/ world today news/ What are the reasons for the launch of the third gender, non-standard sexual behavior, the hunt for sexual “witches” in Hollywood? Why is this insane construction of ideas taking on such proportions at this very moment in history? Why are attempts made to impose it on countries where there is no public sensitivity to such a problem or this sensitivity is entirely negative?
It is obvious that by nature people are born male or female. This is a truth that needs no proof, as almost any person can look between their legs and establish their identity in this regard. If he has a problem with this truth, that is his personal problem and it is not good to concern others with it. In my opinion, such a question can reach such cancerous social dimensions only under specific conditions and specific social needs – these conditions and needs are a clear sign of a crisis. Something more. They signal the end of a complacent society caught in the trap of ultimate stagnation.
The first of these reasons is the very nature of the political system in the US and Western Europe. It is clear to any reasonable person that “democracy” is just a word. The ruling plutocratic-oligarchic elites launch the idea of the “rule of law” state, because rights can only be enjoyed by the rich and powerful. The defense of “rights” is by its very nature a paradoxical legitimation of power.
A person is born absolutely free and with full rights to do whatever he wants. Upbringing and education do not aim to establish and expand these rights, on the contrary – living in a society implies a limitation of the primordial elemental freedom. Ever since he emerged from the caves, man has developed a persistent reaction against the laws of the jungle and against absolute individualism.
From the deepest antiquity, the state aimed at harmony between the natural and social beginnings (nature and culture), between what we are promised and what is and must be brought on the basis of coexistence and justice. The more rights and freedoms the state provides, the more power and wealth are concentrated in the hands of the few. From the beginning of our transition, one mantra has been repeated – that people are not the same by nature, and that is wonderful. It is indisputable that people are not the same, but the function of the state is to conceal to a certain extent these natural differences and to ensure minimally prosperity of all its citizens/subjects. It is this obligation that is unbearable for the economic oligarchies.
“Traditional” values and “traditional” social roles are a natural way to achieve true equality between people, regardless of their material well-being. From time immemorial, however, the fundamental prerogative of the rich and powerful has been to violate these traditional values in the name of personal pleasure and the demonstration of absolute power.
The representatives of the Julio-Claudian dynasty in Rome were a striking example of “unconventional” sexual behaviors. The story of the biographer Suetonius is known, according to which Emperor Tiberius asked his nephew Gaius Caligula whether he liked nymphs or satyrs better. When the young man answered “both,” the old ruler smiled benevolently and said “so it should be.” In our time, sensitivity to non-traditional sexual orientations and their rise in the eyes of society fulfills the same role. Power is demonstrated through them.
We only have to look at the first scene of the movie “Sex and the City”, where a handsome, flamboyant and well-to-do New York homosexual is getting married, to establish this. A person can be gay, lesbian, transgender, transvestite, as long as he has the necessary material well-being. Hillary Clinton herself would be disgusted by a poor gay. The dictatorship of the LBGT minorities aims at the collapse of the last restrictions based on the criteria of social acceptability that exist before the oligarchy. I could hardly imagine widespread use of the right to a non-standard sexual orientation among those employed in construction or in the bosom of the middle bourgeoisie (if it exists).
The second reason for all this fuss is the origin of the paradox called “left liberal space”. The New Democratic Party, as built by the Clinton family, originated largely from an inherently anti-social movement. This movement is the hipperism from whose progressive bosom the modern Californian culture of Silicon Valley also sprang. The 1960s and 1970s were the time of spontaneous youth cults, of weed and LSD, of long hair and rebellion against society’s restrictions. Quite naturally, this includes the complete denial of any discrimination. During this era, anyone could become a hippie. Over time, however, this psychological hysteria loses strength – it cannot remain the same because it has neither a historical nor an ideological backbone.
It is a widely held notion that yesterday’s hippies become integrated and successful members of society – the embodiment of this notion is the character of Willie Tanner from the TV series Alf. In reality, however, the hipper movement also includes quite affluent youth, who retain their sentiment for turbulent youth after returning to prestigious universities. In their new embeddedness in society, these “free” and “progressive” youth reject the dictates of serious business suit and traditional business, but by no means deny the dictates of plutocratic arrogance. It was this youth, freed from the economic leisure of his youth, that laid the foundations of the new left idea. This idea focuses on the rights of wealthy minorities and frees them completely from the constraints of traditional society. This idea tries to throw out on the rubbish heap any aspiration to eliminate the most serious discrimination – economic.
The third reason is the imposition of power. In foreign policy plan “human rights” are the mask under which America and the West hide the ancient “civilizing” role of the old colonial empires. At the time of the conquistadors and pioneers, Christianity was such a mask – “we take away their freedom and material goods in order to give them the light of the true Faith”. Naturally, the factor of “God’s help” in the conquest of the New World is an unascertainable quantity – the only sure thing is military and economic supremacy.
Similarly, after the end of the Cold War, the USA and (somewhat) old Europe have such supremacy and “rights” are a comfortable garment. Some people come to us, in Russia, in the Middle East, who assure us that our views and beliefs, our poverty and striving for a normal way of life, our families and social roles are not… real. We don’t understand the laws of the free market – that’s why our wages are low. We don’t understand gay rights, so not every heterosexual person in our country takes an intimate interest in their problems. We need to be civilized and educated by the good, progressive, liberal, left western people.
In domestic political plan “human rights” is how the American oligarchy itself enforces its power. This is not new. In the 15th-16th centuries, the royal power in France was still insufficiently authoritative. Local patriotism and local self-government compete with the king and the bureaucratic entourage around him in the exercise of power. The royal judges need a radical way to enforce their rule. This is where the Catholic Church comes to the rescue. It is these two institutions that build one of the darkest ideological constructs, sending countless women (and fewer men) to court and to the stake on charges of making a pact with the Devil. Folk beliefs and traditions are interpreted in a narrow-minded Christian-like context, sifted through the misunderstood words of St. Scripture and the Fathers of the Church, then equated to heresy. Based on this, marginalized, unfortunate old women (fairy-tellers, midwives, beggars) were mercilessly killed by the “righteous” who understood the world and life best of all. America today is facing a good old witch hunt. The object of this hunt are external enemies (anyone can be a masked terrorist) and ordinary people who yesterday had no idea that they were discriminating or being discriminated against. In this way, the “enlightened” and rich hippies of yesteryear get their power legitimized. And their power is the same as that of their rich fathers and grandfathers. Oligarchic, plutocratic, haughty and disgusted by the poverty it causes.
#rights #sexual #minorities #disenfranchisement #poor #majorities
