#or differing attitudes towards gay men in europe and the middle east

[libraryleopard]

Queer medieval young adult rom com with influences from Arthurian mythology

Follows Gwen, the princess of England, and Arthur, the distant descendent of King Arthur, who have been engaged since they were children but can't stand each other

When Arthur comes to visit for the summer they realize they're both queer, the two make a pact to cover for each other and find an unlikely friendship growing between them while they grapple with separate budding romances and looming royal responsibilities

Gay, biracial Iranian/white main character; bisexual main character; Thai lesbian love interest with endometriosis (I think?); gay love interest; M/M romance; F/F romance

[uoblgbtq]

🌈 LGBTQ+ History in Europe 🌈

Hello everyone! For History Month we want to bring LGBTQ+ History from all over the world to you. Fourth week: Europe- today for history, Friday for people.

Captionage differences in relationships, slide 4 for homophobia, slide 6 for Nazi persecution and slide 9 for HIV/AIDS

Resources in the last slide and here for the full thing:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jmwMYQpAb42GO93CXB4V3a5wlzr_pYwryFGF7bIY-Q8/edit

Image 1:

[ID: Baby blue background, with a white outline. There is white circle patterns on the bottom right and top left corners. At the center there are a few blobs of two blue tones and a yellow one. Over this there is a dark green silhouette of the European continent, with a circle in the progressive gay flag around it.

Top right corner has the LGBTQ+ Association logo and the guild of students one. Bottom left has dark blue text that reads “Europe - History”. Underneath, in white smaller text, it says “LGBTQ+ History Month 2021”. End ID]

Image 2:

[ID: Baby blue background, with white circle patterns on the bottom right and top left corners and a yellow circle halfway down the right side.

At the center there is a white square, with dark blue text which reads “LGBTQ+ History is often missing from our textbooks, and this year we decided to try and bring you people, events and traditions from all over the world - Tuesdays for broad history, Fridays for amazing people throughout history. For this fourth week, we are focusing on Europe.”

At the top there is small text that reads: "Next Slide CW age differences in relationships"

The top right corner has the LGBTQ+ Association logo and the guild of students one. Bottom left has small text in two lines, the first in dark blue, the second in white. It reads “Europe - History. LGBTQ+ History Month 2021”. End ID]

Image 3:

[ID: Baby blue background, with white circle patterns on the bottom right and top left corners and a yellow circle halfway down the right side.

At the center there is a white square, with dark blue text which reads “Ancient Greece”, and smaller text that reads “Relationships between soldiers were common in some Greek militaries, notably the Sacred Band of Thebes, a troop in the Theban army in the 4th century BC. 

Relationships between men and teenagers were also common - these relationships were a form of mentorship, but were also romantic and sexual. While we would not condone this sort of age difference today, this was considered normal at the time, based on different ideas of sexual agency and maturity.

There are more limited records about relationships between women. Some artwork depicts lesbian relationships. Most famously, Sappho's poems depict love for other women.”

At the top there is small text that reads: "Next Slide CW homophobia"

The top right corner has the LGBTQ+ Association logo and the guild of students one. Bottom left has small text in two lines, the first in dark blue, the second in white. It reads “Europe - History. LGBTQ+ History Month 2021”. End ID]

Image 4:

[ID: Baby blue background, with white circle patterns on the bottom right and top left corners and a yellow circle halfway down the right side.

At the center there is a white square, with dark blue text which reads “Al-Andalus”, and smaller text that reads “Al-Andalus was an area of the Iberian peninsula spanning most of modern-day Portugal and Spain ruled by the Muslim Umayyad Caliphate from the 8th century to the 15th century. During this period, unlike areas in the Middle East, attitudes towards homosexuality were more relaxed - though it was never officially condoned, relationships between men were commonplace. Some of the rulers of al-Andalus were known to keep male partners. These relationships are shown in some of the poetry and art of the time.”

The top right corner has the LGBTQ+ Association logo and the guild of students one. Bottom left has small text in two lines, the first in dark blue, the second in white. It reads “Europe - History. LGBTQ+ History Month 2021”. End ID]

Image 5:

[ID: Baby blue background, with white circle patterns on the bottom right and top left corners and a yellow circle halfway down the right side.

At the center there is a white square, with dark blue text which reads “Molly Houses”, and smaller text that reads “In the 18th and 19th century, homosexuality was a capital offence in Britain. Taverns and inns known as "molly houses" became spaces where gay and bisexual people could freely socialise and meet others. It was common for some at the molly houses to cross dress, and some adopted what could be described today as transgender identities. Unfortunately, due to their secret nature much of what is known about molly houses, and those that frequented them, comes from court proceedings after these places were raided by police.”

At the top there is small text that reads: "Next Slide CW Nazi persecution"

The top right corner has the LGBTQ+ Association logo and the guild of students one. Bottom left has small text in two lines, the first in dark blue, the second in white. It reads “Europe - History. LGBTQ+ History Month 2021”. End ID]

Image 6:

[ID: Baby blue background, with white circle patterns on the bottom right and top left corners and a yellow circle halfway down the right side.

At the center there is a white square, with dark blue text which reads “Institut für Sexualwissenschaft”, and smaller text that reads “Magnus Hirschfeld opened the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft (sometimes translated as "Institute for Sex Research") in 1919. The institute had may functions, being a research library and archive, but also offered various medical and psychological services, including endocrinological and surgical services for transgender patients. The first modern gender confirmation surgeries were performed at the institute. Additionally, many trans people were employed there. In 1933, the Institute was targeted by the Nazi government, and its archives destroyed.”

The top right corner has the LGBTQ+ Association logo and the guild of students one. Bottom left has small text in two lines, the first in dark blue, the second in white. It reads “Europe - History. LGBTQ+ History Month 2021”. End ID]

Image 7:

[ID: Baby blue background, with white circle patterns on the bottom right and top left corners and a yellow circle halfway down the right side.

At the center there is a white square, with dark blue text which reads “Early LGBTQ+ Organisations”, and smaller text that reads “- 1897: The Scientific-Humanitarian Committee is founded by Magnus Hirschfeld, the first recorded organisation to advocate for LGBTQ+ rights. It regularly published the "Yearbook for Intermediate Sexual Types", the first scientific journal about "sexual variants"

- 1946: The Shakespeareclub was founded in Amsterdam - the group was renamed to COC (Centre for Culture and Recreation) in 1949. COC is among the oldest surviving LGBTQ+ organisations, and worked to equalize the age of consent, and provide support groups for LGBT people in the Netherlands. ”

The top right corner has the LGBTQ+ Association logo and the guild of students one. Bottom left has small text in two lines, the first in dark blue, the second in white. It reads “Europe - History. LGBTQ+ History Month 2021”. End ID]

Image 8:

[ID: Baby blue background, with white circle patterns on the bottom right and top left corners and a yellow circle halfway down the right side.

At the center there is a white square, with dark blue text which reads “- Denmark was the first country in to introduce civil unions for same sex couples (1989). While this was not true marriage equality, this gave these couples legal recognition, affording them similar legal protections to heterosexual couples. Many other countries chose to adopt this model for same sex couples. 

- The Netherlands were the first country to introduce marriage equality (2001).

- Sweden was the first country to allow transgender people to change the gender marker on official identification documents (1972), although there were a number of requirements for this including being sterilized. Sweden also provided free transition healthcare to trans people.”

At the top there is small text that reads: "Next Slide CW HIV/AIDS"

The top right corner has the LGBTQ+ Association logo and the guild of students one. Bottom left has small text in two lines, the first in dark blue, the second in white. It reads “Europe - History. LGBTQ+ History Month 2021”. End ID]

Image 9:

[ID: Baby blue background, with white circle patterns on the bottom right and top left corners and a yellow circle halfway down the right side.

At the center there is a white square, with dark blue text which reads “ACT UP-Paris”, and smaller text that reads “ACT UP-Paris, founded in 1989 as a branch of the international AIDS activist organisation ACT UP, sought to publicise the AIDS epidemic and put pressure on politicians to improve care for all AIDS patients. One example of their actions was covering the obelisk on the Concorde with a giant pink condom in 1992.

They also campaigned for marketing of the treatments for HIV and information about methods of prevention, as well as the rights of minority groups in France.”

The top right corner has the LGBTQ+ Association logo and the guild of students one. Bottom left has small text in two lines, the first in dark blue, the second in white. It reads “Europe - History. LGBTQ+ History Month 2021”. End ID]

Image 10:

[ID: Baby blue background, with white circle patterns on the bottom right and top left corners and a yellow circle halfway down the right side.

At the center there is a white square, with dark blue text which reads “Some further resources”, and smaller text that reads “Al-Andalus:

http://queerstoryfiles.blogspot.com/2013/09/hispanic-africa.html

Molly Houses (Use of Q word):

https://eastendwomensmuseum.org/blog/miss-muffs-molly-house-in-whitechapel

https://historicengland.org.uk/research/inclusive-heritage/lgbtq-heritage-project/meeting-and-socialising/cross-dressing-and-queer-socialising/

Scientific-Humanitarian Committee/Institut für Sexualwissenschaft (CW: Nazi persecution):

https://worldqueerstory.org/2018/06/08/scientific-humanitarian-committee/https://archive.jewishcurrents.org/may-14-magnus-hirschfeld-vs-the-nazis/

COC Nederland: 

https://www.coc.nl/engels

https://international.coc.nl/

ACT UP-Paris:

https://www.actupparis.org/ (French Site)”

The top right corner has the LGBTQ+ Association logo and the guild of students one. Bottom left has small text in two lines, the first in dark blue, the second in white. It reads “Europe - History. LGBTQ+ History Month 2021”. End ID]

[arcticdementor]

The Trump administration is set to launch a global campaign to decriminalize homosexuality in dozens of nations where anti-gay laws are still on the books, NBC News reported Monday. While on its surface, the move looks like an atypically benevolent decision by the Trump administration, the details of the campaign belie a different story. Rather than actually being about helping queer people around the world, the campaign looks more like another instance of the right using queer people as a pawn to amass power and enact its own agenda.

…

The truth is, this is part of an old colonialist handbook. In her essay, “Can the Subaltern Speak?” postcolonial theorist Gayatri Spivak coined the term “White men saving brown women from brown men” to describe the racist, paternalistic process by which colonizing powers would decry the way men in power treated oppressed groups, like women, to justify attacking them. Spivak was referencing the British colonial agenda in India. But Grennell’s attack might be a case of white men trying to save brown gay men from brown straight men, to the same end.

There are several signs that this decision is denoted in a colonial sense of paternalism rather than any true altruism. According to the report, the decriminalization campaign is set to begin in Berlin where LGBTQ+ activists from across Europe will meet to hatch a plan that is “mostly concentrated in the Middle East, Africa, and the Caribbean.”

That sentence alone should set off several alarm bells. First of all, the Middle East, Africa, and the Caribbean are huge geopolitical entities. Attitudes toward gay people differ greatly among countries and regions within those entities and attempting to gather a room of European activists on how to deal with queer issues in those regions is the definition of paternalism.

[scripturehomosexuality]

An excerpt from a recent post: How “Homosexuality” Is Defined Outside the U.S.

The content of this post originally came from the one entitled “The Concept of Homosexuality: Its History and Evolution”, which was posted on March 21st, 2017.

In modern discussion on the concept of “homosexuality”, the following fact is usually not mentioned - that “homosexuality” carries different meanings in different parts of the world. There is one in the United States (which is the home of activism over “homosexuality”), another in the larger Western world, and yet another in the developing world. These three definitions are all used simultaneously within their respective regions, and deeply influence their discussions on homosexuality.

Because media (particularly in the United States) can not or will not mention this disparity, these regions may form erroneous impressions of each other because of how they respond to “homosexuality”. When hearing how developing nations oppose the LGBT-identified community, certain people in the U.S. may think the developing world is being needlessly intolerant. Meanwhile, those in developing nations may view U.S. residents with bewilderment, wondering how they could let “homosexuality” thrive in their country. It’s not realized that, even when using the same name, these two parties are referring to two different things.

However, since the LGBT movement thrives on confusion and contradiction, this disorder has worked well for them. Because of their erroneous impression of the developing world, U.S. natives might prove more sympathetic toward the LGBT leadership, and give them all kinds of support for international activism. In giving that support, they often don’t realize what exactly they’re backing. 

Thus, it is hoped that this post will give U.S. readers a more nuanced view of the world around them, and help them understand the rationale and meaning behind opposition toward “homosexuality” abroad. It’s also hoped that, for readers in the developing world, this will help them understand the viewpoint of U.S. readers, and how their own actions are perceived there. Thus, with all parties fully understanding each other, a productive global debate can happen on same-sex activity without confusion.

As you read, keep in mind how “homosexuality” is defined in the United States: to any and all same-sex activity (penetrative or not), where anal play reigns supreme, and gender inversion as an important but secondary characteristic. You will soon see that other regions define it very differently.

~~~~~~

Homosexuality in the Rest of the West

Europe was the birthplace for the concept; as such, in the early 20th century, activism for “homosexuals” was much more active than in America. However, as far as the concept was concerned, opinion on what it meant was uniform. That is, “homosexuality” was strongly rooted in gender identity, and didn’t refer to general same-sex activity. Thus, the conditions that existed in early 20th century America were the same in Europe. For example, same-sex activity was frequent in British boarding schools through most of the 20th century, as it also was in the British navy. This reflected the rest of Europe, where same-sex activity (with the exception of anal sex) wasn’t necessarily “homosexual”.

The Nazis might have been the first to rigidly define “homosexuality” in terms of sexual behavior. Their laws included even mutual masturbation. However, it seems that these laws were used to target the “homosexual” identified community, and not people in general. This is not meant to say that the community somehow deserved that; it merely emphasizes how Europe viewed same-sex behavior.

After the devastation of Europe in WWII, the center of homosexuality switched to the United States, as that country emerged as a new superpower. As such, Red Scare attitudes towards “homosexuality” were also replicated in other parts of the West. In 1952, the British government began purging their government offices of “homosexual” identified employees, and began a campaign against “homosexuality”. Similar happenings also occurred in Canada, and reflected events in other parts of Europe. However, it seems these laws were mainly used against the “homosexual” identified community, and not against most others. As such, at the time, their concept of homosexuality resembled the definition used in 1940s America, where “homosexuals” were those with gender inversion and men primarily into men (and to a smaller extent, women primarily into women). General same-sex activity (with the exception of anal sex) still didn’t count as “homosexuality”.

The fortunes of the larger West really diverged from those of the U.S. during the 1980s. The AIDS hysteria that ravaged America, along with the factors that caused it, weren’t replicated in elsewhere in the West. Thus, the strong stigmatization towards homoeroticism that emerged in the U.S. never took place there. As a result, the definition of homosexuality used in the larger Western world has remained fairly static.

This is why speedos and briefs are still very acceptable in Europe, why everyday nudity was never stigmatized (even in media), and why same-sex friends are still relatively free to have physical touch. The homoeroticism inherent in such was never stigmatized.

If anything, that stigmatization might be happening now, because of the growth of LGBT activism in Europe and the rest of the West.

Homosexuality in the Developing World

In this subheading, the term “developing world” will include “newly industrialized countries” like Brazil, Latvia, China, Mexico, and the Philippines. While they have considerable industrial capacity, their cultures have much more in common with those of other developing countries.

In the developing world, we must first acknowledge that for the most part, virtually all countries in the developing world had cultures of same-sex activity throughout their existence. This becomes clear in Puerto Rico, the Philippines, the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, and other lands (all links NSFW). Such conclusions have support from the work of Pierre J. Tremblay, who described traditional non-penetrative same-sex cultures in South Asia.

However, they did not categorize these cultures as “homosexuality”. This was not a denial that such acts were happening. Rather, this was because such activity was considered unremarkable, because it was so common and widespread, and thus didn’t need to be categorized. The contact was also usually non-penetrative, and thus not considered full “sex”. Furthermore, general same-sex activity was not considered gender inversion. Only anal sex was considered a cross-gender “sex” act, and as such it came with the association of drag and gender-atypical behavior. Thus, anal sex was the only act that was consistently condemned in those countries. From what can be seen, drag and gender-atypical behavior by themselves didn’t merit derision or violence, or not nearly at the level seen today.

As such, these countries went mostly untouched by the tumult over “homosexuality” in the West, even when most of them were colonial holdings. There are several reasons why. Firstly, up until the 1950s, the definition of “homosexuality” was much different, and the traditional same-sex cultures of the developing world didn’t run afoul of it, so there was no need for intervention. They remained unaffected even when the United States became the center of “homosexuality” and a global superpower, and after its Red Scare assigned a menacing quality to “homosexuality”. This is probably due to the Cold War, where the power struggle with the Soviet Union kept the U.S. too busy to influence sexual dealings. Furthermore, even with the changing definition of “homosexuality”, it was still strongly rooted in gender identity until the 1980s, so traditional same-sex cultures still didn’t attract much attention. Also, “gay” activism was under siege in the United States, so they didn’t have enough energy to expand into new territories.

Because of this, the developing world only became affected by “homosexuality” during the late 1980s and 1990s. This was because a new wave of “gay” activism was gaining strength, as they were dealing with the onslaught of the AIDS epidemic. This was also because the Soviet Union collapsed, which left the United States the sole dominant superpower of the world. As such, this allowed unfettered export and increased influence of U.S. media, which contained the new concept of “homosexuality”.

Thus, in the developing world, “homosexuality” usually refers to the LGBT version of same-sex activity that is tied to drag and gender-atypical behavior, and especially to its practice of male-male anal sex. The word is not used to describe a country’s traditional same-sex culture. As such, “homosexuality” is viewed as a phenomenon imported by the West, particularly from the United States. This perception is not off the mark. Indeed, the concept of “homosexuality” known in these countries - where general same-sex activity is a gender-atypical condition that pivots on anal sex - is very much a creation of the United States, and is not native to these countries. Furthermore, the LGBT rights organizations in those countries often take their cues from, and are heavily influenced by, their counterparts in the United States. Indeed, the organization of global LGBT activism is very much a top-down operation, where the U.S. is indisputably the head.

Thus, this is a point that readers in the United States must understand. The conflicts with the LGBT movement in the developing world usually are not sexual conflicts; cultures of same-sex activities already exist in those countries, and are still active to an extent. Instead, they are very much cultural conflicts, where one sexual culture (the LGBT version of same-sex activity) is aggressively trying to eradicate and supplant those traditional same-sex cultures. As such, it views those traditional cultures as inferior and not even true “homosexuality”, and views itself as superior. If this sounds like imperialism, that’s exactly what it is, and the mindset it’s being done in. In its campaign of expansions, the LGBT movement pays little heed to the cultures already existing in those countries, and in fact views them as illegitimate and irrelevant. As one can guess, as it was during the days of colonialism, such an approach does not sit well with local peoples.

Thus, it is easier to understand the blowback against the LGBT movement in those countries. The embrace of anal sex by the LGBT movement is singularly offensive to the people of those countries, who grew up in its traditional same-sex culture. As such, the opposition against “homosexuality” often focuses on anal sex in lieu of other acts, such as during this protest in Latvia. Furthermore, the association made between same-sex behavior, drag and gender-atypical behavior causes further offense, as the LGBT version of same-sex activity seeks to muddle gender lines that are considered sacred. Furthermore, the local people are very aware that the LGBT sexual culture is far less healthy than their traditional one. The aggressive and expansionist nature of local LGBT activism, influenced by counterparts in the U.S., does not make such activity any more tolerable. Thus, because of all these factors, these local populations feel their culture is under attack by an dangerous imperialist force, whose ultimate goal is to supplant the traditional culture with their own detrimental one. As a result, when people feel that they and their culture are under siege, resistance is inevitable.

As it turns out, these are points not stated to the U.S. population, even to the average LGBT-identified person in the U.S. In fact, there seems to be active resistance to do so. This is why U.S. articles on same-sex activity in developing countries often sound contradictory, because its writers will not or cannot acknowledge that traditional cultures of same-sex activity already exist there.

For example, when one finishes the article “The Kingdom in the Closet” (a May 2007 article from The Atlantic in Boston), one gets the impression that Saudi Arabia has a schizophrenic love-hate relationship with same-sex eroticism. However, when a U.S. reader realizes the aforementioned points, they will more understand what’s obscured in the article: while Saudi Arabia is fine with general same-sex eroticism (because it’s part of their culture), they find “homosexuality” (the LGBT version of same-sex activity that pivots on anal sex) highly disagreeable.

As such, if a U.S. reader knew those points, they might also ask questions that apparently the LGBT movement wishes not to answer. It would beg this question: if cultures of same-sex activity already exist in those countries, what exactly is the LGBT movement pushing? Indeed, it’s worth asking if the LGBT movement would get as much support in the U.S. if these facts were general knowledge.

However, I want to make this clear: In no way am I justifying violence against LGBT-identified people, as it might happen in those countries. I’m merely explaining why people in those countries react to “homosexuality” as they do, and how the current approach is causing its own problems.

Furthermore, this perception - that LGBT activism is another form of aggressive U.S. imperialism - was compounded upon by the actions of the Obama administration. In 2011, a country’s treatment of the local LGBT rights organizations, and their demands, became a factor in receiving U.S. foreign aid. Thus, for the first time, the LGBT version of same-sex activity became an important part of U.S. foreign policy. This however solidified the idea that “homosexuality” was a foreign invasion, and especially a tool of the United States to unduly and aggressively influence other cultures. The announcement effectively made the LGBT movement, and their version of same-sex activity, a protectorate of Washington and its considerable influence.

Indeed, it’s worth considering if these actions are helping to stoke anti-U.S. sentiment around the world. This was the case in Africa, where the 2011 announcement increased antagonism towards both LGBT-identified people and the U.S. This might be especially so in the Middle East, which has been ravaged by years of war waged by the U.S. As painful as the physical destruction is, the growth of the LGBT movement pours salt in the wounds, as the local people see it as another campaign of destruction sponsored by the U.S. Thus, whether sexually, culturally, or otherwise, they may feel like the U.S. is trying to destroy them totally, from the inside-out.

In fairness, most individuals who are LGBT-identified are very sincere, and don't intend to be antagonists. However, they might participate in the LGBT movement because that’s all they know, as far as same-sex activity is concerned. As such, when alternatives to the LGBT movement make themselves known, their support of the LGBT movement may decrease significantly.

This has been the case in Brazil, where the “g0y” movement has had considerable success. In 2014, according to the g0y movement, a number of Brazilian television broadcasts discussed their approach to same-sex activity. It seems the broadcasts were very popular, and it’s not hard to see why. The “g0y” philosophy on same-sex activity basically matches that of traditional cultures, except that it gave such a name. As such, It had a significant impact on the Sao Paulo Pride Parade, which is usually called the largest in the world.

Up until 2013, parade organizers and military police kept separate attendance records, with that of the parade organizers being higher. In 2013, the parade organizers estimated that 5,000,000 attended that year’s parade, while the military police maintained a more modest figure of 220,000. However, something odd happened in 2014, after the “g0y” television broadcasts aired. That year, parade organizers declined giving an attendance figure, saying "that they didn’t keep that type of count". They deferred to the count of the military police, which pegged the figure at 100,000. Assuming that the parade organizers’ previous figures were accurate, it would support the “g0y” movement’s claim that attendance at that parade dropped 95% between 2013 and 2014.

It’s apparent that the g0y movement has continued to have an effect. For the latest parade in 2016, military police said that at its peak, the attendance was 190,000, which was their lowest estimate since 2001. Meanwhile, the parade organizers pegged it at 3,000,000, which was their lowest estimate since 2006. By either count, there is no question that parade attendance has decreased significantly, or at the very least appears very wobbly. Apparently, the LGBT movement is trying hard to hide that from the English-speaking world, which blocks this information from spreading worldwide since English is an international language. Hard attendance figures mainly appeared in Portuguese-language news sources. Meanwhile, figures for parades after 2013 are suspiciously absent from the parade’s English Wikipedia page, and don’t appear in most English-language news sources, especially those in the United States.

There are many things that can be learned from Brazil’s example. Firstly, the Sao Paulo Pride Parade is no longer the largest in the world by any count, and anyone who says otherwise (like Pink News) is lying. From can be seen, this parade may actually be in decline. Secondly, it shows that once alternatives become known, support for the LGBT version of same-sex activity will likely drop in other places. This is evidently something that the LGBT movement is nervous about. It assures that future developments will be very interesting. Thirdly, from what can be seen, we certainly won’t hear about any such decline from the LGBT movement. It’s simply not in their best interest to do so.

From reading all this, one may conclude that I don’t support the actions of LGBT leadership aboard. In making that conclusion, they are absolutely correct. However, I stress that my nonsupport doesn’t stem from hatred of LGBT-identified people, nor does it stem from a desire to suppress same-sex activity.

To the contrary, I don’t support it because I don’t see the LGBT philosophy of same-sex activity as helpful or beneficial. This blog is full of examples why their version doesn’t work, and the amount of havoc it’s causing. It’s bad enough that this philosophy has seized the most powerful country in the world. It’s unconscionable that the LGBT leadership is actively exporting it abroad. It’s upsetting to know that they are trying to induce the same problems in other countries.

Furthermore, the involvement of the U.S. government raises some deep questions. It’s interesting that, when Washington was at best neutral to “homosexuality” within its borders, it now aids the imperialist export of a presently ruinous sexual culture. Again, this blog is chock full of evidence that the LGBT sexual culture causes serious societal dysfunction, as it has in the United States. Such has been acknowledged by sources inside the “gay” community, and is quite visible to those outside of it. Indeed, “gay” culture is in need of serious change (and in my opinion abandonment), yet Washington wants to help export it in its currently defective and dysfunctional form. As such, it does make this writer wonder if Washington’s backing has some self-serving motives, as another way to destabilize other societies for its own interests. While admittedly this might appear to be a stretch, it’s not like these actions are entirely unprecedented.

In any case, if the LGBT leadership is interested in exporting their culture of same-sex activity, they should at least give due respect to the traditional cultures that preceded them. In this way, people in other countries could fairly evaluate which culture they prefer, and can critique them in an open forum. Instead, the new culture is trying to erase the old culture, as it presumptuously feels that it is legitimate while the older one isn't. In fact, it often doesn't recognize the older culture's existence, unless it can use aspects of the older culture's history to somehow justify itself. Meanwhile, anyone who takes issue with the LGBT same-sex culture is defamed as “homophobic”, even if certain points of disagreement have objective merit. It's imperialism in one of the worst ways imaginable.

However, the dysfunctions of the new culture are clearly visible. To be sure, people of other nations can see the health problems it can cause, and the psychological issues it can impose. This is what, in my opinion, is helping to fuel opposition to it overseas.

Thus, as the situation of Brazil repeats itself elsewhere, I'm looking forward to the rise of alternative philosophies, and the corresponding fall of the LGBT philosophy. I think it will allow everyone to think about same-sex activity in a more advantageous way.

My only hope is that the Religious Right doesn't use that momentum for its own ends. However, that's why the content of the Scriptural Commentaries is so valuable, to act as a stabilizing force in the paradigm shift.

[End of excerpt]

---------

Given that this is being published during Pride Month, this writer is making a special request of his readers.

This Sunday, the 2017 Sao Paulo Pride Parade will be taking place. I urge all readers worldwide to keep a close eye on the attendance figures for that parade.

For accurate information, look at news sources out of Brazil. Run whatever articles you find through a translator if you have to. For its part, this blog will publish the attendance figures of the parade the following day.

Remember that this is billed as the world’s largest Pride parade. If those figures follow trends stated above, it will give loud, unambiguous commentary on the standing of LGBT sexual philosophy on the world scene, and the status of other sexual cultures.

[theconservativebrief]

If you’d like yet another example that Trump Derangement Syndrome is real, look no further than Out Magazine, who slammed the Trump White House for their initiative to combat homophobia worldwide. Yes, a gay magazine is troubled that the U.S. and other western nations are condemning nations with egregious laws criminalizing homosexuality. Why? Well, it’s racist, or something. Brittany Hughes of MRCTV has more:

Out Magazine, a pro-LGBT news publication that doubles as a gay advocacy platform, actually published a piece Wednesday claiming that it’s – stay with me here – “racist” for the Trump administration to pressure nations like Iran to decriminalize homosexuality.

I’ll restate, for the record: an openly pro-gay magazine is calling Donald Trump racist for trying to get regimes that jail and kill people for being gay to stop jailing and killing people for being gay.

Again, you can’t make this stuff up, so I’ll let Out’s Matthew Rodriguez do the talking for me. In his article, entitled, “Trump’s Plan to Decriminalize Homosexuality Is an Old Racist Tactic,” Rodriguez states…

[…]

The initiative Rodriguez is referring to is a newly announced plan spearheaded by U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell (who’s openly gay) to gather Western world leaders in denouncing dozens of nations including Iran for laws that criminalize or even carry the death penalty for being gay. By pressing the issue, experts have noted that Trump runs the risk of straining otherwise positive U.S. relations with certain nations like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates.

What a time to be alive. We have gay publications saying its racist to combat laws that criminalize homosexuality and actors so upset during the Trump era that they stage fake hate crimes in an effort to boost their careers, banking solely on the atmosphere created by the liberal media to give them credibility. Fortunately, law enforcement still relies on evidence and fact gathering, which is why Jussie Smollett, the actor on the series “Empire,” was indicted for filing a false police report. He alleged on January 29, that two white men attacked him, poured bleach on him, and put rope around his neck. Yeah, it was actually two Nigerian brothers who he knew who committed the fake assault, which he allegedly paid. He also reportedly held rehearsals for how the attack should look. And I don’t think we’ve reached peak Trump insanity yet from the Left.

But back to this article that should’ve been published in The Onion, Rodriguez writes:

There are several signs that this decision is denoted in a colonial sense of paternalism rather than any true altruism. According to the report, the decriminalization campaign is set to begin in Berlin where LGBTQ+ activists from across Europe will meet to hatch a plan that is “mostly concentrated in the Middle East, Africa, and the Caribbean.”

That sentence alone should set off several alarm bells. First of all, the Middle East, Africa, and the Caribbean are huge geopolitical entities. Attitudes toward gay people differ greatly among countries and regions within those entities and attempting to gather a room of European activists on how to deal with queer issues in those regions is the definition of paternalism.

I have never understood the LGBT community’s trying to protect radical Islam. It’s never going to happen…ever. Iran and the rest of the radical Islamic would rather throw gay people off of buildings. You don’t see the Christian Right doing any of that. That’s not to say the latter has bats**t crazy ideas, they do—but it’s nowhere near the level of insanity that’s exhibited by radical Muslims. Not all crazy is equal. And to be against this initiative because of Trump “is the definition” of idiocy. If Obama were behind this, there would be a world-rallying cry to pressure Iran. We all know this. Heck, liberals hated George W. Bush, but saw the value in his program to combat AIDS in Africa that earned him praise from Obama and other Democrats for saving millions of lives. Yet, this is the Left today. All we can do is sit, watch, and let them self-destruct because there is no way liberal women, the gay community, and Muslims can form a long-lasting political coalition. The latter cannot allow it.

Recommended Ocasio-Cortez Equates Trump’s Border Wall with the Murderous Berlin Wall Humberto Fontova Iran just public hanged men accused of homosexuality, and OUT’s view on this is it’s racist to condemn this because…Trump.

via The Conservative Brief

[themusingstranger]

On Buchanan’s Love for Putin

So Pat Buchanan just wrote another of his ethno-nationalism, Christian-strongman-fancying essays, and as I read the diatribe paragraph by paragraph, I could not help but formulate counter-arguments in my own mind. The article asks, Is Putin the Preeminent Statesman of Our Time?, and goes on to marshal the propositions recently put forth by one Chris Caldwell, that combine into an answer in the affirmative. Buchanan can of course make a good deal of sense and coherence when highlighting some of the inconsistencies of U.S. foreign policy and their tendencies towards war, but there is this other side of him that just loves European ethno-nationalists on the old continent and the general mood that animates others like them in the broader West and Russia. This makes his bi-weekly columns a hit or a miss.

As already stated, Buchanan enlists Caldwell in the defense of both men’s preferred answer to the aforementioned query, and so the former commences with some lines from the latter:

If we were to use traditional measures for understanding leaders, which involve the defense of borders and national flourishing, Putin would count as the preeminent statesman of our time. 

On the world stage, who could vie with him?

Well, this might be a case of a response in need of a question. Both men already had this idea in mind and went about devising a riddle by which to reveal it. Except of course, if those are the determined conditions to first be met, Xi Jinping could just as easily qualify as a right-enough answer, and perhaps even more so. After all, China is flourishing far better economically, politically and culturally than Putin’s Russia. The Chinese economy is the second largest in the world. Internationally, where Russia is under sanctions and Western leaders are avoiding Putin as though he were plague rat, Xi makes the rounds from Buckingham Palace to state dinners in Washington. Slowly, the most successful of national film industries, Hollywood, is bending towards and tailoring itself to meet Chinese tastes. China is also an exporter of its culture, without seemingly losing any of the conditions highlighted by Caldwell’s question. Putin’s rather unique strong point here is his ubiquity and refusal to vanish from the global stage, as even in undemocratic, Communist China, presidents have fixed terms that are strictly adhered to.

Buchanan, citing Caldwell, goes on to offer:

When Putin took power in the winter of 1999-2000, his country was defenseless. It was bankrupt. It was being carved up by its new kleptocratic elites, in collusion with its old imperial rivals, the Americans. Putin changed that.

In the first decade of this century, he did what Kemal Ataturk had done in Turkey in the 1920s. Out of a crumbling empire, he resurrected a national-state, and gave it coherence and purpose. He disciplined his country’s plutocrats. He restored its military strength. And he refused, with ever blunter rhetoric, to accept for Russia a subservient role in an American-run world system drawn up by foreign politicians and business leaders. His voters credit him with having saved his country. 

This is all fair enough, though again, elements listed are not unique to Putin.Still, Putin did restore stability to Russia after the tumultuous years under Boris Yeltsin. The fall of communism might have been a good and profound event for many of those under its brutal regime, and an occurrence not entirely without romance. But it was also a deeply traumatic historical moment for some, especially ethnic Russians spread across what would become new nations that emerged or re-ermerged from the Soviet Union. The writings of Svetlana Alexievich capture the subsequent fears, anxieties and other complicated emotions of ordinary people caught in the vortex of an extraordinary happening. Any restoration of order amid such chaos is a great achievement, and Putin attained that much.

But he has not been clothed in virtue in all of this, and has overseen another kind of restoration during the same time. The only plutocrats he disciplined were those who would not bend the knee; or those who were friends, then began discussing the advantages of democracy, and thus ran afoul of their president. Putin has himself become a plutocrat, and some in the business of calculating personal wealth even have him down as the richest man in the world. This hardly makes him any different from the banana republic autocrat who empties his nation’s treasury before slipping away to Europe or the Middle East. And such men also made a point of improving their military readiness, usually to deploy it against their own people. 

According to Buchanan:

Putin’s approval rating, after 17 years in power, exceeds that of any rival Western leader. But while his impressive strides toward making Russia great again explain why he is revered at home and in the Russian diaspora, what explains Putin’s appeal in the West, despite a press that is every bit as savage as President Trump’s?

Answer: Putin stands against the Western progressive vision of what mankind’s future ought to be. Years ago, he aligned himself with traditionalists, nationalists and populists of the West, and against what they had come to despise in their own decadent civilization. 

What they abhorred, Putin abhorred. He is a God-and-country Russian patriot. He rejects the New World Order established at the Cold War’s end by the United States. Putin puts Russia first.

And in defying the Americans he speaks for those millions of Europeans who wish to restore their national identities and recapture their lost sovereignty from the supranational European Union. Putin also stands against the progressive moral relativism of a Western elite that has cut its Christian roots to embrace secularism and hedonism.

Last things first - I can’t remember the last time I came across the word hedonism in a political essay that wasn’t written by a man whose bones had already dried up. Buchanan appears to be missing the point that Putin’s approval rating is unrivaled by any other Western leader precisely because he controls the mediums of news and information. The last political satire program in Russia was closed a long time ago, when the comedians there decided Putin was ripe for a joke. Sure, many Russians like the various moves he has made, recall the old days, appreciate the stability and generally support his policies at home and abroad. But the state’s monopoly over the means of public discourse and communication cannot be divorced from the regnant image of Putin. If one lived in a country where the leader had nothing but good press, then it is clear how the average citizen would have a positive impression of that leader. It is all they know. And of course, even in the midst of state propaganda, dissent and protests live on.

Buchanan goes on to wonder why Putin is popular in some Western circles, before giving an answer. The Russian president is a traditionalist, conservative, nationalist and god-fearing Christian, Buchanan offers. It is true that some in the United States and Western and Central Europe have developed affinity towards Putin, but I wonder if their conservatism and traditionalism includes human rights abuses. Does their Christian faith make room for ordering the assassinations of investigative journalists and democratic reformers? That Putin has admirers in the West is not proof of some virtue he possesses. In the West reside admirers of all kinds of ghoulish sorts and trends. In the 1970s, were there not the Red Brigade deranged extremists who adored Marxism and political violence? Theirs was a movement that spanned some years. Was that a sign of communist virtue? In America and Western Europe, those who admire Putin are almost always the grotesque reactionaries who despise immigrants and principles of secularism and pluralism. These are not the decent and philanthropic among us, I dare say. Putin’s Orthodox Christianity declares gays and lesbians to be unacknowledged by the state and without some fundamental rights. I am glad the American republic takes no such stance.

I suppose Buchanan figured he could not get away without a mention of Putin’s autocratic ways and crimes, and so he lists a few, while highlighting the lack of any difference between him and some of the United States’ own allies in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, who have also demonstrated an intolerance for dissent, democracy and human rights. This is all well and good, for I also hold criticisms of the United States in its embrace of such tyrants, but of course, Buchanan is not penning an ode to them. He is writing one to Putin; and while criticizing other despots.   

Much of the hostility toward Putin stems from the fact that he not only defies the West, when standing up for Russia’s interests, he often succeeds in his defiance and goes unpunished and unrepentant.

He not only remains popular in his own country, but has admirers in nations whose political establishments are implacably hostile to him.

In December, one poll found 37 percent of all Republicans had a favorable view of the Russian leader, but only 17 percent were positive on President Barack Obama.

There is another reason Putin is viewed favorably. Millions of ethnonationalists who wish to see their nations secede from the EU see him as an ally. While Putin has openly welcomed many of these movements, America’s elite do not take even a neutral stance.

17% of Republicans having positive notions of Barack Obama where 37% have such feelings towards Putin says more about the partisan rot among Republicans than it does about either Obama or Putin. The rise in Putin’s popularity among Republicans is of course a product of their own support for Donald Trump, for such an attitude did not exist in their minds during the presidency of George W. Bush. The ethno-nationalists who cheer on Putin’s machinations to break apart the European Union might very well have a point in not wanting to live under a parliament and a bureaucracy in faraway Brussels, but they make a grave mistake if they do not recognize that Putin does not care one bit about the well-being of their countries. Putin’s instincts and his wish are to dominate them. What has inspired and animated him through the course of his presidency (indeed, presidencies) is to have the world rearranged in such a way that Russia does the exerting on Europe and even America, and not the other way around. So, if these ethno-nationalists are true patriots and lovers of their land, they would not want Putin’s hopes for said land to turn real. But of course, we can with good reason suspect why they cheer him on. The declared Christian identity, the whiffs of xenophobia, the contempt for Islam, are shared values.  

Buchanan closes by once more recruiting Caldwell, who wrote, “Putin has become a symbol of national sovereignty in its battle with globalism.” Here, it is important to remember that Putin holds the collapse of the Soviet Union as the greatest geo-strategic tragedy of the 20th Century. What was the Soviet Union if not an empire? After all, it did hold and control other nations and peoples. Was that also not a union like the European Union is one? At least there are no E.U. military forces guarding Spain and putting down protesters by force. The Soviet Union was also an instance of trans-nationalism. It was its own form of globalism. Were there not democrats who wished to secede from its iron grip? Empires are of course globalist in nature and by definition, and Putin has long mourned and continues to mourn the death of one. He is not opposed to globalism. He is opposed to a globalism in which he is not the leading figure. So Buchanan and his ilk who hold warm notions about Putin kid and delude themselves into such demented thinking.