20 March, 2016
Last year when I read Daniel Greenfield’s brilliant article (republished in its entirety below) it started a process in my head of multiple mental jigsaw puzzle pieces falling into place.
The “presenting issue” was the strange campaign for Gay Marriage, an amazing phenomenon in American history the likes of which had never happened before: an entirely novel moral issue addressing essential human nature that presented itself at a national level quite out of nowhere, was initially sort of a joke, became a concerted campaign with vast amounts of money spent, and in two or three years achieved a sweeping, nearly total victory – a fundamental redefinition of human society at the cultural, legal, and political levels, including the criminalization of dissent. As others have stated, a majority of people in a democracy don’t change their minds about something this fundamental in just three years. Far less momentous issues have taken 10, 20 years, or a few generations to complete the full arc from “joke to dogma“. A few examples: homosexuality, abortion, slavery, and no-fault divorce.
But Gay Marriage was an entirely different ball of wax. It came, saw, and conquered nearly effortlessly in less than a single presidential election cycle. What I learned from this brilliant article by Daniel Greenfield was that, while Gay Marriage was genuinely supported for what it claimed to be – the right for same-sex couples to marry – by its average supporters, the forces that conceived of, funded, and “delivered” Gay Marriage to America as a fait accompli in just three years, had no actual concern for gay couples or gay people at all and was ultimately aiming for something much bigger and infinitely more sinister.
As prefaced by the editor of Agenda Europe,
A reader has drawn our attention to this brilliant piece by the Israeli/American blogger and journalist Daniel Greenfield, who (more eloquently than we) addresses a question that we have already discussed on one of the permanent pages of this website: why is the political left (both in the US and in Europe) so enthusiastically supportive of the “gay rights” agenda? Why are Socialists, Greens, and Communists spending their political capital on same-sex “marriage”, an absurd agenda that can be of practical benefit only to a small minority within a small minority (i.e. the roughly 10% of self-identified “LGBT persons” who actually want to “marry”), but which, as they must be aware, is more likely to cost them voter support rather than to win them new votes?
The answer is: gay “marriage” is neither about gays nor about equality. The real purpose is the deconstruction, and indeed the destruction, of marriage and family as basic social institutions. In other words, the aim is to destroy society as we know it.
The wet dream of the political left is, and always has been, REVOLUTION. And revolution means the DESTRUCTION of the existing order. If that destruction can be achieved by “peaceful” rather than violent means, all the better – but total destruction remains the goal.
The political left hates family and marriage, because the natural bond between parents and children or the bond between two spouses create a space of autonomy that is largely exempt from the interference of politicians. This is why socialists like Charles Fourier already in the 19th century called for the abolition of both, and why in the aftermath of the Russian Revolution one of the first reform attempts of the Bolsheviks went into a similar direction: there should only be the state and the individual, and nothing in between. It is perhaps no wonder then that today’s Socialists have similar agendas: for example, to make the attendance of nursery school compulsory, to shut out parents from decisions concerning the education of their children (in particular with regard to Sexual education, the “revolutionary potential” of which cannot be underestimated), the promotion of a radical understanding of “children’s rights” (which are in fact an instrument to empower the state at the expense of parents…), etc.
But the most important part of the agenda remains, without doubt, the deconstruction of the natural family. This is a matter of high priority for the political left – one for which it is prepared to make big sacrifices. The underlying expectation is that once the world is transformed into a tabula rasa, a field of ruins, no one will be left to defend it, because there will be nothing left to be defended. This will then allow the construction of a new world order in which all can be determined by the arbitrary will of politicians.
The Deconstruction of Marriage
Posted by Daniel Greenfield, at sultanknish.blogspot.com
The only question worth asking about gay marriage is whether anyone on the left would care about this crusade if it didn’t come with the privilege of bulldozing another civilizational institution.
Gay marriage is not about men marrying men or women marrying women, it is about the deconstruction of marriage between men and women. That is a thing that many men and women of one generation understand but have trouble conveying to another generation for whom marriage has already largely been deconstructed.
The statistics about the falling marriage rate tell the tale well enough. Marriage is a fading institution. Family is a flickering light in the evening of the West.
The deconstruction is destruction. Entire countries are fading away, their populations being replaced by emigrants from more traditional lands whose understanding of the male-female relationship is positively reactionary. These emigrants may lack technology or the virtues of civilization, and their idea of marriage resembles slavery more than any modern ideal, but it fulfills the minimum purpose of any group, tribe or country– it produces its next generation.
The deconstruction of marriage is not a mere matter of front page photos of men kissing. It began with the deconstruction of the family. Gay marriage is only one small stop on a tour that includes rising divorce rates, falling childbirth rates and the abandonment of responsibility by twenty and even thirty-somethings.
Each step on the tour takes apart the definition and structure of marriage until there is nothing left. Gay marriage is not inclusive, it is yet another attempt at eliminating marriage as a social institution by deconstructing it until it no longer exists.
There are two ways to destroy a thing. You can either run it at while swinging a hammer with both hands or you can attack its structure until it no longer means anything.
The left hasn’t gone all out by outlawing marriage, instead it has deconstructed it, taking apart each of its assumptions, from the economic to the cooperative to the emotional to the social, until it no longer means anything at all. Until there is no way to distinguish marriage from a temporary liaison between members of uncertain sexes for reasons that due to their vagueness cannot be held to have any solemn and meaningful purpose.
You can abolish democracy by banning the vote or you can do it by letting people vote as many times as they want, by letting small children and foreigners vote, until no one sees the point in counting the votes or taking the process seriously. The same goes for marriage or any other institution. You can destroy it by outlawing it or by eliminating its meaningfulness until it becomes so open that it is absurd.
Every aspect of marriage is deconstructed and then eliminated until it no longer means anything. And once marriage is no longer a lifetime commitment between a man and a woman, but a ceremony with no deeper meaning than most modern ceremonies, then the deconstruction and destruction will be complete.
The deconstruction of marriage eroded it as an enduring institution and then as an exclusive institution and finally as a meaningful institution. The trendy folk who claim to be holding off on getting married until gay marriage is enacted are not eager for marriage equality, they are using it as an excuse for an ongoing rejection of marriage.
Gay marriage was never the issue. It was always marriage.
In the world that the deconstructionists are striving to build, there will be marriage, but it will mean nothing. Like a greeting card holiday, it will be an event, but not an institution. An old ritual with no further meaning. An egotistical exercise in attention-seeking and self-celebration with no deeper purpose. It will be a display every bit as hollow as the churches and synagogues it takes place in.
The deconstruction of marriage is only a subset of the deconstruction of gender from a state of being to a state of mind. The decline of marriage was preceded by the deconstruction of gender roles and gay marriage is being succeeded by the destruction of gender as anything other than a voluntary identity, a costume that one puts on and takes off.
Destroying gender roles was a prerequisite to destroying gender. Each deconstruction leads naturally to the next deconstruction with no final destination except total deconstruction.
Gay marriage is not a stopping point, just as men in women’s clothing using the ladies room is not a stopping point. There is no stopping point at all.
The left’s deconstruction of social institutions is not a quest for equality, but for destruction. As long as the institutions that preceded it exist, it will go on deconstructing them until there is nothing left but a blank canvas, an unthinking anarchy, on which it can impose its perfect and ideal conception of how everyone should live.
Equality is merely a pretext for deconstruction. Change the parameters of a thing and it ceases to function. Redefine it and expand it and it no longer means anything at all. A rose by any other name might smell as sweet, but if you change ‘rose’ to mean anything that sticks out of the ground, then the entire notion of what is being discussed has gone and cannot be reclaimed without also reclaiming language.
The left’s social deconstruction program is a war of ideas and concepts. Claims of equality are used to expand institutions and ways of living until they are so broad as to encompass everything and nothing. And once a thing encompasses everything, once a rose represents everything rising out of the ground, then it also represents nothing at all.
Deconstruction is a war against definitions, borders and parameters. It is a war against defining things by criminalizing the limitation of definitions. With inclusivity as the mandate, exclusivity, in marriage, or any other realm, quickly meets with social disapproval and then becomes a hate crime. If the social good is achieved only through maximum inclusivity and infinite tolerance, then any form of exclusivity, from property to person to ideas, is a selfish act that refuses the collective impulse to make all things into a common property with no lasting meaning or value.
As Orwell understood in 1984, tyranny is essentially about definitions. It is hard to fight for freedom if you lack the word. It is hard to maintain a marriage if the idea no longer exists. Orwell’s Oceania made basic human ideas into contradictory things. The left’s deconstruction of social values does the same thing to such essential institutions as marriage; which becomes an important impermanent thing of no fixed nature or value.
The left’s greatest trick is making things mean the opposite of what they do. Stealing is sharing. Crime is justice. Property is theft. Each deconstruction is accompanied by an inversion so that a thing, once examined, comes to seem the opposite of what it is, and once that is done, it no longer has the old innate value, but a new enlightened one.
To deconstruct man, you deconstruct his beliefs and then his way of living. You deconstruct freedom until it means slavery. You deconstruct peace until it means war. You deconstruct property until it means theft. And you deconstruct marriage until it means a physical relationship between any group of people for any duration. And that is the opposite of what marriage is.
The deconstruction of marriage is part of the deconstruction of gender and family and those are part of the long program of deconstructing man. Once each basic value has been rendered null and void, inverted and revealed to be random and meaningless, then man is likewise revealed to be a random and meaningless creature whose existence requires shaping by those who know better.
The final deconstruction eliminates nation, religion, family and even gender to reduce the soul of man to a blank slate waiting to be written on.
That is what is at stake here. This is not a struggle about the right of equality, but the right of definition. It is not about whether men can get married, but whether marriage will mean anything at all. It is about preserving the shapes and structures of basic social concepts that define our identities in order to preserve those very concepts, rather than accepting their deconstruction into nullification.
The question on the table is whether the institutions that give us meaning will be allowed to retain that meaning. And that question is a matter of survival. Societies cannot survive without definitions. Peoples do not go on existing through the act of occupying space. The deconstruction of identity is also the destruction of people.
And that is what we are truly fighting against.