Homosexuality Isn’t Conservative

kincaid

Cliff Kincaid

Last week, Cliff Kincaid, Director of Journalism at Accuracy In Media (AIM), wrote a piece about the recent whinefest gripping pseudo-conservative circles regarding why GOProud, a rather boorish homosexual identity politics organization, wasn’t allowed to be a co-sponsor of CPAC 2013. His piece went largely unnoticed for several days until people started tweeting about it a day ago. In his post, Kincaid took the approach of trying to educate his wayward cousins in the fauxcon echo chamber about the history of the leftist agenda to supplant American morality with their left-wing secular humanism.

As for me, I take a “love the sinner” approach to social issues, but I’ll always push back against creeping cultural Marxism, because it’s antithetical to American liberty. Perhaps Cliff could’ve expressed himself better in this area. This blog post isn’t intended to defend Kincaid or AIM – it’s primarily intended to address the responses to Kincaid’s piece and to fill in some gaps he left in it.

Advancing homosexuality in America really was part of the Marxist agenda.

If you want to support or engage in homosexuality, that’s your choice, but don’t attempt to sell homosexuality as “conservative”, because it isn’t. The alignment of certain segments of the echo chamber with homosexual identity groups like GOProud further demonstrates their ceding of founding principles in favor of a Marxist anti-Right homosexual agenda. Herbert Marcuse is arguably the most well-known enemy of American liberty from the Marxist Frankfurt School. Marcuse was perceived as the godfather of the 60s counterculture movement. His agenda was very clear.

“I suggested in ‘Repressive Tolerance’ the practice of discriminating tolerance in an inverse direction, as a means of shifting the balance between Right and Left by restraining the liberty of the Right…” – Herbert Marcuse

Jeffery Escoffier, who writes for glbtq.com, “an encyclopedia of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender & queer culture”, elaborates on Marcuse’s perspective and his role in advancing homosexuality.

Marcuse believed that sexual liberation was achieved by exploring new permutations of sexual desires, sexual activities, and gender roles–what Freud called “perverse” sexual desires, that is, all non-reproductive forms of sexual behavior, of which kissing, oral sex, and anal sex are familiar examples.

Marcuse was himself heterosexual, but he identified the homosexual as the radical standard bearer of sex for the sake of pleasure, a form of radical hedonism that repudiates those forms of repressive sexuality organized around genital heterosexuality and biological reproduction. “Against a society which employs sexuality as a means for a useful end,” Marcuse argued, “the perversions uphold sexuality as an end itself . . . and challenge its very foundations.”

Marcuse admitted freely that his goal was to restrain your liberties, and he wanted to advance homosexuality as part of his plan to do just that. Yet some of you “conservatives” are advancing his agenda on his behalf. Not only that, but you mocked Kincaid for writing the truth about that point. That’s precisely what Marcuse counted on. You’ve become unwitting dupes roping yourselves into Marcuse’s goal of undermining Americanism. You proud, bro?

You’re a conservative who doesn’t conserve our founding principles?

One again, class: American conservatism has always been based on conserving America’s founding principles. Our founders insisted that morality was a requirement for liberty’s survival. How did our founders feel about homosexuality? Washington had the gall to boot one of his officers out of the army for sodomizing a fellow soldier. Jefferson? Well, TJ proposed a Virginia law whereby homosexuals would be castrated. Harsh? Depends. Do any of us have the ability to quantify the negative effects of secular humanism on American liberty? One measure could be based on our country’s financial health. Our debt is increasing while more Americans thumb their noses at original American axioms. Total crime skyrocketed almost 2.5x through the 1960s even though the population only increased about 10% during the 10 year period from 1960-1970. Keep in mind that Marcuse wrote “Represssive Tolerance” in 1965.

Jefferson had this to say about morality and its effect on our society.

“The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, God has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain.” – Thomas Jefferson

John Jay, America’s first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court and co-author of the Federalist Papers, understood the importance of America’s civil and religious liberties, and how to guard them.

“I recommend a general and public return of praise and thanksgiving to Him from whose goodness these blessings descend. The most effectual means of securing the continuance of our civil and religious liberties is always to remember with reverence and gratitude the source from which they flow.” – John Jay

It’s refreshing to see the stark contrast between the likes of Marcuse and our founding fathers. I’ll always pick our founders over Marxist anti-Americanism. According to our founders, social “conservatism” is what they had in mind for our country.

Abandoning America’s morality is the cornerstone of their conservatism.

Let’s see how well Cliff’s piece was received by the uninitiated, the emotional, and the obtuse. The following people who tweeted their fauxtrage over Kincaid’s piece don’t address any specific points that he raised. They do present knee-jerk reactionary emotionalism, and that’s always a good determinant of TROO conservatism! Hell, there’s even someone calling for Kincaid’s death – but he works for NRO, so take that how you will.

A regular Fox News contributor is all about guy on guy action.

This guy likes creeping on young girls, so of course he’s down with the buttseks. Gardner struggled with Rand Paul’s “unforgivable” position of holding the same views as our founding fathers expressed during Paul’s monumental filibuster.

A Twitchy “Assistant Editor”. Of course. He fits right in.

A California “conservative” and blogger clearly doesn’t identify with American morals. How unfortunate.

Elizabeth Crum self-identifies as “conservative/libertarian”, but she spends most of her time in the “conservative” echo chamber and it shows.

A writer for the neoconservative rag National Review Online flexes his neoconservatism by recommending that Cliff Kincaid be brutally killed. Sounds just like a radical left-winger, doesn’t it?

One of Tom Ryan’s Jersey kook crew is offended, because committing felonies is a conservative benchmark.

Ah, the Breitbaren’t crowd presents as they typically do with both form and substance. FAUXTRAGE!

Who knew that neocons were so supportive of homosexuality?

That’s a rhetorical question.

Another NRO employee sounds off below. Wait a minute… didn’t they fire Derbyshire last year over presenting historical and/or empirical positions too? Did NRO fire Charles Cooke yet for his above statement encouraging the murder of Kincaid? Encouraging murder is always acceptable when you’re supportive of the would-be murderer’s position, right neocons? But simple words on a screen from someone with whom you disagree, not so acceptable.

Wurtzel claims to be a “Libertarian”, but he rarely says anything along libertarian lines.

Bethany’s husband, Seth Mandel, got paid to be a shill for the anti-Semitic government of Malaysia. That’s a very conservative trait. She’s “horrified” by historical presentations, but totally cool with taking money from anti-Semites.

The Wendy Whiner of Weinergate claims to know something about conservatism. He’s one of the neocons who tried to equate Rand Paul’s filibuster with Code Pink.

Michael Moynihan, a writer for Tablet magazine, calls Kincaid’s piece crazy. I wonder if Moynihan has ever called these people out for being crazy. He calls himself “libertarian” but he went headlong into the “Everybody Draw Muhammed Day” islamophobic craziness right along with all his neocon pals.

Fauxcons, you’re in good company with these radical left-wingers!

These leftists present their disagreement with Kincaid in nearly identical fashion to the echo chamber/neocons. That Roseanne lady is a real peach – isn’t it nice to have so much in common with her?

What’s in a name?

Part of our rights enshrined in the First Amendment is that one can have an opinion and we can either agree or not. However, when you hold yourself out as “conservative” and continuously employ an ideology that’s contrary to what conservatism is and always has been, are you simply misidentifying due to your own ignorance, or are you trying to mold conservatism to your insidious agenda? If it’s the former, it’s akin to Kim Kardashian waking up one day and deciding that she’s black. No matter how many black guys she takes to bed the fact remains that color, much to Kim’s chagrin, doesn’t rub off. If it’s the latter, you might want to revisit history to learn what invariably happens to people who step on the majority once they’ve had enough.

If you truly are committed to your self-described “conservative” moniker but your worldview is more closely aligned with cultural Marxists than our founding fathers, I’d suggest a personal reassessment. You’ll have to leave your willful ignorance and intellectual dishonesty at the door.

Neither charlatans nor neophytes have free rein to redefine conservatism any more than atheists have free rein to redefine God.

 

 

 

About Brooks Bayne

Bacon and bourbon.

, , , , , , ,

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=502686523 Matthew T. Mason

    I don’t see what the fuss is about. Cliff Kincaid simply told the truth. The willingness of some to take a single sentence out of context and holler over it while ignoring everything else smacks of disingenuousness, something else that’s not compatible with conservatism.

    • http://brooksbayne.com brooksbayne

      that’s been the order of the day within the echo chamber for far too long. glad you’re able to see right through that disingenuousness of theirs.

  • http://www.gunsgodandcountry.blogspot.com/ johninlongmont

    I’m fine nixing the gay agenda on moral grounds, but to me it’s really a question of a mental disorder….look – gay is not normal…it’s like any other mental disorder…people know this is true, but fear to express what they know, as the new PC Police will readily condemn them for being homophobes or some other ridiculous moniker…I could care less what consenting adults do in private, but the gay agenda throws it in our face and demands we call it “normal”…well, it’s not, and I’m not afraid to say it

    • http://brooksbayne.com brooksbayne

      by definition their sexual proclivity would be categorized as perversion: “an aberrant sexual practice or interest especially when habitual”

      but homosexuality as a mental disorder? that’s a tough sell in just about any quarter. what’s your basis for this argument?

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=502686523 Matthew T. Mason

        When one considers the fact homosexuality was removed from the DSM due to political pressure, it goes a long way to explain things.

  • AmyB

    I’m really not surprised at the fauxtrage.This is where “conservatism” appears to be heading. One of the aforementioned tweeps in this article informed me recently that politics has nothing to do with morality. Hmm, as if our values don’t form the basis of our political leanings. For some, I guess they don’t, as long as they win elections. Oh, wait…

    • http://brooksbayne.com brooksbayne

      keep after them. their anti-american positions need to be challenged every day.

  • kimvy

    Until I got to Rosie I thought I stepped into LiberalLand with the very liberal tactics of screaming “bigot” when someone attempts to discuss something that isn’t sanctioned by the PC Police.

    This is why the GOP loses and will continue to lose. They (and their fool echo chamber) continue to be defined by the left and use leftist tactics to keep people “in line”. If one has to choose, they may as well choose the real thing (democrats/liberals) than some not quite there pale imitation (RINO-cons).

    There really is no difference anymore, is there?

    • http://brooksbayne.com brooksbayne

      essentially no difference between radical leftists and neocons/rinos/echo chamberists.

    • http://brooksbayne.com brooksbayne

      also, i think these types of blog posts help identify those fauxcons who continue to rail against our founding principles. seems like it’s always part of the same group of people. do they think they’re fooling anyone? if so, let’s make sure that they know that they’re not.

  • http://twitter.com/GrannyCakes2 Granny Cakes

    Well done. I’ll be looking more into the AIM website you linked.

    • http://brooksbayne.com brooksbayne

      thanks, granny. i don’t keep up with aim, but i hope they try a bit more finesse in any subsequent follow-ups on the matter. people need to be educated about the history of this subject and statements that are borderline condemnation probably aren’t going to enlighten anyone save for the choir they’re preaching to. what’s the point of investing time if you’re not going to make an approachable argument?

      • http://twitter.com/GrannyCakes2 Granny Cakes

        To your last sentence, no point at all. Well, unless you are making money at not making a point or valuable argument. Lots of people doing that out there now a days.

  • AmyB

    It’s interesting to note that most of the blogs bashing Kincaid do not refute what he said; they merely pander to gays while bastardizing Reagan’s “big tent” statement- “We don’t win elections by being subtractive” blahblahblah. They’re falling for the old gay bashing argument, which leads to intellectual dishonesty. What’s subtractive or bashing about speaking the truth? I was glad to see that most of the reader’s comments weren’t buying their argument.

    Kind of off-topic, but related- Brooks, I’m interested in your view of (ironically) how conservatives have divided themselves into fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, and now conservatarians. It seems to be the conservatarians and fiscal conservatives who insist on stretching the big tent. I’ll admit, I’m not terribly comfortable with the terms; I thought a person was either conservative or they weren’t. We don’t get to pick and choose which of the Founding Principles we wish to conserve. Where am I wrong?

    • http://brooksbayne.com brooksbayne

      you’re not wrong. that was the point of the last line of my post: “Neither charlatans nor neophytes have free rein to redefine conservatism any more than atheists have free rein to redefine God.”

  • http://www.facebook.com/griffith.chung Griffith Chung

    I’m sorry, quoting exclusively from a radical academic theorist of the 1960′s and one of his few remaining apologists on the contemporary fringe does nothing to establish a connection between homosexuality and Marxism. I promise you, Marcuse and the whole Frankfurt School haven’t exerted any meaningful influence over the liberal mindset in decades, outside of a few academicians who exist in their own echo chamber and are as irrelevant to most liberals as they would be to conservatives. Speak to a random, self-described liberal, and chances are they’ll never have heard of Marcuse or Adorno. Present them with the statements from him and his acolyte that you cite, and I assure you that most liberals would find them bizarre and wholly unrepresentative of the contemporary progressive ideology, such as it is. The whole notion of radical sexual liberation as the catalyst for political change died generations ago, and very few of us liberals mourn its passing. You may be right, depending on you how frame it, that social acceptance of homosexuality isn’t really conservative. That’s a definitional issue, and I’ll leave self-identified conservatives to squabble over that. But you’re making an empirically false association when you equate the so-called “gay agenda” with “cultural Marxism.” There’s really no connection, just ask a gay man in Cuba.

    • http://brooksbayne.com brooksbayne

      you prop up a strawman by claiming that i said that marxists of the frankfurt school influenced today’s homosexuals directly. wrong. i stated that marcuse and his acolytes were the catalysts for the homosexual political movement because it was part of their openly stated plan. you blindly overlooked the homosexual website linked above which agrees with what i asserted. i included the homosexual website to refute leftists who would cry “you’re a bigot for presenting historical facts to us from any website that doesn’t promote queers!” too bad that was lost on you. :(

      however, the point of the article wasn’t to be a treatise on the origin of the homosexual agenda – which i may write later. for one, kincaid was attacked by so-called “conservatives” for mentioning the marxist underpinnings of the homosexual political movement in america – which started a mere 5 years after marcuse wrote repressive tolerance. the people who led the original homosexual movement in the early 70′s in america were all fans of marcuse. some self-study would be suggested for you until i write that treatise.

      i’m guessing you’re a homosexual with an agenda. atheist? big fan of leftism, socialism? hater of capitalism? shed some light on your sociopolitical paradigm. i’m open about mine.

      btw, what’s the biological purpose of sperm? asking for a friend.

      • http://www.facebook.com/griffith.chung Griffith Chung

        You’ve been critical here of Zionist policies, can I assume you’re Muslim? Or might it be possible to ally yourself with a group even though you don’t share in their identity?

        Since you asked, I’m a heterosexual churchgoing Roman Catholic. Happy Easter, by the way. Broadly speaking, I’m in support of market-based capitalism, but I also support a robust regulatory scheme to protect against market failure, the effects of externalities, informational assymetries, etc. It’s fair to say I have an agenda re: gay rights, one that’s informed by faith, conscience, and my study of constitutional law under a widely respected libertarian theorist. But my personal stake in LGBT equality is entirely indirect. I won’t personally benefit from it, but my friends will, which is good enough for me.

        Allow me to quote from your post: “The alignment of certain segments of the echo chamber with homosexual identity groups like GOProud further demonstrates their ceding of founding principles in favor of a Marxist anti-Right homosexual agenda.” That’s written in the present tense, and I read it to mean that you are in fact suggesting a continued Marxist motivation to the homosexual agenda, which you feel has now tainted the conservative establishment. I understood the thrust of your post and I meant to address only that subsidiary section of it. The rest was an account of internecine struggle within the conservative movement, none of which I was knowledgable enough on to comment. Frankly, I don’t give a damn whether GOProud was allowed into CPAC. It’s their party and they can cry if they want to. I will admit I’m out of my territory here; most of the personalities and conflicts you refer to are unfamiliar to me, unsurprisingly since they don’t have much relevance on my side of the aisle.

        So I can’t speak to the motivations of the conservatives who criticized Kincaid, there were so many after all. It might have been principle in some cases, cravenness in others, I’ll let the readers judge. I only meant to confront the offending article head-on. Yes, Marcuse wrote Repressive Tolerance half a century ago and, yes, for a while afterwards it was an influential text among some early gay rights activists. Where I fault you and Kincaid is for the disingenuous implication that there still exists any connection between the contemporary gay rights struggle and some crypto-Marxist conspiracy. LGBT equality is not a stalking horse for a people’s revolution, and anyone who suggests it is deliberately confuses the issue and is not arguing on the actual merits of gay rights. A lot of nonsense came out of the left in those days, but we’ve (mostly) grown out of it. (Perhaps that’s what distinguishes us from conservatives: we discard our terrible ideas.) The gay rights movement stands up very well on its own today, and I think that most people fighting for equality would be astonished at the suggestion that their cause only derives continued meaning from some long-abandoned Marxist texts.

        In sum, Kincaid got his facts right, I never suggested otherwise. But it does not follow from those facts that today’s homosexual agenda carries Marxist undertones, which you stated or implied multiple times (your post closes, “If you truly are committed to your self-described ‘conservative’ moniker but your worldview is more closely aligned with cultural Marxists than our founding fathers, I’d suggest a personal reassessment.”).

        I never called you or Kincaid a bigot. You don’t have to be a bigot to advance bad arguments.

        Lastly, didn’t you know, the biological purpose of sperm is the transmission of genetic material to a female ovum. What’s the biological purpose of my appendix?

        • http://brooksbayne.com brooksbayne

          excellent. you admit that i was correct. that’s a lot of bloviating to say something so simple. enjoy our future posts!

          • http://www.facebook.com/griffith.chung Griffith Chung

            But I still don’t know what this appendix is for! Am I undermining God’s plan by not using it?

          • http://brooksbayne.com brooksbayne

            appendix for sexual interaction? weird. or is that just the lamest non sequitur i’ll read this week? ciao.