Jimbo Gomez
02-19-2006, 10:32 AM
(written in 2004)
Editorial 06/2004 - Nature and Civilisation
An extended non-discrimination law has become effective in Belgium, on February the 25th 2003. It was adopted without much discussion or thought. Discrimination is henceforth forbidden when done on the basis of gender, so-called race, skin colour, descent, national or ethnic origin, sexual inclination, marital status, age, religion or philosophy, actual or future state of health, handicaps or physical properties. This definition is based upon vague ideas and, judging by the mentioned categories, its possibilities of application seem endless. By itself the word ‘discrimination’ is ambiguous. Therefore one speaks easily about ‘positive discrimination’. This means that discrimination is organized in favour of certain categories of people, as was done in the States in favour of the black population and is done in many countries in favour of women and perhaps will also be done in future in favour of immigrants. This law however deals clearly with negative discrimination.
The logic of the employed definition could well be carried through into absurdity. A real choice or a distinction made, can always be suspected of discrimination. Therefore, this law is absurd, vague and most of all contrary to the prevailing rule of law. For certain civil contracts, concerning e.g. letting of property or recruiting staff, when a case of discrimination is opened, the accused will have to prove the absence of discrimination, while the plaintiff will not have to prove his case, as would be the normal procedure. This is no less than imposing a certain image of society upon the citizens. Therefore one has to search for the leading undercurrents and for the direction in which they are guiding us.
A theme having an important actuality and deserving thorough consideration is, with respect to this legislation, the one of gay weddings and of what is now called the ‘holebi’s’ (homosexuals, lesbians and bisexuals). When mentioning this item, one has immediately to take precautions and in a way this is understandable. In the public debate or when one takes in a position, one does of course not judge private behaviour of other persons. We have always in this periodical kept strictly to that rule, but this is not the point now. This human prudence is not applicable regarding the ideology of ‘holebism’ and its unexpected implications. Its program looks simple and is connected to a worldwide movement, appearing more in particular in countries of Christian culture.
We almost instinctively accept that human nature exists and this existence has been enhanced by a higher purpose given by our civilization, that of a higher spiritual reality. Apart from his spirit, the human being has also his body and his corporeal reality has a destination, best expressed by our sexuality, because its purpose is clearly recorded into our body. This up till now obvious conclusion is, according to the holders of the ideology of ‘holebism’, no longer valid. According to them, sexuality and gender are no more than a matter of choice for every individual. This is expressed with the concept of ‘gender’, zealously advertized by the UN, through numerous world conferences. One cannot overestimate their influence. They proclaim that sexuality can be experienced with whatever sexual partner. This is the ‘holebi-doctrine’.
These revolutionary views on sexuality gained already some prominence at the beginning of the Soviet revolution. Anna Kolontai, a feminist Bolshevik, became commissioner for family matters in 1917. She and her like-minded colleagues regarded sexuality as something as banal as drinking a glass of water. As a minister she ruled that divorce could be obtained by a mere declaration before the Registry Office. The result was such an anarchy that the revolutionaries themselves annulled the law. This was the start of a first politically motivated sexual revolution in history.
Nowadays the gender theory, under the influence of powerful lobby’s and with the help of servile media, has become more or less generally accepted. Although many still remain with an uneasy feeling, gradually, under heavy pressure of a ‘public opinion’ and because of the dismissal of almost all authority, it has been leading towards indifference and some sort of cowardly tolerance. One remembers the frivolous way in which the Catholic schools accepted to introduce to their pupils the theory and practice of ‘holebism’. Almost in all Western countries anti-discrimination laws entertain the permanent fear of being treated as a ‘homophobe’. The one who dares to stick his neck out, receives the blame.
A recent incident involving the new boss of the Catholic educational network, which was blown up out of all proportion, speaks volumes in this context. This lady was, until recently, an MP for the Christian democrats in the Flemish Parliament and had declared repeatedly that ‘holebism’ had to be made debatable in Catholic schools. However, in a TV-program she declared that teachers in these schools would encounter problems if they entered into a gay wedding. This unleashed a storm of protests within the small world of the local media and politicians. Clearly, she had overstepped the mark. The leader of her party also criticised her and even declared that his party was no longer opposed to adoption by gay couples. The president of the ‘Vlaams Blok’ followed him, somewhat reluctantly, on that same path. He also, for the first time, commented favourably about a legal regulation in favour of gay couples.
The uproar resulted in a penetrating comment published by the leading left-wing Flemish newspaper. The heading already stressed that homosexuality was no longer an issue in Flanders. The writer had been invited earlier in the year to participate in a panel on the occasion of the fifth anniversary of Tertio, the Flemish Catholic weekly. He had, so he told, urged the Catholics to remain Catholics, just as socialists should remain socialists and liberals liberals… Sameness is indeed boring, and colour and diversity are preferable in society. However, Catholics have to be aware of what the separation between Church and State means. It means that when the law allows something, like e. g. the gay wedding, the Church and its institutions must abide by it, also within their educational system. If not, he warned, we will use our pen against them. Although the writer did not mention the recent law on euthanasia, he certainly meant that one too. Catholic institutions, providing the overwhelming majority of organized education and health care, seem to undergo since quite some time the influence of the warning little finger. The warning works and the people responsible back down.
The commentator considers himself a progressive. His speech is however far from new. Thoughts about power and exercizing power are permanent in our culture and this for allready more than two thousand years. Our civilization has developed a most sophisticated view on it. Personal and public behaviour are subject to external and internal restraints. This is, in a nutshell, the conclusion of so many centuries of thought and art. The human being possesses a conscience that permits higher values to live within him and to conduct his activities. Civilized authorities not only recognize the personal restraints, but have as their own guideline the common good or bonum commune, including genuine personal freedom. The commentator keeps to the contrary and speaks a reactionary and non-cultural language, which is totalitarian and ideological. Due to that sort of speech, our country has sometimes been compared with the DDR – what in fact applies to the whole of Europe. Our commentator does it in a more gentle way and his analysis of the Church in Belgium is not at all stupid. He cannot restrain himself of speaking with a mild superiority, convinced as he seems to be, that victory is in the air.
His comment shows clearly what is at stake. In his view, the law is the supreme norm, whatever the law. It is legitimized, no longer by the state party but by a streamlined ‘particracy’, as an instrument for trend-setters who consider politicians and legislators as only willing extras.
In fact all this is well-known, and what has ‘holebism’ to do with it? Let us explain. Our civilization is dominated by a vision of mankind in accordance with nature. This vision contains an immaterial side, directed towards conscience and God. In our modern state one can, without any restraint, live along this vision, within the limits of the law in one’s own organization. But for the government of the whole society, one has to submit oneself to a democracy that tends to become totalitarian and has already become almost completely domineering.
Yet, an uncontrollable element remains. Human nature includes indeed also physical and material factors. Our body suffers, is mortal and dies. Life comes and goes, a process in which we cannot interfere. One wants now, at any cost, get a grip on this process. Examples are the obsession of experimenting with conception and the outlawing of the embryo. In the meantime this has led to an unprecedented demographic collapse. A consequence is also the growing pretence of ending life itself, with the unbearably foolish creation of an uncontrolled euthanasia jungle.
‘Holebism’ is also a part of this ultimate approach. Like we said, sexuality is the only physical function we can get a hold over. Functions of other organs are fixed and cannot be diverted without being destroyed. Sexuality has always had a stormy history and this will remain so. However, its final purpose always remained the norm. A body never lost its orientation. The ideologies of gender and ‘holebism’, for their part, attack this orientation expressed by our body. The fact is that we are born man or woman. These ideologies pretend to make perception and handling of this physical reality, free of any obligation. It looks like a final attack upon all values and any security.
The underlying philosophy, which has been denying all human nature since a long time, knows much better than the actual hangers on, what is at stake. When not only the natural feeling and conscience are disrupted, but also the physical efficiency is derailed, the human beings are deprived of any leading principle. They are thereby cut off of any order or purpose. That is what the ideology of ‘holebism’ is all about, even if its strongest propagandists are not always aware of it. Furthermore, without nature, one will have difficulty to find a way to the supernatural. Nihilism, unfairness, self-criticism, oppression by all sorts of unnatural laws and by the ‘whatever’ slogan, are then the message. This subversion is typical for our civilization and remains limited to it, because it is the expression of a final reckoning with Christian culture and faith.
No other religion or philosophy is going to such extremes: the refusal of even the natural and physical image of man, with its finality. Unfortunately, reality does not care for ideologies or utopia. Europe and the Western world cannot survive this ultimate tragedy. Shall we revert to the common sense and the natural modesty or will others have to do on our behalf?
Pieter Huys
www.nucleusopinion.net
Editorial 06/2004 - Nature and Civilisation
An extended non-discrimination law has become effective in Belgium, on February the 25th 2003. It was adopted without much discussion or thought. Discrimination is henceforth forbidden when done on the basis of gender, so-called race, skin colour, descent, national or ethnic origin, sexual inclination, marital status, age, religion or philosophy, actual or future state of health, handicaps or physical properties. This definition is based upon vague ideas and, judging by the mentioned categories, its possibilities of application seem endless. By itself the word ‘discrimination’ is ambiguous. Therefore one speaks easily about ‘positive discrimination’. This means that discrimination is organized in favour of certain categories of people, as was done in the States in favour of the black population and is done in many countries in favour of women and perhaps will also be done in future in favour of immigrants. This law however deals clearly with negative discrimination.
The logic of the employed definition could well be carried through into absurdity. A real choice or a distinction made, can always be suspected of discrimination. Therefore, this law is absurd, vague and most of all contrary to the prevailing rule of law. For certain civil contracts, concerning e.g. letting of property or recruiting staff, when a case of discrimination is opened, the accused will have to prove the absence of discrimination, while the plaintiff will not have to prove his case, as would be the normal procedure. This is no less than imposing a certain image of society upon the citizens. Therefore one has to search for the leading undercurrents and for the direction in which they are guiding us.
A theme having an important actuality and deserving thorough consideration is, with respect to this legislation, the one of gay weddings and of what is now called the ‘holebi’s’ (homosexuals, lesbians and bisexuals). When mentioning this item, one has immediately to take precautions and in a way this is understandable. In the public debate or when one takes in a position, one does of course not judge private behaviour of other persons. We have always in this periodical kept strictly to that rule, but this is not the point now. This human prudence is not applicable regarding the ideology of ‘holebism’ and its unexpected implications. Its program looks simple and is connected to a worldwide movement, appearing more in particular in countries of Christian culture.
We almost instinctively accept that human nature exists and this existence has been enhanced by a higher purpose given by our civilization, that of a higher spiritual reality. Apart from his spirit, the human being has also his body and his corporeal reality has a destination, best expressed by our sexuality, because its purpose is clearly recorded into our body. This up till now obvious conclusion is, according to the holders of the ideology of ‘holebism’, no longer valid. According to them, sexuality and gender are no more than a matter of choice for every individual. This is expressed with the concept of ‘gender’, zealously advertized by the UN, through numerous world conferences. One cannot overestimate their influence. They proclaim that sexuality can be experienced with whatever sexual partner. This is the ‘holebi-doctrine’.
These revolutionary views on sexuality gained already some prominence at the beginning of the Soviet revolution. Anna Kolontai, a feminist Bolshevik, became commissioner for family matters in 1917. She and her like-minded colleagues regarded sexuality as something as banal as drinking a glass of water. As a minister she ruled that divorce could be obtained by a mere declaration before the Registry Office. The result was such an anarchy that the revolutionaries themselves annulled the law. This was the start of a first politically motivated sexual revolution in history.
Nowadays the gender theory, under the influence of powerful lobby’s and with the help of servile media, has become more or less generally accepted. Although many still remain with an uneasy feeling, gradually, under heavy pressure of a ‘public opinion’ and because of the dismissal of almost all authority, it has been leading towards indifference and some sort of cowardly tolerance. One remembers the frivolous way in which the Catholic schools accepted to introduce to their pupils the theory and practice of ‘holebism’. Almost in all Western countries anti-discrimination laws entertain the permanent fear of being treated as a ‘homophobe’. The one who dares to stick his neck out, receives the blame.
A recent incident involving the new boss of the Catholic educational network, which was blown up out of all proportion, speaks volumes in this context. This lady was, until recently, an MP for the Christian democrats in the Flemish Parliament and had declared repeatedly that ‘holebism’ had to be made debatable in Catholic schools. However, in a TV-program she declared that teachers in these schools would encounter problems if they entered into a gay wedding. This unleashed a storm of protests within the small world of the local media and politicians. Clearly, she had overstepped the mark. The leader of her party also criticised her and even declared that his party was no longer opposed to adoption by gay couples. The president of the ‘Vlaams Blok’ followed him, somewhat reluctantly, on that same path. He also, for the first time, commented favourably about a legal regulation in favour of gay couples.
The uproar resulted in a penetrating comment published by the leading left-wing Flemish newspaper. The heading already stressed that homosexuality was no longer an issue in Flanders. The writer had been invited earlier in the year to participate in a panel on the occasion of the fifth anniversary of Tertio, the Flemish Catholic weekly. He had, so he told, urged the Catholics to remain Catholics, just as socialists should remain socialists and liberals liberals… Sameness is indeed boring, and colour and diversity are preferable in society. However, Catholics have to be aware of what the separation between Church and State means. It means that when the law allows something, like e. g. the gay wedding, the Church and its institutions must abide by it, also within their educational system. If not, he warned, we will use our pen against them. Although the writer did not mention the recent law on euthanasia, he certainly meant that one too. Catholic institutions, providing the overwhelming majority of organized education and health care, seem to undergo since quite some time the influence of the warning little finger. The warning works and the people responsible back down.
The commentator considers himself a progressive. His speech is however far from new. Thoughts about power and exercizing power are permanent in our culture and this for allready more than two thousand years. Our civilization has developed a most sophisticated view on it. Personal and public behaviour are subject to external and internal restraints. This is, in a nutshell, the conclusion of so many centuries of thought and art. The human being possesses a conscience that permits higher values to live within him and to conduct his activities. Civilized authorities not only recognize the personal restraints, but have as their own guideline the common good or bonum commune, including genuine personal freedom. The commentator keeps to the contrary and speaks a reactionary and non-cultural language, which is totalitarian and ideological. Due to that sort of speech, our country has sometimes been compared with the DDR – what in fact applies to the whole of Europe. Our commentator does it in a more gentle way and his analysis of the Church in Belgium is not at all stupid. He cannot restrain himself of speaking with a mild superiority, convinced as he seems to be, that victory is in the air.
His comment shows clearly what is at stake. In his view, the law is the supreme norm, whatever the law. It is legitimized, no longer by the state party but by a streamlined ‘particracy’, as an instrument for trend-setters who consider politicians and legislators as only willing extras.
In fact all this is well-known, and what has ‘holebism’ to do with it? Let us explain. Our civilization is dominated by a vision of mankind in accordance with nature. This vision contains an immaterial side, directed towards conscience and God. In our modern state one can, without any restraint, live along this vision, within the limits of the law in one’s own organization. But for the government of the whole society, one has to submit oneself to a democracy that tends to become totalitarian and has already become almost completely domineering.
Yet, an uncontrollable element remains. Human nature includes indeed also physical and material factors. Our body suffers, is mortal and dies. Life comes and goes, a process in which we cannot interfere. One wants now, at any cost, get a grip on this process. Examples are the obsession of experimenting with conception and the outlawing of the embryo. In the meantime this has led to an unprecedented demographic collapse. A consequence is also the growing pretence of ending life itself, with the unbearably foolish creation of an uncontrolled euthanasia jungle.
‘Holebism’ is also a part of this ultimate approach. Like we said, sexuality is the only physical function we can get a hold over. Functions of other organs are fixed and cannot be diverted without being destroyed. Sexuality has always had a stormy history and this will remain so. However, its final purpose always remained the norm. A body never lost its orientation. The ideologies of gender and ‘holebism’, for their part, attack this orientation expressed by our body. The fact is that we are born man or woman. These ideologies pretend to make perception and handling of this physical reality, free of any obligation. It looks like a final attack upon all values and any security.
The underlying philosophy, which has been denying all human nature since a long time, knows much better than the actual hangers on, what is at stake. When not only the natural feeling and conscience are disrupted, but also the physical efficiency is derailed, the human beings are deprived of any leading principle. They are thereby cut off of any order or purpose. That is what the ideology of ‘holebism’ is all about, even if its strongest propagandists are not always aware of it. Furthermore, without nature, one will have difficulty to find a way to the supernatural. Nihilism, unfairness, self-criticism, oppression by all sorts of unnatural laws and by the ‘whatever’ slogan, are then the message. This subversion is typical for our civilization and remains limited to it, because it is the expression of a final reckoning with Christian culture and faith.
No other religion or philosophy is going to such extremes: the refusal of even the natural and physical image of man, with its finality. Unfortunately, reality does not care for ideologies or utopia. Europe and the Western world cannot survive this ultimate tragedy. Shall we revert to the common sense and the natural modesty or will others have to do on our behalf?
Pieter Huys
www.nucleusopinion.net