The pride of the homosexuals

Pride is, of course, the distinguishing quality of the homosexual.  Indeed, the very word “pride” has become synonymous with homosexuality.  When I was young, “school pride” meant pride in one’s school.  Now “pride events” at any institution exist to celebrate its homosexuals.  It is a remarkable thing to take pride in one’s sexual appetites.  I find it difficult to imagine, even though I’ve never been as ashamed of some of my sexual appetites as I probably ought to be.  And yet pride is what gays say they feel toward their inclination and what friends and relatives say of one who “comes out”.  Nor is the self-exaltation of the homosexual a new thing, as one can see from homosexuality through the ages.  From ancient Greek and modern Afghan pederasts to the Bloomsbury Group, homosexuals have seen their relations as more sublime and spiritual than those of the breeding masses.  Given how openly heterosexuality is ordered to biological continuation, how could they not despise it as such with gnostic scorn?

Heterosexuality, the drive to biological continuation,  extends outwards in time, in piety toward ancestors, and in space, to love of country.  Not coincidentally, impiety and cosmopolitanism strike one as “gay” attitudes, however unjust the association may be in some cases.   It was Bloomsbury Group member E. M. Forster who famously wrote  “If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country.”

[The group’s leader, Lytton Stachey, wrote to John Meynard Keynes in 1906, in the most remarkably precise and accurate prediction in social history, “It’s madness for us to dream of making dowagers understand that feelings are good, when we say in the same breath that the best ones are sodomitical…our time will come about a hundred years hence.”  (Quoted in Paul Johnson’s Modern Times)]

Plato’s Phaedrus is regarded as one of the Western canon’s great meditations on erotic love.  Phaedrus argues to Socrates that a boy should allow himself to be sexually molested by a dirty old man who doesn’t really love him, the better to extract favors. Socrates thinks this blasphemous.  The lust of a filthy old pederast toward a boy is a divine madness, an intimation of transcendent beauty itself.  A pederast who loves will consider his beloved’s true good.  Socrates then suggests  that it would be better for the pederast not to actually indulge his depraved lust (although the gods won’t punish him if he does), thus earning Plato the reputation as a killjoy akin to the Christians.  The point remains:  the boast of the heterosexual is that what he does is natural; the boast of the homosexual is that what he does is divine.

The homosexual identifies himself with his sexual desires in a way that heterosexuals do not.  He calls it “who I am”.  Heterosexuals experience lust as something distinct from our essence.  This is, I think, why “sin” and “sexual sin” are so tied together in the minds of so many heterosexuals.  Greed, dishonesty, pride, and anger seem to exist in a seamless continuum with our official, presumed-legitimate life plans, and so they feel more intrinsic to ourselves.  For example, my duties to my family, the appeal of my hobbies, and the natural desire for comfort and security, all encourage me to be at least somewhat greedy.  Sexual desire, by contrast–even for someone I love, even for someone I plan to impregnate–stands on its own as the desire for an immediate pleasure, and so it does feel more like something foreign imposing itself upon my will.  Men and women who succumb to their sexual urges are called “weak” as if an outside force overpowers them, which is something we do not say of the power-hungry or vengeful.

Pride and coordination are the keys to power and status.  Homosexuals form powerful cliques in many organizations.  I have heard that girls in some schools are ashamed to admit to being attracted only to boys, the designation “straight” now so firmly associated with that of dullard.

I’ve stumbled through life in various degrees of embarrassment and have never known pride.  We Catholics are taught that pride is a sin and that we are to cultivate the contrary virtue of humility.  Heterosexuality is indeed the humble disposition.  Its ecstasy is not an escape from nature into some supranatural love but an escape into nature, out of the contingencies of one’s individual selves and into the eternal mystery of the archetypal male and female principles, of their duality and creative union.

C. S. Lewis interprets humility moderately, not as putting oneself down, but simply as ceasing to think about oneself and worry about one’s status and accomplishments.  In fact, even this is more difficult than it may sound.  Perhaps you genuinely don’t crave renown and glory.  Would it bother you at all not to have the respect of your co-workers and neighbors, indeed to be actively despised by them?  And not only you, but also your children, your grandchildren, and all your co-religionists, with no hope of social advancement.  Can you give up even the hope of thinking well of yourself or of God thinking well of you?  Can you abandon even the hope of a vindication in heaven, but be content that those who despise your people on Earth will continue to do so from their place of social advantage for all eternity?

(As I’ve said elsewhere, I think the idea of shaking up the social status hierarchy–“the last shall be first”–has historically been one of the main appeals of the idea of heaven.  Alas, today’s social hierarchy is based on ostentatiously virtuous sentiments, and so it is natural to think that our obnoxiously holy social elite will maintain their place in any afterlife.)

This seems foreign to human nature as I know it.  See how people will sacrifice their lives and their children’s lives rather than suffer the reproach of their fellows.  To disregard status is to break from the communal mind.  Scipio had to be physically removed from the solar system to learn to see beyond the renown of men.  This is why I have thought it important, if Catholicism is to survive, for us to create social contexts, at least among ourselves, where our group is high-status and we can take pride in our heritage, someplace free from the poison of reformers and progressives.  Then again, Catholics have already endured without complaint more affronts to their dignity (at the hands of reformers, Elder Brothers, many of our own clergy, etc) than I had thought possible. Nevertheless, Catholics are deserting the Church, abandoning their people–my tribe–at around 10% per decade, largely because they have internalized the anti-Catholicism both outside and inside the Church, and they want to be part of a group they can take pride and satisfaction in.  If it really is possible for the Church to engineer a humble people, one content with permanent pariah status, that really could be the key to long-term survival.  Indeed, one could say that the whole post-Vatican II experience of Catholicism–the stripping of the liturgy, groveling to the Jews, praising and apologizing to our most implacable enemies, the guilty-until-proven innocent procedures on sexual abuse, demon worship in the Vatican itself–constitutes a sort of school for teaching a people to live without dignity.

18 thoughts on “The pride of the homosexuals

  1. I realise it was aside to your main argument, but I think it is likely that the real Socrates was a very different kind of person from the repellant individual presented in some of Plato’s later dialogues. He seems, indeed, to have been an extremely religious man – little interested in philosophy.

    There do seem to be *some* Roman Catholics who express the legitimate kind of pride; for instance, this magazine that I sometimes read exudes a Chestertonian optimism and Bellocian robustness.

    http://staustinreview.org

  2. Pingback: The pride of the homosexuals | Reaction Times

  3. Very much to the point, Bonald.

    On my campus, posters with the slogan “Spread Pride” are constantly tacked to the many public message boards. The slogan is, first, pornographic, even though no images accompany it; it is, second, epidemiological, and in a threatening way; and it is, third, boastful and narcissistic.

    Slightly off-topic — I confess that I was extremely skeptical of “school pride” in my high-school and college years.

    • I was also a wet blanket when it came to school pride, but I now think it is a healthy sentiment. Many who refuse it are either snobs who feel superior to the school, or wretches who cannot respect an institution that accepts them as a member. I’m still a wet blanket when it comes to this sort of thing, but I now try to keep it to myself. Age has generally relieved me of the illusion that the world would be improved by more people like me.

      • More people like me would be too much competition! I wouldn’t know what to do in order to act like myself…

        Weirdly enough, the most memorable of my high school teachers, the one who provoked me into more learning than any other, was a snobbish homosexual who, on later investigation, turned out to be a serial liar. But he was not lying when he brought his portable stereo to the classroom and asked us to listen quietly to Mahler’s First Symphony or Strauss’s Heldenleben; nor when he assigned the Gilgamesh epic and Homer’s Odyssey. Quite a number of my classmates — ones with whom I am still in communication — share this judgment.

        My half-brother from my father’s first marriage, Phillip, was extravagantly homosexual. He died a murder victim, by stabbing, in some kind of drug-addled homosexual quarrel.

  4. A social group without pride is a social group without a future. And by pride I mean healthy chauvinism and contempt for adjacent groups. Adults may remain in a group out of habit or nostalgia, but the rising generation will not stick to self-proclaimed losers. Healthy chauvinism and contempt does not mean homicidal chauvinism and contempt, but it does mean a culture that represents adjacent groups as distinctly inferior. They are dirty, ignorant, uncouth, dishonest, etc. Their religion especially is absurd. All of this must be backed up by a credible threat of ostracism for defectors.

    Christian humility was, until recently, a personal virtue. Like any virtue, it could be perverted into a hypocritical show of “humbler than thou,” but it generally acted as a pro-social brake on individual egotism. It was not the collective humility we now see in Church leaders who tell us that Christianity is no better than any other religion, indeed is in many salient respects worse.

    Young people are not attracted to lost causes. That is a mature taste that comes late in life, and mostly to losers. Young people have not lost the hope that they will be winners, so they are attracted to winning teams. And the future belongs to the teams that attract young people.

    Many years ago, my wife and I were in Madison, Wisconsin, walking down a street with our small children on a quiet Sunday morning. Then down the street came a Gay Pride Parade. It was as if a St Patrick’s Day parade had been planned to showcase every negative stereotype of the Irish–everyone in the parade swilling whisky from a bottle in short breaks from a general street brawl. In the GPP, the floats conveyed young men in silk underwear and weird fetish costumes, who simulated buggery, and sadism, and some other things I didn’t understand. The whole things was meant to be shocking.

    I have known reticent homosexuals, but I have known more who are aggressive and offensive in the manner of that parade. This aggression requires a high level of pride, but is more essentially an expression of hostility, perhaps even hate. That’s why many things that are labeled Gay Pride could with equal accuracy be labeled Gay Hate.

    I once lived with a gay roommate in a heavily gay neighborhood, and so naturally got to know many of his friends. My impression was that they were unusually vain. Not all of them, and not to an extent that they were “off the charts.” But they were a touchy bunch who liked compliments and took offense more quickly than most.

    • My other brother from my father’s first marriage, Dan, was entirely heterosexual (married for fifty years before his death to the mother of his two children), entirely brilliant (the youngest-ever vice president of the aerospace division of North American Aviation, or Rocketdyne), and a protege of von Braun. Dan quit the Space Program after Apollo because he could see that the Space Shuttle was a mission to nowhere. He moved to Foster City on the Monterrey Peninsula and went into computers and digital technology. He prospered. Dan was a Republican, and in some ways, a conservative, but Libertarian doctrines attracted him. Perhaps because he acclimated himself culturally to the “norms” of San Francisco Bay culture, he took an interest in the Gay Pride Parade, which I once attended in his company on the claim that it was “a sight to see.” My reaction was that it was one of the most repulsive things that I had ever seen. It struck me as an expression (as you say) of aggression and hatred, not merely to sexual norms, but to all norms.

      Recently in Oswego, there was a Gay Pride exhibition in one of the miniparks along the river. The City of Oswego supports a Children’s Museum, the supervisors of which arranged that toddlers visiting the Museum on that day should go to the minipark to hobnob with cross-dressers and (no doubt) pedophiles. God help us.

      • The advent of such events as “gay pride” parades and “gay days” has caused me to move away from my former “spur of the moment” or largely impulsive approach to planning family outings. There was a lot of freedom associated with doing so in the past, which I miss. But having been caught with my pants down (so to speak) on numerous occasions in these matters finally taught me the vital life lesson to never go on a family outing to virtually anywhere without first planning around these degenerate events.

        The organizers of the San Francisco parade and festivities refer to themselves as the “Folsom Street Degenerates” with pride (of the nefarious kind) for a reason. And while some of the “pride” events in my own State tend to be mild by comparison (at least for the time being), my kids have all been visibly exposed to degenerate homosexual behavior at e.g. the Oklahoma City Zoo and nearby Science Museum, etc., due in large part to my neglecting to make sure our attendance was scheduled around these events. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me, right?

        Of course these days one can hardly go shopping in a mall or at Wal-Mart in a city of merely 25,000 residents without being exposed to homosexual degeneracy of some sort, so there ya go. There is a lot of “pride” of the sort Bonald discusses, I have also noticed, in the morbidly obese welfare queen community as well. This is why my wife and I avoid grocery shopping around the 1st of every month like the plague. The vulgarity and crassness of these people literally knows no bounds and simply cannot be shamed.

  5. I once ran – Lord, have mercy – for college student government assuring my constituency I would instill pride in our university. It was vapid then, but I shudder to think what “instilling” pride would entail these days.

    Bonald,

    I tend to think that “pride” is a particular slogan of the Evil One enticing homosexuals because their conscience – at least early on – is seared and because still, even at this late hour, by no means is that perversion normal. “Pride” has an insidious way of pushing people further along towards a new, safe mean on the scale running from “dare not speak” to marching down Main Street clothed in glitter. I assume – I say that intentionally; I could be wrong – you mean to characterize impenitent homosexuals with pride as their distinguishing mark? The Catechism itself says – or used to IIRC – that the psychological motivations of homosexuality are largely unknown, so my own assumptions could be wrong.

    • Wood,

      Leftists, which includes homosexuals, are a notably self-righteous and intolerant bunch. My suspicion is that they are uniquely free of guilt. When they consider the sinner against whom they are organizing a twitter or disemployment campaign, they never think “There but for the grace of God go I.”

      While pride is the homosexual’s most distinctive psychological feature, I don’t claim that pride causes homosexuality or that a heterosexual cannot experience pride. (On the other hand, while a heterosexual might express pride in his sexual conquests, I’ve never known one to express pride in his sexual appetites.)

      I don’t think the Catechism’s statement is meant to restrict our speculations. There is no reason the psychological origins of homosexuality must always be unknown. If I were a psychologist, there’s no reason I couldn’t put out and test hypotheses.

  6. Speaking as an outsider to your Community of Faith, looking in, what appears to me is that so many Christians conflate pride with arrogance; certainly this is the behavior of the ostentatious, blatant homo-erotics, determined to shake their aberration in “normal” people’s faces. On the other hand, this “Pagan” construes pride as an attitude of keeping one’s ego firmly within one’s own person, quietly taking no shame in going about one’s lawful business.

    • The word pride covers at least three distinct emotions, just as the word love covers at least four. As you say, the spiritual pride that Christianity condemns is really a kind of arrogance. There is nothing wrong with taking pride in a job well done, and there is nothing wrong with what the Pagans called spirit, so long as it is tempered by justice. In the Christian system, sinful pride is ultimately a denial of dependency on God, Jesus, other people, etc.

  7. Pingback: Cantandum in Ezkhaton 12/29/19 | Liberae Sunt Nostrae Cogitatiores

  8. Men and women who succumb to their sexual urges are called “weak” as if an outside force overpowers them, which is something we do not say of the power-hungry or vengeful.

    This is a side point in what is a very good post, but the quoted statement seems wrong to me. The distinction being made here, in which Wrath gets separate treatment from Lust and (I assume) Gluttony seems worldly and modern. The wrathful is not weak because he strikes outwards, inflicting suffering on others, and thus appears strong. The gluttonous or lustful “only harms himself” and is thus contemptible, small, weak.

    Just think about all those Hollywood revenge fantasy movies in which the main character has “had enough” and becomes a mindless, wrathful, killing machine. Are those men strong? Surely not. It is only through the abuse of authorial authority that these men appear as anything other than weaklings.

    Consider a rare, honest portrayal of such a revenge story. When Brad Pitt succumbs to Wrath in Se7en, is he strong? Is he weak?

    • DrBill,

      My only point here was to explain why giving in to lust is often understood as a weakness, while giving in to other temptations is not usually spoken of in this way (even though, at the moral and spiritual level, they all display weaknesses of will). Succumbing to wrath will often present itself to one’s consciousness as continuous with one’s concern for justice or with one’s legitimate concern for one’s own interests.

  9. Catholics punish those with low status as much as anyone else. They simply refuse to award high status to good people.

    Engineering a people without pride is hard, but possible. (And quite likely to happen anyway once we all turn into peasants.) Engineering a people who do not respond to punishment, that’s impossible.

    I will also have to check out Phaedrus. It’s interesting that it takes such a hard-nosed approach to relationships, nothing romantic or idealistic about it. If relationships are about power, favors, and emotional dependence, then maybe homosexual love is purer than heterosexual love. But then again, dalrock has demonstrated at length how perverted the idea of chivalry is, and that idea has probably contaminated everything that we think about love.

    The confucians thought it was shameful to lust over your wife, as did the early christians. Maybe they were right after all.

    • define high status.
      looking at the people with “high status” in the establishment protestant denominations in America, there is a morality problem across the board in the whole of Christendom. not just catholicism. protestants just hide it better with prosperity gospel and all that, which is partly based on geography and genes anyway. thus disney and netflix run unabated. it does seems they engineered a people who only respond to pride and encouragement, as prosperity gospel eventually did away with all sane punishments (thus only conservative protestants are insane fundamentalists). catholicism in various stages (but specially since vatican 2) has sadly fallen in the dialectical trap and tries to be the leftwing version of this empty humanist paradigm; we are pride and encouragement but “with preferential option for the poor”, ergo self-abasing but still materialist, communism-lite, and stripping away punishments too. at least medieval peasantry had some ancient traditional rights, today the secular-prot world is whatever the corpgovs let you have, as long as the hamster spins the piezoelectric wheel. on the other hand, if a fundamentalist revivalist attitude is needed, it’s probably now – it just needs to be deeper than just saying Merry Christmas again and painting John 3:16 on your cheeks.

      and yeah, you and many other pagans confuse the meanings of the term love, same old. homo eros may indeed be freer of any responsability, and that is why it barely ever lasts. the genitive power of hetero eros keeps humanity going, and together enough so far. obviously naturalism has tried to creep in through chivalry and courtly love and fornication and many other perversions. does it mean even desire over wife is sinful? i have my doubts; indeed, St. Augustine and St. Jerome had such an “avoid all lust” attitude, which ironically dalrock and other prots mock as counterproductive and going away from the Ecclesiastes verse about the doe and buck going at it and giving into their natural desires – if only they remembered that animals only breed in limited seasons, and remembered how the Catholic calendar precisely shows the better times to perform the act, they would understand…

      these “thinkers” also tend to hold Catholics accountable for chivalry and courtly love through the excesses of some of the more Marian believers, and because they think Catholic sexual harshness was bound to be rejected eventually by Dante, Chaucer, Luther… they may have a point; St. Augustine said that lust for normal relations with wives was more a venial fault that was really only one if it conduced to other lusts. and lest we forget, Northern Africans and Romans had wilder practices, so perhaps the Church needed this astringent thought at this time and place (obviously not to the degree of interrupting conceptions or pregnancies once the act was done). later among Germanic believers, birthrates needed to be pulled up instead of down, due to their practices of burying living wives with their husbands (Vikings) or burning women on trees for pagan gods, their allowance of divorce; and some limited practices of polygamy, incest, contranatura (although this was more an Eastern Mediterranean vice), anticonception, plus their earlier warring attitudes that ransacked towns, etc. so in the end, i don’t know if these pagan themes eventually turned on their head, and the northern European world remained low birthrate and dry in art but increasingly libertine in personal morality, through prosperity achieved by earlier Puritan fundamentalism ironically, and perhaps begetting even bigger libertine trends, one now supported by prosperity (hookers were leftists because they were poor, now they download all the secular/Prot establishment’s apps so they get paid). meanwhile the Catholic world, again falling to the dumb dialectic, went high population and libertine in art but dry in morals, ergo the renaissance>humanism(twin of protestantism)>enlightenment>materialism/communism/modernism pipeline appeared there, becoming a frontier area of the secular/Prot west, and thus decaying as we see in Spain’s population plummeting and the burning of Notre Dame in the oldest daughter of the Church. and we have the world of today, where Pope Francis and the SBC have the same morals…

      the Confucians probably seem drier and more practical by comparison in their antilust approach. perhaps purposefully so, as China always had more demographic issues and considered its people more expendable; unnecessarily bloodily so though. it could be argued that the communists brought some Christian/Western order and values to the failed imperial Confucian society, but that also had to keep some earlier severeness to keep power. thus people over there are now going back to Confucius while trying to fit Mao Zedong Thought and capitalism with Chinese characteristics into it, with morally neutral economic growth and potentially dangerous results; such as the CRISPR genetic modifications and people jumping off Apple factories. here’s hoping St. Francis Xavier’s descendants in their embattled Christian communities can tame the increasingly powerful, but not necessarily evil, Chinese ascendance.

Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.