Quantcast

«

»

Oct 28 2013

WND: Gays Being Duped by Communists!

Paul Kengor, a political science professor at Grove City College, has an utterly ridiculous column at the Worldnetdaily about how gay people are all being duped by (those virtually non-existent) communists as part of their nefarious plan to abolish the family completely. He starts with this quote from the Communist Manifesto:

“Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.”

And then:

That quotation from Karl Marx appears in his 1848 “Communist Manifesto.” Yes, even way back then, the extreme left was looking to abolish the family, with marriage (the center of the family) specifically in its sights. Really, it’s a battle that goes back to the Garden of Eden, where a sinister force first tried tear asunder the male-female union the Creator had ordained.

The fact that he believes in an actual Adam and Eve and a Garden of Eden kills most of the credibility he might have had. The fact that he thinks Marxism is even remotely relevant to anything happening today kills what’s left of it. Seriously, communism? Aside from North Korea and Cuba, it no longer exists (even China is now a mixed economy). No one takes it seriously. It has taken a well-deserved place in the dustbin of history. It is as relevant to the modern world as phlogiston and covered wagons.

Nonetheless, that hasn’t deterred the far left, which has long been hell-bent on taking down the family. Leftists have made their arguments and tried different tactics, but they at long last seem to have found the vehicle to make it happen: gay marriage.

Oh yes, of course. We’re trying to destroy the family by creating more families. Good thinking, Sparky. The funny thing is that there actually are those in the gay community who want a radical redefinition of the family, who think that gay marriage is a ridiculous idea designed to domesticate gay people under the traditional family structure of straight people. I have a good friend who takes exactly that position. The push for gay marriage is the exact opposition of that position, for crying out loud.

This is an exciting time for extreme leftists. They are genuinely transforming human nature. (That, by the way, is the textbook definition of totalitarianism: to transform human nature.) And they’re doing it with the unwitting support of a huge swath of clueless citizens and voters.

WTF is he babbling about? The definition of totalitarianism is not “to transform human nature.” He pulled that out of the dictionary he stores in his rectum, right next to his head. And it just goes on like this, one inane argument after another. If I taught at Grove City College, I’d be pretty embarrassed by this.

18 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    busterggi

    Luke 14:26
    “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.”

    nuff said.

  2. 2
    jakc

    Well, people OUGHT to be embarrassed by teaching at Grove City College

  3. 3
    Modusoperandi

    Is true! I am hearing this straight from source deep under Kremlin! Rejoice, Comrade. Soon, with new five-year plan of family, worker’s revolution is success!

  4. 4
    Ellie

    I just looked up Grove City College. I doubt that something like this would embarrass them.

  5. 5
    colnago80

    Re jakc @ #2

    Hey, Prof. Heddle thinks that Grove City isn’t such a bad place, even though he probably wouldn’t be caught dead teaching there.

  6. 6
    ragingapathy

    Ed, reading up on Grove City, you couldn’t get a job there. And of that you should be proud, and relieved.

  7. 7
    matty1

    I know communism is deader than Jesus but I had to look up the relevant section of The Manifesto and you’ll be shocked to learn the context is not exactly what he implies (emphases mine).

    Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists.

    On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

    The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital.

    Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty.

    But, you will say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

    And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention, direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, etc.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.

    The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parent and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.

    But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the whole bourgeoisie in chorus.

    The bourgeois sees in his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion than that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.

    He has not even a suspicion that the real point is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.

    For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.

    Our bourgeois, not content with having the wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.

    Bourgeois marriage is in reality a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with, is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.

    The argument then seems to be not that people shouldn’t have families but that the idea of women and children as property of a man will disappear when the idea of private property itself does.

  8. 8
    Modusoperandi

    matty1 “The argument then seems to be…that the idea of women and children as property of a man will disappear…”
    That’s even worse! No one should get in between a man and his property! I mean…family.

  9. 9
    Gregory in Seattle

    Why are gay people so wicked and evil because we do not procreate, while Catholic clergy and religious are not? Surely, wanting to become a priest or a monk is just as destructive to the American family as wanting (sic) to be gay.

  10. 10
    brucegee1962

    From what I recall, there was a pretty serious anti-marriage push around the time of the French Revolution — that’s the first time I can recall the institution being seriously questioned in Europe. And the issue was, in fact, women’s position as legal chattel — the general sense was that it would be too hard to reform the institution, and better just to scrap the entire thing.

    Both of these points actually speak to the major weakness of Marx — he thought that the branch would break because it showed no chance in his own time of bending. If it hadn’t been for the growth and gradual acceptance of unions, he probably would have been right that a bloody wave of revolutions would have hit every capitalist nation, and likewise, marriage might have been consistently under seige to this day if it hadn’t been for the development of women’s property rights and divorce.

    So what does it say that modern conservatives are trying to get rid of both unions and divorce?

  11. 11
    Modusoperandi

    brucegee1962 “From what I recall, there was a pretty serious anti-marriage push around the time of the French Revolution — that’s the first time I can recall the institution being seriously questioned in Europe.”
    But then the French realized that without marriage there are no mistresses. True story.

  12. 12
    Larry

    #9

    Surely, wanting to become a priest or a monk is just a destructive to the American family…

    It certainly is, especially if you’re a teenage altar boy!

  13. 13
    dugglebogey

    This is just bad math. LGBT people who want to get married are creating MORE families, not LESS families.

    Oh wait, they’re not creating the RIGHT KIND of families. You know. The WHITE with WHITE or BLACK with BLACK etc.

    Fuck off, my “non-traditional” family is just as legitimate as yours, assholes.

  14. 14
    freehand

    Aside from North Korea and Cuba, it no longer exists

    [coughVietNamcough]

  15. 15
    freehand

    That, by the way, is the textbook definition of totalitarianism: to transform human nature.

    Sweet merciful Dog in Heaven! Graduates from this “Christian liberal arts college” will have taken courses from professors like this for their minimal history and science credits. How can this school be accredited?

  16. 16
    RickR

    who think that gay marriage is a ridiculous idea designed to domesticate gay people under the traditional family structure of straight people. I have a good friend who takes exactly that position.

    I also held that position, when the idea of marriage equality was first brought into focus by gay rights advocates. Or at least I entertained the notion. Before any of the states had marriage equality. I agreed with some activists who said that fighting for marriage equality was a distraction, taking energy and attention off other battles like ending employment and housing discrimination.
    And from a philosophical standpoint, it felt like a movement away from asking questions like “what does it mean to be gay?” and “in what way(s) can gay people transform the wider culture?” Instead, it felt like the movement was suddenly focused on proclaiming “we can be just like straight people!!”
    I also agreed with some activists who said that the effort, besides being a philosophical mistake, would fail politically because the idea of marriage equality was too radical, too high a bar to reach for, and would bring the gay rights movement into direct and open conflict with cultural notions that marriage was an inherently religious institution. That it would force a showdown with religion that other issues of equality hadn’t provoked to the same degree.

    All of which I was wrong about. There was and still is a considerable pushback from the religious, but it has forced their “arguments” into the public spotlight, where their bigotry and claims to unearned social privilege can be scrutinized by people who hadn’t really thought about the issue in depth before.
    And rather than seeing marriage equality as a misguided push to open an institution that was inherently oppressive and patriarchal to gay people who are generally opposed to oppression and patriarchy, I see it as gay people wanting to join a movement that had already been underway for years, a movement by millions of straight couples who saw their unions as a relationship of equals, who discarded the old marriage vows and defined their relationships for themselves.
    The “redefinition of marriage” had been underway for decades, but it wasn’t gay people at the vanguard. They have merely joined a much broader movement that seeks to transform the institution from the inside rather than abandon it altogether.

  17. 17
    Michael Heath

    Grove City’s ‘About’ page has them explicitly opposing secularism while they simultaneously claim they’re about freedom in other areas of their website. Hypocrites.

  18. 18
    Trebuchet

    Seriously, communism? Aside from North Korea and Cuba, it no longer exists (even China is now a mixed economy).

    And North Korea is an absolute monarchy.

Leave a Reply

Switch to our mobile site