Meanwhile, China prepares for war.
The Department of the Air Force’s Chief Diversity Officer, Marianne Malizia, who is also the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Force Resilience) is severely testing the resilience of the vast majority of the people in USAF by issuing a memorandum announcing the whole month of June will be for “celebrating” and “honoring” the kind of sexual activities people do in the privacy of their bedroom (or elsewhere, and maybe not so private).
What this has to do with warfighting preparation for the defense of our nation is unknown.
As a good Soviet Commissar pushing an overtly left-wing political agenda, her memo completely drips with words intended to pander to about 6% of the military and alienate and drive out all the 94% who aren’t homosexuals and whose morals and values don’t align with these stated Department of Air Force’s morals and values.
There is no logical reason for any element of America’s armed forces to waste time, effort and taxpayer’s money on openly promoting the kind of sexual desires people have.
The only reason is to push a radical, left-wing political agenda. The issue is NEVER the issue: the issue is ALWAYS the Revolution. It’s not about homosexuals, it’s about exploiting and pushing an agenda that seeks to negate/destroy the normative. The fact that the Department of the Air Force is falling into this Marxist line of effort is very disturbing and is indicative of a captured institution. The memo says commanders are “empowered to organize and execute appropriate activities to commemorate Pride Month.” These are directives to initiates/covert believers in Marxism to push forward in any way they can this agenda to demoralize and negate.
Also disturbing is the fact that Chief Soviet Political Commissar Malizia is a 1981 West Point graduate who spent many years pushing this agenda in defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton. In her present role, she “advises the Secretary of the Air Force on the Department of the Air Force’s diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility programs, policies and initiatives impacting approximately 697,000 active duty, Guard, Reserve and civilian Airmen and Guardians worldwide.”
A quote by Jayd Henricks in an article he wrote:
“By scandal I do not mean simply personally offended. The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines scandal as “an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense” (CCC #2284). The Catechism goes on to say that “scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others” (CCC #2285). Finally, “anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged” (CCC #2287). The Catechism quotes Matthew 18:6 when it says it would be better for a person to have a millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned than to be the cause of serious scandal.”
From Radicals: Portraits of a Destructive Passion by David Horowitz
In 1969, the year that publishers reissued Alinsky’s first book, Reveille for Radicals, a Wellesley undergraduate named Hillary Rodham submitted a 92-page research project on Alinsky for her senior thesis. In her conclusion Clinton compared Alinsky to Eugene Debs, Walt Whitman and Martin Luther King, as someone who was considered dangerous not because he was a self-declared enemy of the American system, but because he “embraced the most radical of political faiths — democracy.” The title of Clinton’s thesis was “There Is Only the Fight: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model.” In this title she had identified the single most important Alinsky contribution to the radical cause – his embrace of political nihilism.
An SDS radical once wrote, “The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution.” In other words, the cause of a political action – whether civil rights or women’s rights – is never the real cause; women, blacks and other “victims” are only instruments in the larger cause, which is power. Battles over rights and other issues, according to Alinsky, should never be seen as more than occasions to advance the real agenda, which is the accumulation of power and resources in radical hands. Power is the all-consuming goal of Alinsky’s politics.
This focus on power was illustrated by an anecdote recounted in a New Republic article that appeared during Obama’s presidential campaign: “When Alinsky would ask new students why they wanted to organize, they would invariably respond with selfless bromides about wanting to help others. Alinsky would then scream back at them that there was a one-word answer: ‘You want to organize for power!’
In Rules for Radicals, Alinsky wrote: “From the moment an organizer enters a community, he lives, dreams, eats, breathes, sleeps only one thing, and that is to build the mass power base of what he calls the army.” The issue is never the issue. The issue is always building the army. The issue is always the revolution.
Guided by these principles, Alinsky’s disciples are misperceived as idealists; in fact, they are practiced Machiavellians. Their focus is invariably on means rather than ends. As a result they are not bound by organizational orthodoxies or theoretical dogmatisms in the way their still admired Marxist forebears were. Within the framework of their revolutionary agendas, they are flexible and opportunistic and will say anything (and pretend to be anything) to get what they want, which is power.
From Chris Rufo:
Queer Theory has launched an assault against what it calls the “cis-normative,” “hetero-normative,” “patriarchal” society. They want to break down the “gender binary”—the division between man and woman—and replace it with a battery of new sexual and political identities. But what happens when a society abandons the basic structure of reality and embraces an ideology of pure sexual negation? Can it survive?
From James Lindsay:
People have very rapidly realized, whether in Groomer Schools, marketing, or so many other corners of society that we’ve been suckered into supporting Queer Theory under the banner of a gay and lesbian civil rights movement. We’ve also figured out very quickly that Queer Theory is a branch of Identity Marxism: Queer Marxism, which takes “normalcy” as its special form of bourgeois property to abolish through (Queer) class struggle. Where, though, did Queer Theory come from? It is relatively widely accepted that the first real Queer Theory paper is Gayle Rubin’s 1984 essay “Thinking Sex” (https://sites.middlebury.edu/sexandso…, which calls for a new radical politics of sexuality. To help people understand what Queer Theory is and always has been about, James Lindsay proudly hosts a three-part New Discourses Podcast series reading through “Thinking Sex” in full and offering his commentary on it. In this first part, we learn that Queer Theory from its very beginnings is profoundly interested in both child pornography and pedophilia. It’s almost shocking to hear. Join James to understand Queer Theory from its very origins.
Part 2
In this episode, he continues with a second part of Rubin’s essay in which it becomes clear that Queer Theory is all about breaking down all boundaries and categories between acceptable and unacceptable sexual behavior using explicitly Marxist-style analysis (Queer Theory is Queer Marxism). Before getting to this section of the essay, however, James also presents a short article from 2016 (https://www.idsnews.com/article/2016/…) explaining the fruit Queer Theory is bearing, which makes its Marxist underpinnings completely apparent.
Leave a Comment