LGBTIQ and the Logic of the Cuckoo’s Egg
Listen on Spotify:
Listen on Youtube:
We, philosophers, suffer because most people tend to despise our vocation, whereas some – admittedly, a minority – usurp it and tend to render it actually despicable soon enough. This makes ‘being philosopher’ quite an unenviable path through life. However, some things, dear reader, cannot really be comprehended without due brush with philosophy. One of those is the thing behind the LGBTIQ acronym.
There is a number of philosophical principles that are especially despised today, not in the least in the academic philosophy circuit, while, as it happens, without them, there’s no philosophy at all. Those principles are habitually brushed off as, so called, tautologies, which means that they are being understood as valid only in the “logical space”, while holding no discernable footing in reality.
The roots of this assumption go at least a century or two deep and, of course, we can’t apply a hermeneutical shovel to them here. Suffice it to say that they have to do with the idea that the subject and object are two terminally separate entities, and that the only job of philosophy is either to bridge the gap between them or to prove that the whole business is meaningless.
One of the principles in question is the so called “principle of identity”. In its logical form it is expressed as: “A is A”. In itself, it explicates the fact that each being, insofar it is, is identical with itself and that a thought about a given being is also identical with itself.
I believe that there’s already a hefty question mark forming over the head of an uninformed reader; for is it not trivial to assert the obvious? If something of a sort is just happening to you, no matter; I am not writing this for the informed. Let us, bearing this in mind, take a look at an example of the principle of identity, applied to something quite in vogue nowadays.
Take, for example, a following statement:
“Same sex marriage is same sex marriage”
Can we really carelessly dismiss it as tautology, asserting that, content wise, it tells us nothing, so we should render it into, say, this one:
“Same sex marriage is homosexual marriage”
The answer is: no, we can’t do that. A good number of academically established philosophers would claim that we could, but, I believe that, until we are done with the analysis, it will become clear how trustworthy their judgment would be.
The first statement is not only possible and purposeful, but in actual fact it is the necessary condition for the second to make sense. One doesn’t have to pronounce it or even represent it in thought, but it has to be present implicitly, if it be at all possible to analyze to what extent is the second one true.
The word “analysis” is nowadays habitually understood to denote the procedure of deconstructing something into its constituent parts. However, this is not its original meaning.
Ancient Greek expression ἀνάλυσις translates as “untying”, as in untying of the knot.
In philosophy, worthy of its name, the analysis doesn’t mean deconstructing an entity or a problem into parts, but it refers to disciplined way of thought, starting from the effect in order to reach the cause. This implies that cause and effect are, in a certain manner, always connected, so that, even the metaphorical, association to some kind of separation or deconstruction is misguided. Analysis should be imagined as pulling the thread, whose one end is that which is known, whereas the other is that which is unknown. The unknown is such as it is because of the knot between two ends of the thread. Therefore, to analyze means to untie the knot and not to cut the thread.
In our example, a knot becomes visible when one realizes that same sex marriage can, but doesn’t have to be, homosexual marriage. The reason why most people fail to understand what is really at the heart of LGBTIQ politics is because they understand the second statement, without noticing its necessary connection to the first.
Statement “same sex marriage is homosexual marriage” is, therefore, only partially true, i.e. it is not as true as the statement “same sex marriage is same sex marriage”; it is true precisely to the degree it has something in common with the second one.
And what would that be? The answer is as simple as it is difficult to intuit: what two sentences have in common is that they are expressions of the effects of the one and the same cause, where one is closer to the cause, whereas the other is further from it.
It is quite natural that, at the first sight, one seems obvious to us while the other appears superfluous. Every analysis starts from what is more obvious to us towards that which is clear in itself. I am sure, dear readers that, like me, none of you, ever saw two heterosexuals in the same sex marriage.
That’s the reason why, initially, we conflate same sex marriage with homosexual marriage. The other reason is that the second one is what we see, while the first one is what is implied in it, but not visible to us; and the purpose of the analysis is to reach the unknown, i.e. the invisible.
Homosexual marriage is the direct consequence of the existence of the idea that same sex marriage is possible; the same sex marriage is, therefore, the cause of the existence of the homosexual marriage. To explicate it fully: the purpose of both is the inauguration of the divorce between sex and procreation.
At this point, I have to pay due homage, and direct readers attention to, our keen minded art deco maiden, Utikejt, who is, to my knowledge, the first one who cracked the LGBTIQ code precisely by carefully observing this principle and drawing right conclusions from it (see Uti’s articles on the meaning of the LGBTIQ acronym and LGBTIQ flag).
If you have a problem to understand what she’s saying, in linked articles, it is probably because you naturally overlook this simple, yet invisible, fact. I say, “naturally”, because if we were all created to meddle with the invisible, we wouldn’t need eyes.
And only philosophers would get to heaven.
Yet, I suspect, there’s even less of them, than of theologians, there. LGBTIQ concerns everyone, but not everyone manages to comprehend it; this is, however, hardly necessary because evil of it is potentially visible to everyone.
Some people have the need to pull the devil by the tail, just to see where it got entangled. But all people need to say ‘no’ to him. If everyone should go about pulling his tail, that would not be good, because sometimes he turns around and gives you a look; if everyone would tell him:”no”, that would really piss him off.
Of course, that’s not going to happen and mass acceptance of the manifest absurdity as LGBTIQ is a clear indicator to that effect.
However, what is “the manifest absurdity”?
It is quite simple: manifestly absurd statement is the one refuting itself, without the need for outside argument; it is, hence, the opposite of the statement of identity, which is always true, without the need for outside argument.
Manifestly true statement is:
“Heterosexual marriage is heterosexual marriage”
Manifestly absurd statement is:
“Same sex marriage is same sex marriage”
Without realizing this simple, quite concrete, distinction, it is impossible to see through LGBTIQ illusion. By seeing through, I mean: without any compromise reject everything offered by the thing behind the acronym, down to a single dot in its first letter and sparing no headache about it. The reason for this is that, when LGBTIQ is concerned, we are dealing with the pure lie.
So in what does the simple, concrete, distinction consist?
The first statement is true because it tells us that marriage is the relationship caused by sexual duality and that this is immediately obvious: the predicate is clearly present and comprehensible in- and from the subject itself (marriage is marriage), because qualification of the subject is true (heterosexual). The statement is not tautological, as if it has no real content and, correspondingly, says nothing, but quite the contrary: it is true because it says it all; namely, it perfectly expresses the cause of marriage, i.e. sexual duality of human being; marriage is heterosexual, because heterosexuality is the cause of why it exists. That’s why this statement, no matter how trivial it might appear, has to exist at the foundation of every derivative definition of marriage, because only through it the effect is clearly visible in its cause, the marriage as resting in the natural duality of human being from which it stems.
Why is the statement: ‘Same sex marriage is same sex marriage’ untrue? At first sight, this is impossible, because it expresses the always true principle of identity. However, the problem is that it doesn’t express it at all, but smuggles in a contradiction in its stead, like a logical cuckoo’s egg of a sort. The subject of the statement (marriage) is in direct contradiction with itself (same sex), because neither in this, nor in the previous statement, marriage is understood as convention, but in both of them it is being understood as the effect coming from the clear and concrete real cause, i.e. from the human nature qualified by sexual bipolarity.
Do not fall for the lie that, for example, homosexual marriage is being legalized because, supposedly, the “traditional marriage” is just a convention, so there can be another form of marriage in accordance with a different convention. If this were true, then gay marriage would exist aside from the normal marriage.
But this is not the case, because gay marriage has to be wholly identical to normal marriage in order for it to function in the LGBTIQ context. It has to, because same sex marriage is the marriage that severs itself from the cause, but keeps the effect. If LGBTIQ politics understood marriage to be based on convention, then there would be no demands for same sex couples to also have a natural – in no way conventional – fruits of marriage, namely: children.
This is precisely the cause of marriage that is present in the subjects of both statements (“heterosexual marriage is heterosexual marriage”, “same sex marriage is same sex marriage”); the purpose of marriage – its final cause – is fertility, yet in the second instance the fertility is naturally impossible; moreover, this is manifestly stated. Therefore, the assertion “same sex marriage is same sex marriage” not only has nothing to do with the principle of identity, but is rather an expression of the manifest absurdity.
Everyone fulfilling the minimal criteria of LGBTIQ sympathizer has assimilated this manifestly absurd assertion as true. By doing this, he or she severed the thread leading from the effect towards the cause, because it is an assertion that retains an illusion of truth only by keeping the effect and removing its cause.
Not to put a too fine point on it: same sex marriage is a complete lie.
It would’ve been a partial lie if it were identical with, say, homosexual marriage, because then it would mean only that people who find the opposite sex sexually unacceptable could enter marriage.
However, heterosexuals can also enter the same sex marriage.
Then, and only then, LGBTIQ politics has fulfilled its purpose, not before; because, when it comes to that, the circle is closed and the purpose of every marriage – the normal one and the infinite spectrum of its abnormal reconfigurations – becomes one: children become the product of technological reproduction, where natural reproduction becomes an act of discrimination. This would be necessary, because technological process can be made equally accessible to all, while marriage inequality is unacceptable, as much as sexual and gender inequality.
The end result would be that marriage expressed in the statement: “heterosexual marriage is heterosexual marriage” would not exist anymore. This would be so, because it would become terminally severed from its cause and thus reduced to nothing.
LGBTIQ is, therefore, pure lie.
Whereas the lie vulgaris customarily persists as a parasite on truth, here we are dealing with an openly manifest lie, inseminating the very basis of logic, whose principles it reconfigures, quite akin to what virus does. Once the same sex marriage would become unquestionable reality, the only manner of human procreation left would be a technological procedure, because then we would not be able to understand man as inherently sexually bipolar being; he would be rendered into sexless being. In this respect, one interesting – and rather chilling – question is: how would the progeny of such being look like? It seems to me that an answer would be the final explication of the ultimate purpose of LGBTIQ politics. However, we are far from being able to offer any meaningful answer.
Let it suffice for this occasion that we were able to ascertain the following: same sex marriage does not satisfy two conditions every being and every thought about being has to satisfy, as I pointed out at the outset. Same sex marriage is not identical with itself, and its essential qualification (same sex) renders it impossible; the concept of same sex marriage is inherently contradictory, because the predicate (same sex) negates the subject (marriage).
No matter how much one resists LGBTIQ politics, while this has not become clear, the resistance is, at best, partially successful. Everybody fighting external manifestations, without finding the way to ascertain their inner cause, is fighting a losing battle; in this particular case we are dealing with something akin to virus, attacking the most intimate part of man – his heart and mind.
Therefore, the struggle is against something acting from the inside out.
LGBTIQ is a mental virus, and virus cannot be argued with or terminally destroyed by the quarantine. In general, it is very hard to imagine a political action adequate to the challenge – up to now the best course of action ended up being doing nothing. The reason for this is because LGBTIQ erodes that which is inside, and adequate antidote to such process is thinking, not acting. The one who wants to destroy this Carthage has to understand it; possibly, this is the only thing that can and should be done.
The problem is, however, that simple in no way equals easy, because to think the simple is hard and to reflect on elementary principles of thought, attacked by the LGBTIQ is very hard. Yet, the moment one sees through the illusion, there is no way it can sway him anymore.
Utikejt was quicker than me in finding the right metaphor, so I’ll paraphrase her, instead of conjuring up one of my own, because I think it hits the nail in the head: LGBTIQ is like a spider’s web which, if one is not entangled in it, can be torn with a wave of a hand; however, if one does get entangled in it, one will never escape it alive.
Finally, there is one question we haven’t addressed. I warmly recommend you don’t attempt to look for an answer and I’ll just leave it here, at the end, because one should be aware of it, and it goes with a metaphor like tobacco with coffee.
Namely: where is the spider?
Kali Tribune runs on reader’s support. If you found the above informative and/or enlightening, consider supporting us.