Originally Posted by spence
Does it point out a "blueprint which has been followed" or simply present a very prescient and well thought out theory?
I prefer the blueprint theory. Which was very well thought out. You, as usual, seem to be "not sure." I guess that makes me a "conservative" stick in the mud, and you a "liberal" acceptor of all relative possibilities. Which gives you a sort of advantage. I could be wrong. You on the other hand, not having a definitive position, and acknowledging all positions, cannot be "wrong," and, if any of the positions is correct, you are "right." It's a nice ploy to seem better by asking questions rather than making statements. It's also somewhat cowardly. Oh-oh. I made another statement. I should have asked if it was cowardly or simply being very prudent. Or sneaky.
Seriously, if it was "simply . . . a very prescient and well thought out theory" and not an actual blueprint, I'm "not sure" what the difference would be. Isn't a blueprint the working design for carrying out a theory? Didn't the authors of the book intend it as a blueprint for their theory of how to "normalize" homosexual behavior? Uh . . . let me be specific . . . YES. And isn't it amazing how events in history so often occur in line with a "prescient" theory. One can think of Karl Marx, or Locke and Montesquieu. Or how about Saul Alinsky? Amazing how just about all of his rules for radicals seem to be applied for "change." Or, in the case of Kirk's and Madsen's "After the Ball--how events played out. But we are not supposed to make a connection. No--just prescient theory.
Or we could just apply the duck theory--if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
Has is created a "new reality" or perhaps instead simply normalized reality?
You shifted my quote marks. I said new "reality", not "new reality". I was not saying that reality is new. What kind of reality can be new? Oh . . . yeah . . . relative reality always changes depending on perspective . . . that liberal thing . . . reality is perspective . . . a fiction played on the eyes of the beholder. I was implying with the quotes that what was new was not reality, but a new fiction based on relative perspective. A fluctuating amalgam that can be combined into a new form by applying the desired propaganda to current "messaging" within its various modes of dissemination. I know, I know, that's a mouthful, but I don't want to carry this out to book length. Besides, I wanted to see what it felt like to sound like Spence. Fun, actually.
In short, as the authors state, their book is propaganda. It aims, exactly as you put it, to normalize reality. That get's to the heart of the matter. What is truth, and what is propaganda? And what is the purpose of either?
If reality can be normalized to encompass all differences, then we can replace "real" with "normal." Or "Reality" with "normalcy." No need for extra words in an already verbally cluttered and twisted means of communication. It is difficult enough to arrive at useful clarity without adding clutter. The amalgamation of all differences into perceived equal sameness makes it easier to function as a society. And that is certainly the trend of history, at least in the perspective of progressives, statists, collectivists, and supreme normalizers.
Certainly, to achieve that, past discrepancies need to be assimilated into unity. Take, for example, the concept of marriage. Now if one delves into why it was for eons, until recently, something conceived as, defined as, the union of a man and a woman into the relationship of a family, one might find various ethno-religious variations, but always man/woman. Men have always found it easier to relate to other men than to women, and women as well to women, so why have this special, defined relation? So much is obvious for why that definition, that it would be redundant and tiresome to repeat here. The question is why change it now?
Mainwaring, in the Americanthinker article says flat out that gay or lesbian "marriage" is not marriage. He is gay. The beauty is, he recognizes his difference from the "norm" but accepts it without having to change an ancient definition. He doesn't accept or need propaganda to convince us to accept homosexual union. Nor does he need to redefine marriage. He understands the intention of the original definition. And to change it would be to change a pillar of human society in an unnecessary and destructive way--in his terms "to end civilization" as we know it. He also understands that Kirk's and Madsen's propagandistic way is the way of despotism. It is the way to eliminate differences to suit the needs of the despot. It is the way of the statist, the collectivist to "normalize" us into a more manageable herd of not too distinctive servants of the State.
Mainwaring considers himself "normal" on his own terms without having to impose his terms on others, and without having to redefine a fundamental societal norm. He understands the fundamental norm of liberty. That norm does not impose one's will over others who do not wish to participate. And he expects to get the same in kind. In a rational, free society, one in which individuals are free to express basic truths without having to follow party lines, he can express without fear of retribution from other gays, and blacks should be able to express outside the rigid black party line as well without being ostracized, called Uncle Toms, slaves to the white man, or traitors to the cause.
When we are herded by propaganda, and coerced by statist policies, into one mind, one way, and are corrupted into destroying fundamental principles, we have lost liberty, individuality, and significance.
The book was written in a post AIDS environment when the issues were more in your face (i.e. the era Jim is still stuck in). Today for the most part you don't need to be told someone is "here" and "queer" because most people just don't care.
Now that's something to celebrate in a parade.
-spence
|