This Horrid Rainbow: Defining Deviancy Down and Away
Reflections on Gay Marriage, LGTBQ Yuck and the Intellectual and Ideological Failures of Establishment Conservatism
The better part of two decades have gone by since the LGBTQ lobby--hereinafter referred to as LGBTQ Yuck—has campaigned in earnest to legalize and normalize gay marriage, and almost a decade since Obergefell v. Hodges was handed down by the Supreme Court. Throughout this time period, much if not all organized opposition to these and other so-called gay rights issues amounted to little more than religious dogma, mealy-mouthed conservatives cautioning how such things violated their religious beliefs, with very little offered in opposition besides that. Since then, society has been afflicted with far greater deviancy, notably the rise of the transgender menace. This scourge has, among many other things, wreaked havoc on the everyday language we use among many other aspects of everyday life. Most notably, advocates for transgender nuttery have sought to oblige society to customize pronouns and even made up “neo-pronouns”[1] whenever requested or, more often the case, demanded by someone so deluded by the Cult of Troon. This has led to a wide range of changes to our daily lives, such as the London Tube no longer using the salutation “ladies and gentlemen” or Lufthansa no longer using the centuries old “Meine Damen und Herren” when addressing passengers. Add to this of course other, far more troubling matters. Much is made of the mockery made of women’s spaces in bathrooms, women’s sports, women’s prisons, and how this effects women. Of course, transgenderism is truly an affront to both men and women, as transgenders often seek to perpetrate a sexual fraud of the men and women they desire. To suppose they do so on an unrequited basis is a drastic understatement. Whether one beholds a specimen that is obviously and comically that person’s actual sex or one that has hidden or obliterated most signals and tells of their actual, biological sex, the sight of any transgender person takes a psychic toll on the mind every time. Above all, the propagation of transgender idiocy on children and minors is the most outrageous affront to decency seen heretofore in modern times. To their eternal discredit, many conservatives only draw a line at some of these outrages, always in a passive manner, rather than attacking the notion of transgenderism categorically and across the board. “What adults do in their own private lives is none of my concern,” they stupidly parrot as the buffoons they are. Many insist that adults should and do have the right to mutilate and destroy their bodies, limiting opposition to so-called “gender affirming care” only to children and minors.
With this passage of time, all can see that LGBTQ Yuck did not stop at gay marriage and almost certainly had no intention of doing so. Very quickly, the message and goal went from “just let us marry like everyone else” to “bake a cake, bigot,” “make my floral arrangement, bigot,” and “hold my wedding in your home, bigot” Even before these outrageous demands were ceded to or resolved, LGBTQ quickly advocated for transgender lunacy, as this utter mass delirium and madness has beleaguered society at large for some years now. In addition to revealing how insidious the LGBTQ Yuck agenda is, it also reveals how ineffectual mainstream conservatism is, not just in its failure to stopping or prevent gay marriage and the other nefarious changes LGBTQ Yuck has advocated for, but in understanding and then articulating an intellectual, secular set of arguments on why gay marriage needed to be stopped. Note this author uses only the term mainstream conservatism, refusing to bestow on such cretins the moniker of “the right” or “right-wing.”
◊
A key concept that was hardly mentioned as gay marriage was being advanced and later promulgated was beautifully articulated a decade before by Judge Robert Bork in his introduction to Slouching Towards Gomorrha: that key, critical concept is known as Defining Deviancy Down. Discussed by Patrick Moynihan in a seminal paper entitled Defining Deviancy Down, this key concept posits that once formerly deviant behavior becomes normalized and incorporated into the mainstream, even further deviant behavior that was stigmatized more severely or even criminalized becomes less stigmatized and then, if complacency continues, normalized into the mainstream over time, and the process continues ever further. This concept is closely intertwined with a theory known as the Durkheim Constant. Formulated by the French-Jewish thinker Emile Durkheim, the Durkheim Constant posits that each and every civilization or society holds a very similar if not exact quotient of deviant behavior on the edges, even as the mores and norms of different civilizations may vary widely. This is because, as Judge Bork explains Durkheim’s postulation, “there is a limit to the amount of deviant behavior any community can ‘afford to recognize.’” Expressed in another way, the Durkheim Constant posits that while a society of saints and a society of sinners may have vastly different social mores and norms, both societies, from an Amish plantation or puritan settlement to Sodom and Gomorrah, will have roughly if not exactly the same quotient of what that society regards as deviant, borderline behavior. In the puritan settlement it will be a comely Dutch lass in pilgrim’s garb sporting a bit of ankle to a strapping lad she fancies, whereas in the society of sinners, one wonders exactly might still be regarded as deviant as even polyamory is being normalized. Zoophilia? Pedophilia? Necrophilia?
Quite critically, Judge Bork notes that as a society plummets to the outer edges of all depravity, what was once formerly (and properly) regarded as normal and healthy and beneficial to the individual and society at large becomes deviant and marginalized. Since the advent of the civil rights era and particularly since the 1990s, mainstream society has imposed increasing stigma on any person (really any white person,) who opposes miscegenation. Subject to a somewhat softer stigma, individuals who look askance at promiscuous behavior are increasingly becoming an outlier in the mainstream culture as well. Similarly, the left has instigated a campaign to stigmatize and regard as “deviant” parents who do not want to inculcate their children with the doctrines of transgender lunacy, as they have also, with much greater success, stigmatized those who take umbrage with or moral exception to homosexuality. Indeed, loving, Christian couples have been prevented from adopting children in need of a home on these grounds, as parents are losing custody of their children in divorce proceedings because of such “deviant” views.
The ways in which deviancy has been defined down through the decades is revealed by examining life and society in the past. Gay pride events, or for that matter revolting displays of the most extreme sexual exhibitionism imaginable, such as seen in the Fulsom Street Fair or Up Your Alley events in San Francisco would have been unthinkable until very recently. In the past, homosexuals, as a collective, exhibited some modicum of decorum and discretion in order to get along in a society that rightly deters homosexuality. Figures exemplifying a far more genteel sort of gay lifestyle from years past include the likes of Noel Coward or Christopher Hewett. Best known for his title role Mr. Belvedere, a stupid, inane sitcom from the 80s that was far more successful than it ought to have been, largely due to his charisma and acting prowess alone, Hewett was a would-be British thespian who never really found the big break he deserved. and thus never starred in any great cinema for which his acting prowess would have been well suited.
To any worldly person of age, it is immediately apparent that this gentleman was gay, not just from the characters he played, including a flamboyantly gay Broadway director in the original The Producers, but his real life personage as seen in interviews and how he lived his life. But he kept his sexual proclivities to himself and perhaps to his closest friends. More importantly still, he kept such matters out of the public life, holding himself out as a “lifelong bachelor,” even while serving as a deacon in the Catholic Church.
No one harmed him nor did he harm himself by exhibiting what are now seen as antiquated, Victorian notions of propriety, modesty, and discretion. Nor did those opposed to the modern gay agenda wish him or those like him harm or wish him ill will as a person or even prevented him, in a strict, absolute sense, from discretely pursuing whatever relationships he had in his private life. In other words, he always held himself out as a gentleman and respectable member of society, which can rarely be said about most gay activists and exhibitionists of this era.
In illustration of the Durkheim Constant specifically, this English gentleman was, back in the day, on the periphery of mainstream life because of how social controls and social mores of the time stigmatized homosexuality, thus preventing it from being normalized into mainstream life. But now with the floodgates open, we have gone from British would-be thespian Christopher Hewett and “Mad Dogs and Englishman” being the periphery of society to the sort of profane obscenity one sees at many gay pride and other events, a phenomenon curiously kept hush-hush by the mainstream, controlled media.
Combined with the most extreme, disgusting profligacy and sexual exhibition, our current society is further afflicted by freakshows like Bruce “Caitlynn” Jenner, Lucas “Keffals” Roberts, Dylan Mulvaney, or Ellen “Elliot” Page. As these and other grotesque figures of similar ilk continue to be foisted on our public life, the gay mafia, without reservation or equivocation, insists that we must accept as normal and mainstream insane people who think they are the opposite gender from what they fundamentally and indelibly are—insane people who undergo medically supervised genital and other bodily mutilation to entertain their mad delusions. This is why the line has to be held at Christopher Hewett, to hold the line so that such deviant behavior is kept under wraps, kept discrete, and not normalized into everyday life.
The utter inability by the mainstream conservative establishment to articulate this basic sociological principle was nothing other than catastrophic, rendering any opposition to so-called gay marriage intellectually wanting and thus largely unpersuasive. This put established conservative punditry on backward footing from the start and made the success of LGBTQ Yuck on gay marriage and subsequent pet project issues all but a foregone conclusion. Now that deviancy has been so further defined down, there is an increasing awareness of this phenomenon in memes and informal writings on social media by twitter. Many declare that the slippery slope is not a fallacy at all, a true statement, but not many are capable of articulating this principle succinctly or accurately, or even by the name of the phenomenon itself.
◊
Such acute intellectual bankruptcy is further compounded by shameless cowardice that pervades establishment conservatism, whereby they cower and flee from anything and everything that could even be perceived as running afoul of the tenets of the civil rights movement and its successor movements. LGBTQ Yuck insisted from the beginning that gay marriage and other matters for which they have advocated and advocate for still are “civil rights” matters, harkening back to images of the civil rights movements that have been successfully sentimentalized by our politicians, our education system, and above all by Hollywood and other cultural centers of power, And instead of rising to the call and meeting this with stiff resistance that makes no apologies, conservatives largely cowered and ran after only offering a tepid, half-hearted appeal to religious dogma to feign some sort of opposition, without ever mounting bona fide opposition in fact.
Mainstream conservatism never inoculated itself from the powerful appeals to emotion and ad hominem attacks wielded with great effect by our enemies. A brief survey of material proffered by the likes of The Huffington Post, The Young Turks and the like will demonstrate ubiquitous use of terms like “bigots,” “bigoted,” “discrimination,” “civil rights” and the like. For several generations now, the left has been quite adept in conditioning succeeding generations to have a classic, Pavlovian response to these buzzwords. Simply branding those who do not agree with the leftist agenda as bigots, or couching the leftist agenda under the rubric of “civil rights,” as just two examples, is enough to whip idealistic, naïve young people into the sort of frenzied enthusiasm that the Germans call Schwämerei (swarmery), with connotations of the sort of negative, irrational qualities of mob rule at its worst. It is bad enough that impressionable youngsters indoctrinated by a steady diet of Cultural Marxist brainwashing fall sway to such emotional appeals. It is positively devastating when an ineffectual, milquetoast “opposition” yields to such tactics as well, especially when they do so to such an extent that any meaningful rebuttal or argument is never enunciated, as mealy-mouthed conservative pundits never stop licking the taint of Martin Luther King Jr even after they lose the most recent “battle” in a one-sided culture war in which they always lose in spectacular fashion.
Such appalling cowardice manifested itself in two particular instances of note. The first relates to the assertion proffered by LGBTQ Yuck that homosexuality is very much like race, an immutable condition. Setting aside real problems with conventional wisdom on race (including real differences between the races, that man is an inherently tribalistic creature thus rendering the multicultural experiment doomed to failure, different propensities for crime along racial lines, differences in IQ, among myriad other considerations), the phenomena of homosexuality is very complex in its own way, as it is a phenomenon that differs greatly between men and women.
While there is some evidence that some homosexual men, if not born that way, are strongly predisposed to such proclivities at birth, there is much anecdotal evidence indicating a prevalence of same-sex molestation in many homosexuals, a subject that our university system, ideologically captured and corrupted as it is, would never allow a fair academic inquiry to study these and other issues. Positing that the later male offspring in a mother who has had several children receives a deficiency in a testosterone bath, the testosterone bath theory is persuasive to some degree , but it does not account for repeated anecdotes of homosexuals experiencing same-sex molestation as children or inappropriate same-sex encounters as minors.
Women however are far different, as female sexuality is far more malleable. Conventional wisdom that “every woman has at least bisexual tendencies” has more than a grain of truth to it. Crucially, as society has been ever more drenched and saturated in pornography and sexual profligacy, the prevalence of lesbianism and bisexuality has increased in successive generations of women in almost lock-step fashion precisely because the degree to which one is predisposed to any sexual preference is different for men and women. Female sexuality is far more pliable and fluid than its male counterpart. This seemingly outrageous proposition to the progressive crowd is vindicated by a simple, brief observation of our society and sexual mores, to wit the staggering proliferation of women in the past twenty years or so who have experimented with and even embraced bisexuality since the advent of pornography as something mainstream in contemporary American society. No academic studies conducted by leftist sociology or psychology departments are needed. Simply survey campus life across colleges today, or even high schools, and compare and contrast with how things were even 30 years ago.
This inherently malleable, fluid quality of female sexuality is further evinced by the number of women who had lived for decades in straight monogamous relationships and marriages before suddenly turning to the other side. Legion are the stories of celebrity and other women who had been married to men or romantically and sexually interested in men all their adolescent and adult lives, only to descend into lesbianism in the wake of a failed relationship. Cynthia Nixon, Kate Pierson, Meredith Baxter are just a few of the high profile, celebrity examples of this phenomenon whereby seemingly straight women were married or in long-term relationships for years or even decades and then, after the marriage or relationship failed, simply “became” lesbians.
Of course, straight men have a strong, involuntary visceral reaction to images and videos of male homosexual acts, a visceral reaction that registers the same level of disgust as the sight of maggots. Men jaded and jilted by failed romantic endeavors through the course of years may yield to pathological hatred of women or other shortcomings, but they rarely if ever take an interest in other men, proving the fundamental difference of men and women in terms of malleability or lack of malleability in sexual orientation between the sexes.
Particularly in relation to how female sexuality is crafted and molded, it is thus clear that society actually does have a profound, incalculable influence not just on sexual mores, sexual practices, BUT ALSO on the sexual orientation of those in that society. Even the degree to which male sexuality is more “hard wired” may not be entirely absolute, as demonstrated by the fact that male homosexuality was far more pervasive in those ancient civilizations where it was widely accepted and even encouraged. Much like the single motherhood experiment before it, the progressive agenda has led us into a social experiment with simply no prolonged, sustained inquiry or inquisition into what the unintended consequences might be. Can male sexual preference be influenced or even determined by early life experiences, even if such experiences consist merely of exterior stimuli such as prominence of gay couples in a culture which has made homosexuality mainstream? We do know that many child molesters were themselves molested. If those sorts of traumatic experiences interfere with a person’s psychological and sexual “hard-wiring” during formative years, why would it not be the case that increasing prevalence of not even homoerotica but increasing prevalence of homosexual relationships in popular culture and every day life not have a similar if not diluted effect? Far more importantly, why has the mainstream opposition to the left not asked these and other hard questions in any meaningful way?
The statistical prevalence of homosexuality has increased with each successive generation as homosexuality has been at first less and less stigmatized before being normalized and then promoted by society and culture further. This demonstrates that life experience and cultural norms do have an effect—a dramatic effect—on the sexual orientation or sexual proclivities of the individual and society at large. As Abigail Shrier convincingly demonstrates in Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters, cultural forces are so strong that they can whip a number of young people into the transgender craze, replete with hormone “therapy,” genital and bodily mutilation, and the like. This is in direct contravention to the abject lie that homosexuality or sexuality is an immutable condition like race. This could have been and ought to have been anticipated by establishment conservatism. Being the feckless cowards they are, they cut and run at the mere suggestion of battling against dogma wrapped in the ideological and rhetorical cloth of the civil rights movement. The validity of this very real possibility has been all but vindicated with the passage of time. It was not explored or utilized by these gutless, ineffectual stooges before the proverbial genie was out of the bottle, and still has not to this day to any appreciable degree.
◊
This cowardice—intellectual, rhetorical, and ideological cowardice—is compounded further by a certain squeamishness, a marked unwillingness to discuss with unflinching honesty and frankness what homosexuality so very often is. While images of gays in bdsm dog gear fraternizing with small children and other disturbing images promulgated on social media have chipped away at the sanitation of LGBTQ Yuck, that sanitation has largely remained in tact in so far as one rarely sees homosexual acts in gay pride events and the like discussed in earnest by conservative media, or any other mainstream media for that matter. Marcus Aurelius famously wrote:
"What is this, fundamentally? What is its nature and substance, its reason for being?"
Establishment conservatism shied away from doing this, shied away from looking, truly looking, precisely at what homosexuality is. When did mainstream conservatives ever discuss statistics of average number of homosexuals who live to be 50? When did they discuss, with unflinching honesty, the occurrence of aids or venereal disease among homosexual men? Compare and contrast with for example renegade publications like the website zombietime.com that document rampant sexual exhibitionism at events like the Folsom Street Fair or Up Your Alley in San Francisco. These photo essays depict many homosexual acts in the open streets, fellatio, anal sex, as well other… fetishes. One series of photos captures a man impaling himself anally with a dildo while masturbating. Another series of photos capture a man with “piss pig” written on his shirt while random strange men approach him to urinate on him or receive fellatio from him. Such incidents are anecdotal, but they are anecdotes that have been observed many times over.
Even more telling is the seeming dearth of statistics regarding homosexuals for things like the proportion of homosexuals who have been convicted of sex crimes against minors, average number of average sex partners, or number of gays, lesbians and other rainbow people who experienced “adverse childhood experiences”—that is, what any sane society would call child molestation, statutory rape or other inappropriate sexual contact. Memes of dubious veracity have been circulated in social media for some time, but they are memes. Books, articles, or even blogs discussing these matters are difficult to find.
At the very least, would not a conservative establishment worth anything whatsoever be able to delay the rapid advance of the so-called gay rights movement long enough to first ascertain the truth regarding these and other questions? Why was adoption by gay and lesbian couples so quickly advanced without some body of work ascertaining the long-term effects of such a radical social experiment, both at a sociological and psychological level? Even more importantly, to the extent that sexual orientation and sexual preferences are influenced by culture and life experience—particularly with women—why has establishment conservatism not discussed or written about the intrinsically anti-natalist effect of having a society and culture that not only tolerates but celebrates and encourages homosexuality, lesbianism, and bisexuality?
In many respects, the sudden normalization and acceptance of gay and lesbian adoption is reminiscent of another societal evil mainstream conservatism did nothing to prevent; the rise and ubiquity of single motherhood in society, which very quietly has afflicted society like a plague, from which innumerable social ills emanate.
Just as men and women are in fact different and have different attributes and vulnerabilities, there are differences between a mother and father. Mothers have different strengths, different dynamics than do fathers, and vice versa. Mothers are more nurturing, while men are better disposed to providing food, shelter, and resources, as fathers are more adept at meting appropriate discipline. Of course, the cavalier jettisoning of the very notion of mother and father and distinct gender roles is merely part and parcel of the left’s insidious bid to obliterate societal recognition of the real biological differences between the sexes[2], as seen in the various pet projects advocated and promulgated by each successive wave of the feminist movement, culminating in the disastrous integration of women into all facets of our armed forces, including the policy to allow and encourage women to serve in combat roles and the introduction of coed barracks and combat units on the field of battle, which is already beginning to yield bitter fruit, from lowering of physical standards (so women can meet these standards) and an explosion of sexual impropriety sexual assault in all branches of the American armed forces.
◊
In just a few short pages, several real, secular arguments against the gay agenda, from so-called gay marriage and beyond, have been outlined and presented to the reader. Few if any of these considerations have been enunciated or presented by the mainstream conservative voices of contemporary American society to any significant extent sufficient to mount effective resistance to the gay agenda and LGBTQ Yuck. In this way, the advancement, promulgation, and subsequent normalization of so-called gay marriage and the continued success of LGBTQ Yuck to advance every societal change it sees fit is just the latest in a seemingly unending, unremittent succession of failures of the established, mainstream opposition to the Democratic Party and the Cultural Marxists. This lamentable hit parade includes, but is not limited to:
- failure to repeal the Immigration Act of 1965 or the Democrats’ nefarious scheme to become a perennial majority power in the United States by simply disenfranchising white America demographically through mass, third world immigration
- failure to denounce the more odious expressions of so-called black culture as exemplified in so-called gangsta rap “music” imploring the murder of white police, such as the ghetto anthem “Fuck tha Police,”
- the failure to respond and repudiate the controlled media’s messages inculcating their multiculti agenda into the minds of vulnerable white youth, from bombarding their minds with messages encouraging white girls in particular to copulate with blacks and other racial minorities because “it’s cool,” to mantras about so-called white privilege poisoning the minds of both our men and women.
The structural defects of the American conservative establishment have been exposed yet once again, revealed as intrinsically impotent and ineffective against this progressive tide devouring Western civilization in our very midst. Mainstream, establishment conservatism is rotten to the core, and must be jettisoned if white peoples and cultures here in America and in our ancestral homelands are to overcome and triumph. There will be no meaningful opposition to the left until the torch is passed to a new radical right, based on a firm intellectual and ideological basis that is actually capable of articulating why gay marriage and the normalization of LGBTQ Yuck is a very bad idea for reasons beyond mere religious dogma: a new right that is capable of actually advocating for and advancing our interests and the survival and renewal of Western civilization.
[1] The matter of pronoun usage, to-wit customizable pronouns or even neo-pronouns that can be requested or more often demanded by those so deluded into the transgender cult is an important issue onto itself, one this author intends to address in another essay or even possibly a series of essays. Beyond the scope of this essay, this note will suffice to denote opposition to the absurd convention being touted. This opposition is based on a proper understanding of language, grammar, and usage as well as biology. Simply stated, the idea that words—pronouns, included—can be customized to mean the opposite of what they are by nature or understanding is a concept as absurd as it is novel. Anyone who has studied a foreign language, especially one that uses gendered articles such as German, French, or Spanish, understands that a student who attempted to use er/ihn/ihm for die Frau would receive a failing grade. Such folly would not pass an ESL class at the A1 level, and it should not pass muster in our daily lives either. Similar objections must be lauded against the use of the so-called singular “they.” While the pronoun “they” has been used for certain pronouns that are singular in conjugation but denote a plurality, “eg each student (or every student) who attends this academy wears their uniform with pride, it has never been used properly for a known individual. The use of “they” in this way creates all sorts of linguistic and semantic dysfunction, see this example sentence, using they to signify a woman named Sarah. “Looking out the window as the aerobics class was at capacity with other gym members, Sarah looked at him with a smile and hoped that he would notice them while the spin class was underway.”
[2] Those all too familiar with the transgender crazies and their allies will know that such “persons,” to the extent they can be considered “people” at all, advocate that sex and gender are two different things. Invariably, they only ever state a conclusion and never actually make an argument as to why this is or should be the case. This author has looked up the word gender in his two volume set of the New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, and the relevant portion of the definition reads as follows: “gender n LME. . . . 3. The state of being male, female, or neuter; sex; the members of one or other sex. Now chiefly colloq. or euphem. LME b Sex as expressed by social or cultural distinctions.” This definition confirms that the word is essentially a synonym for sex, and is so from both a descriptivist and prescriptivist lens. Source: The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary of Historical Principles Volume 1 A-M, 1993 Edition. Page 1072.
PLEASE NOTE: Readers who appreciate the insight and perspective set forth in this essay are urged to consider offering a paid subscription or even a founding member subscription, provided such expenditures are not unduly burdensome. Readers who enjoyed this article and found it informative and insightful are also encouraged to signify their favor for this and other writings by clicking on the “like emoji,” as well as sharing this and other articles to those who would find this and other essays and articles interesting, insightful, or provocative. The like emoji or lack thereof is a greater factor than it should be that readers unfamiliar with an author or publciation use to decide whether to read any particular piece or not.
Follow Richard Parker on twitter (or X if one prefers) (@)astheravencalls.com. Remove the parentheses, which were inserted to avoid conflict with Substack’s own handle system.
Great stuff brother, this is excellent commentary!
Great article. Minor correction needed.
"Formulated by the German-Jewish thinker Emile Durkheim" Durkheim was French.