Category Archives: sodomy

The world must be kept free of any kind of moral complexity

Cherchez le colonialiste britannique

The diversity to which the liberal claims devotion is a sham

Dalrymple occasionally meets among his patients

Jamaican homosexuals who have received political asylum in Britain. (In Jamaica, laws against sodomy remain on the books, though they are rarely enforced.)

Leafing through the British newspaper the Guardian, he comes across an article

ascribing blame for this Jamaican illiberalism not to the Jamaicans but to the British. The Jamaicans, it argued, had a fear and hatred of homosexuality because British slave masters sodomised slaves one-and-three-quarter centuries ago.

The article’s author allowed that other factors played a role:

Jamaican men tended to be swaggeringly macho as a consequence of the powerlessness they felt under the colonial and neocolonial regimes. Furthermore, Jamaica is a poor country, and its population poorly educated. Why is it poor? Because so large a proportion of its budget goes to service the national debt—a burden developed countries have laid on it. If Jamaicans were richer and better educated, they would be more tolerant of homosexuals.

This argument, writes Dalryjmple,

is paradigmatic of the liberal mindset regarding supposed victim populations such as the Jamaicans, who nevertheless hold views and behave in ways that liberals find distasteful. The blame is not theirs but belongs to the perpetrator group of which the liberal disapproves. The victim group—in this case the Jamaicans—find themselves dehumanised. They can do no wrong because, as victims, they are not moral agents. Their opinions, if similar to those widespread among us not so very long ago, are not theirs, but are unthinking emotional responses to historical experiences—not real opinions but like the automatic responses that rats develop when exposed to conditioning stimuli.

The liberal’s devotion to diversity

disappears. Jamaica, which for all its faults has a democratic method of altering its laws, is to be regarded as suffering from a neurotic illness if it does not go along with current liberal notions of right and wrong.

The diversity to which the liberal claims devotion

is a stalking horse to destroy moral attitudes of which he disapproves, so as to replace them with others that he regards as universal and binding.

Sincere, modest Stalin versus the Nazi sodomites

Dalrymple leafs through Eyes Left! (1943) by Reg Ellery, the Australian psychiatrist and fellow traveller, and is amused by this sort of stuff:

The Soviet Union must be the pattern for our reconstructional efforts. We should remember that it succeeded in spite of overwhelming obstacles because the socialist ideology appealed to men and women with courage and enthusiasm, willing to risk personal pleasure and private satisfaction for the splendid purpose in the task that lay ahead of them. We, likewise, can succeed if we can enlist the pliant sympathies of youth to a doctrine which aims at the abolition of the exploitation of man by man.

As for Stalin, Ellery found him to be

a man whose modesty is as disarming as his determination is inflexible—a man of great vision, a sincere student, a warm friend.

Dalrymple explains also that Ellery felt that he had discovered the secret source of German fascism, which he identified as homosexuality. He appeared to blame the whole of Nazism on homosexuality, latent or otherwise. Ellery wrote:

Nazism is a homosexual culture. The Nazi ideal is masculinity. The typical Nazi has the homosexual’s fear of the female. Hitler and his satellites, under the strong pressure of their own latent homosexuality, have foisted this masculinity on the German nation once again, knowing, perhaps, that militarism flourishes best in the atmosphere of repressed homosexuality.