“The destruction of words is a very beautiful thing!” exclaimed Syme, a character in George Orwell’s famous novel 1984. Syme promoted Newspeak, the new language forged by the totalitarian state to manipulate the citizens’ minds.
The Deconstruction of Language
Each social revolution has manipulated language to blur reality, tailoring it to its particular ideology. Thus, Lenin proposed a “democratic peace” in the inaugural speech of the Third International in 1919. He was clearly not referring to the Christian tranquillitas ordinis, the tranquility of order. He appealed to its exact opposite, the dictatorship of the proletariat.
In the same way, the current cultural revolution (which Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira calls the Fourth Revolution” in his well-known scheme of history) also employs—linguistic manipulation taking it to a paroxysmal frenzy. Contraception is presented as “body control.” The killing of an unborn child becomes “voluntary termination of pregnancy.” Those supporting the killing of the innocent are referred to simply as “pro-choice.” Homosexuals turn into pleasure-seeking “gays.”
This language is far from being morally neutral. Indeed, it encourages sin by presenting it in a favorable light.
A new milestone has been crossed with so-called gender theory. This school of thought denies the natural male/female dichotomy, replacing it with an infinity of multifaceted “sexual orientations.” Some scholars have identified more than fifty “genders.” It is even fashionable to proclaim oneself gender fluid, that is, without a defined “gender.”
Gender theory denies sexual identity is grounded in nature. It holds that identity results from cultural, social and linguistic conditioning, making the human essence changeable by definition. Thus, nothing—not even nature—is objective. Everything can be manipulated at will by man, who plays the role of a demiurge not guided by reason but by unruly passions. Sexuality is free to be polymorphic and formed by subjective whims. Independent of natural law, sexuality becomes the driving force of postmodern society.
Here, this is no longer the mere deconstruction of language but an attempt to subvert the nature created by God. In our opinion, this marks a new step in the revolutionary process: the beginning of a Fifth Revolution.
Tell Amazon to Stop Selling Anti-Christian Products
Egalitarianism: Propelling Force of the Revolutionary Process
This revolutionary process of de-Christianization has obliterated Christian civilization since the end of the Middle Ages. Many use the term egalitarianism, with its necessary corollary, liberalism, to describe it.
Historically, this egalitarian process has passed through many steps. Protestantism sought equality in the religious sphere by denying the authority of the Pope, while more radical sects even denied that of bishops and priests. The French Revolution transposed these egalitarian principles to the political field, denying the authority of the king and the nobility. Communism attacked the last remaining inequality, economic inequality, by abolishing private property.
However, one last hierarchy remained to be destroyed, found in interno hominis (the interior of man). According to this hierarchical order, the Faith enlightens the intelligent, which in turn guides and strengthens the will. Then the will dominates the senses and passions.
The cultural revolution targets this internal hierarchy. Its action over the unbridled passion started with the roaring twenties and exploded with the paradigm shift wrought by the student revolts in May of 1968 in Paris. The sixties brought a “revolution in the ways of being,” a “total revolution,” a “liberation.” These radical changes implied the tyranny of the passions over any intellectual, moral, social or cultural limitation.
Tell Walmart to STOP Selling Satanic Products!
The cornerstone of this cultural revolution is sexual liberation. It proclaims the destruction of the prevailing morality. It asserts the freedom to “have sex” with whoever, wherever and however one wants. Initially understood as free sex between men and women, this revolution has increasingly unfolded with the proliferation of homosexuality and, more recently, pansexuality.
Nothing can be more logical. For the most extreme revolutionaries, genital sex is still “oppressive” because it takes place in ways defined by the natural morphology of the body. These radicals proclaim that humans must free themselves “from their morphological limitations by experiencing their sensuality through every fiber, pore, or possible fantasy.”
In this way, the human person will arrive at an adult version of what Freud called “polymorphous perversity.” This polymorphous perversity is Freud’s psychoanalytic concept proposing the ability to gain sexual gratification outside socially normative sexual behaviors.
The Destruction of Nature
This type of pan-sensuality, however, collides with an insurmountable obstacle: objective natural reality. The male/female difference arises from nature itself.
Far from wanting to bow to the laws of nature, the partisans of gender theory deny the difference between the sexes. They deny that there is any objective distinction between male and female behavior. To affirm this absurdity, they argue that objective reality does not exist. Everything is interpreted subjectively. It can all be rewritten and renamed at will. They proclaim fantasy as a rule of behavior.
How Panera’s Socialist Bread Ruined Company
The clinical definition of madness is the non-conformity of the intellect with reality and the consequent invention of an internal world that no longer corresponds with external truth.
Partisans of gender theory want to destroy natural law, which is the divine law engraved in nature. They try to subvert the most intimate structures of nature. In their utopia, man begins to behave like God. Their dreams promote a new creation opposed to the divine one.
Never before has Satan’s “non serviam” reached such radicalism. Despite their destructiveness, all revolutions up to now respected the laws of nature. By revolting against nature, the present revolutionary movements are the most radical ones of all time.
The Descent into Nowhere
“Genital man must transform himself into the perverse polymorph, capable of experiencing the world with all his senses and through all his pores,” writes Daniel Bell analyzing this revolution.1
Once genitality has been overcome, the distinction between the sexes disappears, and the androgynous being is born. The “new Adam” is created, or rather, the primitive Adam is reborn, the androgynous faun of esoteric mythology. Original sin (which some Revolutionaries call the repression of Eros) is redeemed, and History, returning to its origins, comes to an end.
What Does Saint Thomas Aquinas Say About Marriage?
Norman Brown, a herald of this new world, speaks of “Dionysus, the mad God [who] breaks down the boundaries [and] releases the prisoners.”2 This triumph of madness, he asserts, is the only way to free ourselves definitively from God. Some postmodern theologians envisage that, at this point, creation would be reabsorbed by the “cosmic Christ.” In a final synthesis, the “Pleroma” of which Teilhard de Chardin spoke, the “Mystical Body of the Dionysian Christ” would be formed.3 But, beyond this mystical body, what will there be? Bell says: “Beyond the mystical body is nothing.”
Since, as they argue, nothingness is the last horizon, the only activity that makes sense is to foment the dissolution of all things. That includes the self through carnal pan-sensuality and the delirium of dreams. Modernity has hitherto been guided by the idea of an Aufheben, a construction of the rational superman within the perfect civilization. All that remains is to replace this upward impulse with a Niedergang, a descent toward nothingness.
Having conquered everything, the devil would have to commit suicide to erase the last trace of God’s work in the universe: himself.
Photo Credit: © vchalup – stock.adobe.com
Footnotes:
1. Daniel Bell, Beyond Modernism. Beyond Self. The Winding Passage Essays and Sociological Journeys, Cambridge, ABT Books 1967, 295.
2. cit. in id., 296.
3. Ibid.