The Reason of Things

By Jimmie Moglia for the Saker Blog

The mythical average citizen probably believes that the universe is under the perpetual superintendence of uncontrollable forces. And that the hallucinating social changes currently occurring – and of which he is sometimes the victim – are akin to a force of nature.

Meaning that the slings and arrows of outrageous prevarication, of crime, of political choices and of plans hatched behind his back, are but the outcome of an incumbent and inevitable destiny.

Much as Julius Caesar insisted on attending the Forum in Rome, on March 15, notwithstanding his wife Cornelia’ strong objections and warnings:

“Horses did neigh, and dying men did groan,

And ghosts did shriek and squeal about the streets.

O Caesar! these things are beyond all use,

And I do fear them.”

But Caesar believed in the inevitability of destiny. Or maybe he thought that Cornelia believed the disinformation and fake news of the time. However, out of politeness or for the sake of domestic peace, he didn’t say so.

“What can be avoided whose end is purposed by the mighty gods?” – he replied. “Yet Caesar shall go forth; for these predictions are to the world in general as to Caesar.” And we know what happened.

Many of us – I think – equally assume that predictions “are to the world in general” and not to ourselves, or feel cut away from the roots of hope. Nor can we see how it may be feasible to take arms against a sea of current troubles, and by opposing end them.

As an example, the events connected with the special operation in Ukraine show how difficult and bloody it has been for justice to triumph over unadulterated evil, even if, at the moment, the operation is still extant.

In the circumstances, a palliative to dispel the gloom of melancholy and the feeling of helplessness, may consist in attempting to unravel the mingled yarn of causes and effects, so as to better understand the dramatic changes in the current Zeitgeist.

For “There is occasions and causes why and wherefore of all things” as says Fluellen, a clever soldier in the army of Shakespeare’s King Henry V. Fluellen’s Welsh accent makes his statements automatically amusing, independently of content. An effect similar – so I am told – to a citizen of the Republic of Dagestan when he speaks Russian.

A harmless yet unexpected event triggered the long train of thoughts above. Which, in turn, inspired an attempt at a short history of the developments of one distinct phenomenon of our times. Considering that history is concerned with the relation between the unique and the general – and that a historian can no more separate them, or give precedence to one over the other, than you can separate fact and interpretation.

In my spaced-out expeditions to a supermarket to resupply my modest (vegetarian) pantry, I drive whenever possible through secondary roads. This enables me to avoid the feverish races as who will be first at the next traffic light and, occasionally, to partake of the feeling of the various neighborhoods.

One neighborhood, in the instance, shows the decent and respectable habitations of middle fortune; perhaps too low for great designs, and too high for penury and distress.

During one such drive in one such neighborhood, a group of youngsters of both sexes (in the now antique sense) darted towards my car, waving a large rainbow flag and a sign with the script LGBTAI. I roughly estimated the ages of the demonstrators to be between 15-18, possibly even younger. An inconsequential event that nevertheless, in my opinion, is evidence of the capillary infiltration of an imposed ideology.

Still, belonging as I do to the UAUA, namely the Union Against the Use of Acronyms, I refuse to overload my synapses by memorizing the meaning of acronyms, other than knowing broadly, when unavoidable, what they are about. Even so the two letters ‘AI’, added to the popular and now ubiquitous original, prompted me to search for their meaning and related history.

In so doing I stumbled on a page of the John Hopkins University titled “Diversity and inclusion – LGBTQ life.” Where I found that: “LGBTQIAA is an Abbreviation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning, Intersex, Asexual and Ally. An umbrella term that is used to refer to the community as a whole. Often shortened to LGBT or LGBTQ, but not as a means to exclude other identities.”

On further reading, I found that there are more ‘categories’ than I could possibly have thought of. I will mention some – merely to show what is perhaps obvious, the scope and spread of the associated ideology. Therefore we find, for example,

Genderfluid: A person who shifts in gender identity and/or gender expression. May be a gender identity itself. Refers to the fluidity of identity.

Genderism: The belief that there are, and should be, only two genders and that one’s gender is inevitably tied to one’s assigned sex. From which I can safely conclude that I am a ‘genderist’ beyond redemption.

The opposite of ‘Genderism’ is “Pansexualism.” Pansexual is a person who is emotionally, romantically, sexually, affectionately, or relationally attracted to people regardless of their gender identity or biological sex. Use of the term often signals a repudiation of the concept of binary sexes (a concept implied by the term ‘bisexual’).

Transition: “An individualized process by which transsexual and transgender people move from living as one gender to living as another gender. There are three general aspects to transitioning: social (e.g. name, pronouns), medical (e.g. hormones, surgery), and legal (e.g. gender marker and name change). Each path through transition is unique to the individual.” Which prompts the question, could a transitionist be social and not medical, or medical and not legal, or medical and not social? etc. But let that go.

Same-Gender Loving (SGL): “How some African Americans prefer to describe their sexual orientation, seeing “gay” and “lesbian” as primarily white terms. “Same-sex loving” is also in use.” Incidentally, since long I must use the more solemn ‘joyful’ when describing a pleasant occasion that in earlier times I would have called ‘gay’ – to avoid the perceivable mild embarrassment or perplexity of the audience.

Third Gender: A term for those who belong to a gender category not recognized in the Western binary. For example, Native American two-spirit people, hijra in India, kathoeys in Thailand, and travestis in Brazil. Recognizes that people’s identities are specific to their culture.

Two-Spirit: Contemporary term chosen to describe certain Native American and Canadian First Nation people who identify with a third gender, implying a masculine and a feminine spirit in one body. Replaces the problematic term berdache.

And finally I could even find myself identified in the list. Cisgender: A term for individuals whose gender identity generally matches with that assigned for their physical sex. In other words, a person who does not identify as transgender. Derived from the Latin root “cis,” meaning “on the same side.”

Apart from the mild levity implied in the preceding, short dictionary extract, the extraordinariness of the ‘rainbow’ phenomenon at large is, in my view, an example of the fabrication of consensus among helpless nations.

Often the pretense of ‘consensus’ is another refuge of the scoundrel, along with patriotism. It is a way to prevent debate by maintaining that an issue has already been resolved. For example, every time we hear about “consensus among the scientists,” it is advisable to watch our wallet. Clearly, the honest work of science has little to do with ‘consensus’. For consensus is but a tool of politics.

In the topic instance, consensus has been a long process of fabrication without debate, other than chastising those who denounced the fabrication. While the general qualifications for a champion of controversy are no other than a hardened front and a strong voice.

In America the seeds of the current ‘consensus’ were planted in the 1960s and are a by-product of the notorious Frankfurt School of Cultural Marxism. An ideology that, as we know, advocated the rejection of all established authorities down to the root level, starting with the family.

Cultural Marxism, through the magic of verbal transformations became ‘Liberation Philosophy.’ And, together with the Civil Right Movement, the Black Power Movement, the Anti-War movement, the Feminist movement, Liberation Philosophy equally became an anchor for the homophile movement. That is, gay and lesbian Americans managed to incorporate their struggle within a wider scope – fighting racism, sexism, western imperialism, family values and traditional mores regarding drugs and sexuality.

Such ‘incorporation’ reshaped the movement. Now expressing reservations or criticism about LGBTism could be equated to racism, sexism, imperialism, fascism, repression etc. And through the silent engine of history, criticism has changed into advocacy, and the young demonstrators I encountered were, possibly, one small but undisputable representation and demonstration of the referred-to development.

Any social change of historic and momentous importance requires a symbol. The French Revolution found it in the capture of the (allegedly) mostly empty Bastille prison on Jul 14, 1989, the American independence on the homonymous Declaration of American Independence of Jul 4, 1786, etc.

For the LGBT movement the momentous event occurred in July 1969, when the police raided a gay/transgender bar, known as the ‘Stonewall Inn’ in Greenwich Village, Manhattan. Where and when, for the first time, a large group of LGBT Americans rioted for three days against police harassment and brutality.

A year before an artist and drag-queen in San Francisco, Gilbert Baker, had designed the rainbow flag, prompted by the first openly-gay man elected to public office in California, Harvey Milk.

History is like an enormous jig-saw puzzle with a lot of missing parts – a reflection that equally applies to the previous summary of the LBGT movement or ideology. In the same spirit, ignorance is the first requisite of a historian – ignorance that simplifies, clarifies, selects and omits.

To these considerations I will add one more, obvious but necessary. In no way I am ‘homophobic’. But it is reasonable or necessary to object when, under the cover and color of non-discrimination, LBGTism becomes yet another tool of the haters of Western civilization. “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” (Ephesians 6:11)

For example, some readers may remember that in the 1980s, there was an essentially hostile takeover of the Disney Movie Company in Hollywood by individuals belonging to a particular ethnic group, thus essentially completing their monopoly of the movie industry.

For the doubtful I will quote the blurb from the inside cover of the interesting book, “An Empire of Their Own,” “From noted film critic Neal Gabler comes a provocative, original, and richly entertaining biography of the Jewish immigrants who founded and came to dominate the American film industry.”

And we could add ‘dominate the American film industry except Disney” until 1984 when an essentially hostile takeover displaced the Disney family. The raiders were/was ABC , owned and controlled by the arch-Zionist Eisner, himself a member of the chosen people.

During a recent company conference titled “Reimagine Tomorrow Conversation Series” Disney executives pledged to mobilize the entire corporation in service of the “LGBTQIA+ community. Executives recruited the company’s most intersectional employees, including a “black, queer, and trans person,” a “bi-romantic asexual,” and “the mother of one transgender child and one pansexual child.” Who announced some ambitious new initiatives—seeking to change everything, from gender pronouns at the company’s theme parks, to the sexual orientation of background characters in the company’s films and/or cartoons.

For example, one executive states, “We do not have any queer lead characters in our stories.“ Whereupon Disney’s corporate president Karey Burke counters by saying that “we have many, LGBTQIA characters in our stories.” But now Ms. Burke wants a minimum of 50 percent of characters to be LGBTQIA and racial minorities. As for lead LGBTQ characters, she is supportive and concludes with, “We will not be going back.”

Another participant, Disney’s Diversity and Inclusion manager Vivian Ware says, “Last Summer we removed all gender greetings and relationships (when addressing our guests). We no longer say, “Ladies and Gentlemen, boys and girls. We provided training for all our cast members in relationship to that, so that now they know that it is “Hello everyone” and “Hello friends.” We are in the process of changing our recorded messages, so, for examples when we brought back fireworks to our Magic Kingdom, we also no longer say “Ladies and Gentlemen, boys and girls.” We say “Dreamers of all ages.” This has opened up the creativity for our cast members to look at that. We have our cast members working with merchandize, working with food and beverages, working with all our guest stations. We want to create that kind of environment with our guests.”

I will live to the fertile imagination of the readers how to LGBTize foods and beverages.

Then, in a statement where the audio is hard to comprehend, she says that a young guest, just because she looks like a female may not want to be addressed as a ‘princess.’ And the Disney manager concludes, “So let us really think how we want to engage with our guests in a meaningful and inclusive way that makes it magical and memorable for everyone.”

No one would object to addressing callers and customers with the alternatives suggested by the ‘diversity and inclusion manager’. But the recent high-level meeting at Disney’s leads to an unavoidable conclusion. Namely, the intent and the plan to surreptitiously, not to say secretly, change fundamentally how children think about sexuality, by delivering a narrative derived from the new ideology of gender.

In fact another Disney executive producer said that she had been inserting what she called a “not-so-secret-agenda” into children’s programming, beginning with the two-year olds.

I could continue with more examples and quotations, but more than enough is too much. Still, the demonstrating youngsters I met with while driving prove – I think – that individuals are caught up in the workings of a mechanism that forces them into its own pattern. A mechanism that includes, in the instance, the literal annihilation of the historic and legendary Disney messages and symbols for the young – the famous ideas and ideals that shaped a positive image of America worldwide. Including a healthy family life, love and respect for nature, and, much like Aesop, employing animals to teach human values by the means of art.

For a picture, whether still or animated is an artistic fact in itself, and art is the parent of aesthetics. In turn, aesthetics is essentially a synonym of beauty, and beauty delights us in a special and important way, because our love of beauty is disinterested. Which is one reason why both Aesop’s fable and their rendition in Walt Disney’s classics make them linger in the mind. They appeal to emotions with the charm of direct impression, flashing through regions that a child’s intellect cannot reach. But later (perhaps), those remembered cartoons may be consciously recognized as the carriers of a simple but positive message.

The converse is equally true. Under the guise of entertainment, which is the hope of its consumers, the producers instill whatever unhealthy or destructive message they may wish to inculcate at the moment.

That the Zionists have conquered the last Hollywood bastion and made it a lighting house for wokism, cancel culture and the new world order, should not be a surprise. The American film industry has been for a long time a top-down imposition of official (cultural-Marxist) ideology masquerading as representative of popular taste.

The whole issue is related and intertwined with the Zionist assiduous and successful action to remove any restraint on immigration (legal and illegal), pushed in 1965 by Sen. Gary Hart, a hyper-Zionist. In fact, as Prof. MacDonald pointed out in his book, “The Culture of Critique”, the enactment of the 1965 immigration law did not occur in a vacuum and cannot be understood apart from the wider context of the rise of a new Jewish elite with influence in a wide range of areas. A trend – I may add – extended and continued by the current president of the United States, who said and I quote, “There is, I mean, I used to say, when I was a kid, when I was a young senator, if I were a Jew I would be a Zionist, I am a Zionist, you don’t need to be a Jew to be a Zionist.”

Considering that 18 out of the 20 billionaires that fund the presidential (and other) campaigns belong to the chosen people, a question may arise. Trump, for example, was supported, among others, by billionaire Jewish political donor Sheldon Adelson. And his daughter even converted to Judaism to marry J. Kushner. Who, Kushner, as we know, became practically an advisor and foreign minister.

During his administration Trump, among other pro-Israel things, sent humanitarian missiles to Syria, canceled the Iranian nuclear agreement and regaled the illegally-occupied Syrian Golan Heights to the Zionist state. Why then the Zionist hatred to the point of barring a US president from accessing the most popular social media channels, equally owned and controlled by you know who?

Possibly it is because Trump failed to deliver on immigration, by attempting to control it. Uncontrolled immigration is equally a tool for the essential destruction of Western Greek-Christian tradition, by making Americans of ethnic European origin a minority and by ‘canceling’ their cultural heritage. Trump also failed on LGTBism by not, for example, enthusiastically endorsing same-sex marriages, incidentally prohibited in Israel.

Finally and as we know, there will always be some who disagree with historical judgments or even with physical evidence, with facts. Because the meaning of a fact, indeed its very existence, in a psychological sense, depends on the context in which it appears and on the conclusions that may be drawn by it.

Furthermore, a boldly asserted lie or half truth, especially if proclaimed and drummed-in by the monopolistic media, has the same effect on many minds as if it were true, since few have the willingness, the stamina or even the time to discriminate between facts and fiction.

Besides, a fact can acquire reality by becoming related to other facts, through some kind of assumption, hypothesis and generalization. And often one pays attention to facts that fit into some general idea of things one already has. We say, “the facts speak by themselves,” but this is what they (often) don’t do.

Actually, as evident, for example, in the treatment of the special military operation in Ukraine, the corporate media deduces facts from its assumption. Hence the orgy of encouraging platitudes about Ukrainian military feats, and why Ukraine is ‘winning’.

In conclusion, to the disagreers I say three things. That history is a continuous process of interaction between the historian and his facts, an unending dialog between the present and the past. That all history is the history of thought, as well as the re-enactment in the historian’s mind of the thought whose history he is studying. And, finally, that any effort at finding historical causes for historical effects is but a glimpse of the mighty movement of the stream of human affairs.

Therefore feel free to disagree. For, as per Mark Twain, “In all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane”.