Homosexuality and Bourgeois decadence

I don’t really have a coherent political philosophy. I suppose what politics I have is informed by the Church, but I also have my own views which I know to be true by instinct, and a sense of justice and truth, and from which many modern-day ecclesiastics might turn in flight as from an “extremist.” I happen to think that I embrace a larger view. The article is stale now, having been written in the aftermath of the Orlando night club massacre, but the views expressed by journalist and political analyst Gearóid Ó Colmáin here are very interesting. Many of his conclusions are wrong, being logical only within the theory of dialectical materialism, but the arguments are sound, particularly the stuff in part three of the series in which he explores the etymology of the word “sex” in relation to idealism, and part five in which he discusses the rôle of the Roman Catholic Church.  I encourage you to read all parts.

2 thoughts on “Homosexuality and Bourgeois decadence

  1. Like all consistent Marxist commentary one can’t but be struck by the justice of the critique of capitalism’s immorality. But can one draw such a simple straight line from the evils of capitalism to what he calls “uranian” activism? It seems to me that (ideologically) such activism arises out of a collusion of (1) the will to power over nature as a thing to be used rather than a gift to us as stewards and nurturers – an evil well described in Lewis’s The Abolition of Man, and which is admittedly implicit in the greed of capitalism which is fundamentally a diabolical desire for power over things & people – it is also the motive of much modern science and its ubiquitous “products” in our technological world divorced from the plough, and (2) the materialism of Marx and others which allows in a view of sex as a pleasure-giving mechanism rather than the bodily expression of a spiritual and cosmological dimension of Creation. I am not sure what would really stop a Marxist from supporting the manipulation of gender, etc.: if it is mere matter and can be fiddled with, then what is the problem? Unless one wishes to argue that the proletariat reproducing to create more workers for the collective is an end in itself. And that is simply too comic an idea of sex.


    • Sorry for the delay in replying, I have been away again.

      Of course, I don’t agree with the author’s every conclusion but there is something in what he says about “the triumph of unbridled desire.” And that’s really everything about contemporary life in a nutshell, from promiscuous sex, cheap humour and state-encouraged borrowing. Instant gratification. Everything has to be paid for in the end; whether that’s crippling interest, a sexually-transmitted disease, or the sense of…or even no sense at all. Tolkien said the same thing about labour-saving machines causing endless and worse labour. I suppose it’s a cyclical thing, like the love of God, or God’s Word itself.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s