Celebrate Supreme Court Ruling,” NY Times, June 28, 2015.
 Dermot McEvoy, “The ‘Gay Gaels who have enriched Ireland’s history and culture for the world,” Irish Central, June 11, 2015.
 Green, “Gay Marriage Is Now a Constitutional Right in the United States of America,” Atlantic, June 26, 2015.
 “Fox is planning a movie about the gay marriage Supreme Court ruling,” Entertainment Weekly, July 7, 2015; see also Brooks Barnes, “Fox Is Planning to Make Movie About Same-Sex Marriage Ruling,” NY Times, July 7, 2015.
 Flegenheimer and Yee, “Jubilant Marchers at Gay Pride Parades Celebrate Supreme Court Ruling,” NY Times, June 28, 2015
 “The Victory for Same-Sex Marriage in Ireland,” NY Times, May 23, 2015.
 Sarah Darville and Leah Greenbaum, “Professor David Epstein charged with incest with his daughter,” Columbia Daily Spectator, December 10, 2010.
 Melissa Grace, “Columbia professor is charged with incest, accused of bedding young relative for 3 years,” NY Daily News, December 9, 2010; “Ivy League professor charged with incest after ‘three-year sexual relationship with his daughter,’” Daily Mail, July 1, 2013.
 William Saletan, “Incest Is Cancer,” Slate, December 14, 2010.
 Quoted in Michael L. Brown, A Queer Thing Happened to America (Concord, NC: Equal Time Books, 2011), kindle edition.
 Ibid. By the way, I do not agree with Brown on some of his assessments.
 Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer, A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2000).
 Brown, A Queer Thing Happened to America
 Curtis M. Wong, “Sweet Cakes By Melissa Violated Oregon Law By Turning Away Lesbian Couple, Officials Rule,” Huffington Post, February 3, 2015.
 “‘Stupid Bible-Thumping…B**ch’: Bakery That Refused to Make Gay Couple’s Wedding Cake Speaks Out Amid Threats, Economic Woes,” The Blaze, May 31, 2013.
 Tahir I. Jaz, “Homosexuality – An Analysis of Biological Theories of Causation,” http://www.flyfishingdevon.co.uk/salmon/year2/hormones/tahir.htm.
 “Jewish groups hail Supreme Court’s legalization of gay marriage nationwide,” Jerusalem Post, June 26, 2015; “Jews Overwhelmingly Back Gay Marriage: Poll,” Jewish Daily Forward, April 23, 2015; “I’m an Orthodox Rabbi and I Celebrate Supreme Court’s Gay Marriage Ruling,” Jewish Daily Forward, June 29, 2015; “Ron Kampeas, “Jewish Groups (Mostly) Celebrate SCOTUS Gay Marriage Decision”Jewish Daily Forward, June 26, 2015; Rabbi Eliyahu Fink, “I believe in Torah, halachah and equality,” Jewish Journal, June 30, 2015.
 “HIV Among Gay and Bisexual Men,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, March 2015.
 W. W. Darrow, D. Barrett, K. Jay, and A. Young, “The gay report on sexually transmitted diseases,” American Public Health Association, September 1981; 71(9): 1004-1011.
 “Health Care Needs of Gay Men and Lesbians in the United States,” Journal of American Medical Association, May 1996, Vol. 275(17): 1354-1359.
 Milan Bjerkic, Milica Markovic, and Sandra Sipetic, “Clinical manifestations of primary syphilis in homosexual men,” Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases, Vol. 16, Issue 4, July-August 2012: 387-389.
 “Los Angeles meningitis victim declared brain dead, STD threat to gay men seen,” NY Daily News, April 13, 2013.
 Victoria A. Brownworth, “The Invisible Epidemic: Lesbians and Cancer,” Huffington Post, November 19, 2013.
 Quoted in Jonathan Dollimore, Death, Desire and Loss in Western Culture (New York: Routledge, 1998), 305.
 Quoted in Daniel J. Flynn, Intellectual Morons: How Ideology Makes Smart People Fall for Stupid Ideas (New York: Crown Forum, 2004), 237.
 Quoted in Mark Mark Lilla, The Reckless Mind: Intellectuals in Politics (New York: New York Review of Books, 2001), 157.
 Ibid., 158.
 See for example E. Michael Jones, Dionysos Rising: The Birth of Cultural Revolution Out of the Spirit of Music (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1994), chapter 2.
 Brownworth, “The Invisible Epidemic: Lesbians and Cancer,” Huffington Post, November 19, 2013.
 Leo Tolstoy, What is Art? (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1960), 54.
 Mark Ames, “Boning for Medvedev,” The eXile, March 3, 2008.
 “Interview with Pussy Riot Leader: ‘I Love Russia, But I Hate Putin,’” Spiegel International, September 12, 2012.
 Ben Shapiro, “Will Hollywood Riot for Pussy Riot?,” FrontPage Magazine, August 20, 2012.
 Pamela Geller, “Muslimah Misogyny: ‘Muslim Women Against Femen,’” Jewish Press, April 17, 2013.
 Quoted in Edith M. Lederer, “Samantha Power Offers To Join Pussy Riot,” Huffington Post, February 6, 2014.
 Aleister Crowley, Magick Without Tears (Las Vegas, NV: New Falcon Publications, 1991).
 Quoted in Robert Mackey, “Kerry Reminds Congress Netanyahu Advised U.S. to Invade Iraq,” NY Times, February 25, 2015.
 See for example Josh Lambert, Unclean Lips: Obscenity, Jews, and American Culture (New York: New York University Press, 2014); Nathan Abrams, The New Jew in Film: Exploring Jewishness and Judaism in Contemporary Cinema (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2012); Nathan Abrams, “Triple Exthnics,” Jewish Quarterly, Summer 2004; Jay A. Gertzman, Bookleggers and Smuthounds: The Trade in Erotica, 1920-1940 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002).
Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the new book Zionism vs. the West: How Talmudic Ideology is Undermining Western Culture. He teaches mathematics in South Korea.