There is a saying that civilizations are more often destroyed from within than by armies attacking them from without. And it is in this context that one particular question has been puzzling me for quite some time: Who poses a greater threat to the fabric of Western society and our individual liberties such as freedom of speech, the Islamists or the Political Correctness (PC) brigades? For isn’t there palpable public resistance to sharia law in the West, but scarcely any opposition to the abominations of the sexual revolution? Except when a scandal like that of the late BBC presenter Jimmy Savile surfaces and reminds us of the dire condition of children in 21^st century Western society, sparing not even hospitalized quadriplegics from pedophile abuse. Despite all this, the erotocratic PC elites keep dominating universities, governments and the mainstream media with their agenda in favor of LGBTIQ - this never quite complete acronym for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer advocacy groups. However it seems nothing can stop the train of the top-down global sexual revolution. This amounts to nothing less than the left version of colonialism – political dominance via international policy bodies such as UN and EU.

I wonder how the left manages to lead conservatives by the nose into the Islamophobia trap. A prime example is the Benghazi disaster with the US ambassador and three staff killed by highly armed Islamists with perfect logistics reeking of Al-Qaeda. For it has been framed persistently by the Obama administration as a spontaneous protest against the You-Tube video produced by an islamophobic Californian Christian. You see, supposedly the assault has nothing to do with Al-Queda spotting poor American security provisions in Libya, but everything with conservative hate speech fueling Muslim extremism. The solution obviously is curbing free speech in the West. Mark Steyn has exposed the security gap in Benghazi during the night before the September 11 attacks and pointed to the Obama politicizing spin.

Again we conservatives might ask ourselves, in the words of Jacques Barzun, the eminent New Yorker cultural critic and author of “From Dawn to Decadence - 500 Years of Western Cultural Life”: Is the Left Fabianizing us? Are they nudging us into choosing the wrong enemies and simultaneously losing the big picture of how we actually want to live? For instance why should we allow homosexuals who advocate gay marriage to call themselves conservative? Let’s not forget that, as the London magazine Standpoint reported, the majority of homosexuals does not even favor gay marriage. Now the English Fabians of the late 19th century labeled themselves after the Roman general who won his battles by an attrition strategy, mixing endless small skirmishes with delaying tactics and slyly avoiding decisive battles. This would explain why we have witnessed, after the allegedly final Western defeat of the Soviet Union two decades ago, the ascendancy of Barack Hussein Obama as the supreme leader of the West, a leader who vigorously attempts to transform America into a European-style entitlement society and detests Israel. Has Obama taken up the mettle which the English Fabians had to drop after WW I setting the US on a course of decline like that we have seen with the British Empire?

Now for a couple of decades we have seen in the West a perplexing and perhaps unconscious division of labor between the international Right, fighting Islam, and the Left, fighting Israel. Ironically this is a reversal of the roles they had chosen in the middle of the last century. Conservative bloggers in the Anglo-sphere and beyond keep depicting Islamists as the dominant scourge of Western freedom and treating the homegrown threat to those same liberties with nonchalance. As a notable exception I refer to Michael Presley, who wrote a piece about cultural Marxism in this Journal last year, titled: “Sean Gabb and the Western Cultural Revolution”. We are talking about the sexual revolution that started in 1968 and has corrupted the fabric of all Western democracies mostly by anti-authoritarian education, permissiveness with drug abuse and the propagation of sexual libertinage, resulting in an unprecedented spread of family related violence and rape against women and children and a surge in suicides. This begs the question: did Western conservatives really choose their enemies carefully? Not that I would suggest any change in our support for Israel for that country is a beacon of stability in the Middle East and the cradle of our Western democracy. Nor that I would argue to expel homosexuals from communities, politics and church services or reject civil unions between them. The red line is same sex marriage. Therefore to depict Islam as the principal enemy of the West seems greatly inadequate now. Let me explain the main reasons for this:

Firstly the Arab Spring has been winding up several major Arabic Muslim governments and continues to disintegrate the postwar power arrangements in the Middle East attracting most of Al-Qaeda to take advantage of the situation by focusing on the Middle East. The Arab Spring will continue to weakens the antagonism between the West and Islam and instead enhance the fierce Arab infighting. Spengler (a pseudonym for David Goldman) recently noted in Asian Times online: “In the Middle East ….the horizon has collapsed in upon the present. It isn't the apocalypse, but in Iran, Syria, Turkey, and Egypt it must be what the apocalypse feels like…what some hailed as an Arab Spring is descending into an Arab nightmare." (David Goldman: “How Civilizations Die (and Why Islam is Dying, Too”, September 2011). Similarly, according to Davis Douglas, former senior editor of the Jerusalem Post, “a storm of massive proportions is brewing in the Middle East”. 

Secondly the often described Arab or Muslim population bomb, spilling over to Europe, is not borne out by the facts. Commentators are increasingly absorbing facts contradicting the alleged demographic threat to Western societies posed by Muslim immigration. Not only are average birth rates of Muslim communities in the diaspora fast approaching the low levels familiar to Western societies. But even in countries that turned more fundamentalist recently such as Iran, Turkey and Egypt the birth rates are plummeting. So it’s time to question the soundness of the combined barrage of high alerts about the threat of Islamic immigration in conservative internet sites such as Brussels Journal, Achse des Guten, FrontPage, The Commentator, National Review and WeeklyStandard to name just a few. It is probably fair to say and somewhat ironic that mayor resistance to the Fabian “march through the institutions” by the erotocratic Marxists on the stages of the UN has come from the Muslim countries and not from Western conservatives with the notable exception of John Bolton. To look at the Muslim irritabilities and sensibilities with regard to blasphemy in this context offers a very different political picture than the one of ridicule and mockery. The Muslims could well have served as the canaries in the coal mine.

Thirdly to review our attitude toward ordinary Muslims seems particularly sound at a time when the Arab choice of Israel as arch enemy is also being questioned. One of those voices in the Arab world is Abdulatef Al-Mulhim, who recently argued in the Arab News: “The Arab Spring showed the world that the Palestinians are happier and in better situation than their Arab brothers who fought to liberate them from the Israelis. Now, it is time to stop the hatred and wars and start to create better living conditions for the future Arab generations…The questions now are: What was the real cost of these wars to the Arab world and its people. And the harder question that no Arab national wants to ask is: What was the real cost for not recognizing Israel in 1948 and why didn’t the Arab states spend their assets on education, health care and the infrastructures instead of wars?

But, the hardest question that no Arab national wants to hear is whether Israel is the real enemy of the Arab world and the Arab people. I decided to write this article after I saw photos and reports about a starving child in Yemen, a burned ancient Aleppo souk in Syria, the under developed Sinai in Egypt, car bombs in Iraq and the destroyed buildings in Libya. The photos and the reports were shown on the Al-Arabiya network, which is the most watched and respected news outlet in the Middle East. The common thing among all what I saw is that the destruction and the atrocities are not done by an outside enemy. The starvation, the killings and the destruction in these Arab countries are done by the same hands that are supposed to protect and build the unity of these countries and safeguard the people of these countries. So, the question now is that who is the real enemy of the Arab world? The Arab world wasted hundreds of billions of dollars and lost tens of thousands of innocent lives fighting Israel, which they considered is their sworn enemy, an enemy whose existence they never recognized. The Arab world has many enemies and Israel should have been at the bottom of the list. The real enemies of the Arab world are corruption, lack of good education, lack of good health care, lack of freedom, lack of respect for the human lives and finally, the Arab world had many dictators who used the Arab-Israeli conflict to suppress their own people. These dictators’ atrocities against their own people are far worse….”

Fourthly we are still left with Fatwas against Western critics of Islam and with Islamic terrorism to boot. However we have to remind ourselves that the latter are emulating our Western terrorist groups of the 1970ies. After all Hamas, Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda emerged after and learned from the much earlier Western terrorist groups like the Baader-Meinhof gang, The Brigate Rosse, the Basque separatists, the IRA and many others that our security agencies dealt with and will continue doing in the future. Apart from this there are other developments in the Jewish and Muslim diaspora in the West that challenge the above mentioned right/left division of labor with regard to anti-Semitism, here used in the genuine sense encompassing all Semitic peoples. The European persecution of orthodox religious communities Jewish and Muslims alike is converging with a focus on ritual practices like slaughter and circumcision. In America the same persecution includes Roman Catholics. For the first time since the Holocaust Jews and Muslims are rubbing shoulders in their protest against curbing religious freedom in the West. This new development, more than anything else, renders any exclusive fight against one special religion preposterous. The established pro-Israel attitude of Western conservatives has to be extended to the diaspora and to the whole range of monotheist religions.

And we should therefore move on and focus on our inner strength and possible enemies within our Western society. Let it be said that not only our classical liberties but the substance of the Occident is under attack from an erotocratic avant-garde of cultural Marxists that is about to transform and dominate our national governments. This is a top-down-revolution and equally the final chapter of the sexual revolution that started in 1968 and engulfed academia in the following decades. Gabriela Kuby in her new book, published in German last month and titled “The Global Sexual Revolution” shows exactly how the LGBTIQ lobby has infiltrated and more or less conquered all major international institutions such as the United Nations, the bureaucracy of the European Union, OECD and several national governments. She presents abundant evidence for that claim, showing that those national and international bodies have over the last decade committed themselves to gender mainstreaming which is a hideous strategy of undermining and destroying the traditional Western family. This is by way of implementing lofty and polyvalent “sexual orientation” into all laws that regulate anti-discrimination, civil law, the new construct of “hate speech” and policies including the whole gambit of perks that used to flow to families only.

Now what is at stake here? Rabbi Dennis Prager so brilliant made the case for the venerable institution of heterosexual marriage that I quote him at length: “When Judaism demanded that all sexual activity be channeled into marriage, it changed the world. The Torah's prohibition of non-marital sex quite simply made the creation of Western civilization possible. Societies that did not place boundaries around sexuality were stymied in their development. The subsequent dominance of the Western world can largely be attributed to the sexual revolution initiated by Judaism and later carried forward by Christianity. This revolution consisted of forcing the sexual genie into the marital bottle. It ensured that sex no longer dominated society, heightened male-female love and sexuality (and thereby almost alone created the possibility of love and eroticism within marriage), and began the arduous task of elevating the status of women. It is probably impossible for us, who live thousands of years after Judaism began this process, to perceive the extent to which undisciplined sex can dominate man's life and the life of society.

Throughout the ancient world, and up to the recent past in many parts of the world, sexuality infused virtually all of society. Human sexuality, especially male sexuality, is polymorphous or utterly wild (far more so than animal sexuality). Men have had sex with women and with men; with little girls and young boys; with a single partner and in large groups; with total strangers and immediate family members; and with a variety of domesticated animals. They have achieved orgasm with inanimate objects such as leather, shoes, and other pieces of clothing, through urinating and defecating on each other (interested readers can see a photograph of the former at select art museums exhibiting the works of the photographer Robert Mapplethorpe); by dressing in women's garments; by watching other human beings being tortured; by fondling children of either sex; by listening to a woman's disembodied voice (e.g., "phone sex"); and, of course, by looking at pictures of bodies or parts of bodies. There is little, animate or inanimate, that has not excited some men to orgasm. Of course, not all of these practices have been condoned by societies — parent-child incest and seducing another's man's wife have rarely been countenanced — but many have, and all illustrate what the unchanneled, or in Freudian terms, the "un-sublimated," sex drive can lead to.” (Dennis Prager, “Judaism's Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality” in: National Review).

We are seeing the spoils of Western unchanneled sexuality in unprecedented numbers of sexual violence and rape as well as suicides not to mention divorce rates. However the good news is that there seems to be a healthy response at least in the American upper class whose divorce rate is declining for the first time after WW II. This is the result of research by Charles Murray (Coming Apart - The State of White America, 1960-2010) who also found that the divorce rate is dramatically higher (about 65%) in the lowest fifth of the American populace than in the highest fifth (closer to 25%). Still the erotocratic elites are keen to impose gender mainstreaming on the majority even though the LGBTIQ groups represent only 2% of the population. This would be impossible in a representative democracy and therefore the trick with the EU-NGO networking machine. Thus European liberals are employing tactics that undermine representative democracy with a participatory democracy driven by special interests. Most Europeans have not even heard of the word gender mainstreaming while for more than a decade millions of tax payer money has been spent for this purpose.

Gender mainstreaming is the agenda of imposing on 98% of the populace a completely alien and to most of us utterly offensive set of values. This racket is being staged by equally unaccountable NGO’s (non-governmental organizations) exploiting the lack of accountability with the European super bureaucracies and international bodies such as the WHO and United Nations. Both are increasingly eclipsing national governments. The trick is, as Daniel Hannan has shown, that the EU not only finances many NGOs but has actually initiated some of them such as the European Cyclists – generating of course an abundance of conflicts of interests. Hannan, who is a conservative Member of the European Parliament for Britain, knows Brussels from firsthand experience. He describes the detailed mechanics of the corruption in the European Union bureaucrats in his new book “The New Road to Serfdom”.

Judith Butler, philosopher at the University of Berkeley in California, has emerged as the leading figure of the powerful gender lobby and has just received the prestigious Adorno-Prize in Frankfurt Germany for her work. Jewish organizations distanced themselves from the ceremony because Butler, supposedly immunized by some Jewish upbringing, supports the Israel Boycott movement called BDS. But nobody noticed that her very philosophy fervently militates against the sacred function of the traditional family which is obviously upheld less in the diaspora and more in Israel. Butler ultimately rejects any role for the family for she loathes natural sex roles and instead favors a completely volatile sexual orientation, called “queer”, which is anything but nature.

Bruce Bawer, an American born gay writer living in Norway, has just thoroughly dismantled the myth that identity studies of the kind of Butler’s are to be considered as science, despite the fact that they have absorbed most of the resources of the humanities at many US universities (B.B. “The Victim Revolution – The Rise of Identity Studies and the Closing of the Liberal Mind). Gender, according to Butler, manifests itself only in actual or situational “performance”. This reminds the philosophically proficient to the Nazi brand of existentialism namely Martin Heidegger who shared the presumptuous German feeling of betrayal that drove Nazism. Heidegger radicalized or if you wish broken down to the individual the famous 19^th century German School of “historicism”, denying eternal human institutions under natural law such as the family or nation etc. He made his name with the notion of “being in time” or “parousia”. Along these lines operates Butler’s term of performance, reminding us that Heidegger’s “parousia” means in Greek “physical presence” or “arrival”. Interestingly in the New Testament it stands for “the advent of the lawless man” or the “Second coming of Christ”. Lawlessness with regard to family and sex is at the heart of Butler’s philosophy. Butler calls herself a disciple of Hannah Arendt, who in turn was a disciple of Heidegger. That the intolerant mob surrounding Butler, emulating their predecessors that surrounded Heidegger, is driven by radically secular motives, does not come as a surprise to me. Gabriele Kuby provides abundant evidence of the intolerance and aggressiveness of the new erotocratic avant-garde that uses any Fabian tactics to stamp out dissidents to their orthodoxy.

To sum it up: Butler and the LGBTI activists want their cake and eat it too. For they regard themselves as being eligible to any sex identity and entitled to have sex with anybody and in any number or combination of people as a basic human right. Now since this unlimited promiscuity involves lots of health risks, they are asking the taxpayer to cover those risks. Even pedophile sex is back on the agenda for being decriminalized by the erotocratic lobby. The whole story of the involvement of European governments, the European Union and even the United Nations and much more has been meticulously researched and exposed in the already mentioned book by Gabriela Kuby.

This lobbying machine has managed to push through sexual education from cradle to grave, which is all but implemented. This is also true for antidiscrimination laws, including the ruling out of critique as “hate speech”. The intolerance toward public discourse of the LGBTIQ agenda has reached a level of organization and legal codification that it makes Muslim intolerance look as peanuts with the exception of the UN, where both are successful. With the new “hate speech” legislation well under implementation, rendering opposition to the LGBTI agenda as a crime, classical liberties are now at stake in most of the West.

Let me raise a last point that exposes the weakness of Western, especially European societies. The issue is demography. “It isn’t destiny- quite,” writes Bret Stephens (in: Commentary Magazine, October 12) “But it’s close. A recent report from the European Commission notes that by 2060 the EU’s overall population will increase by about 15 million people, but the number of working-age Europeans will, over the same period, decline by 15 million.” The combination of a huge contraction of the workforce, relaxing of working ethics and the explosion of entitlements in the wake of a possible takeover of the erotocratic regime is a precept for disaster. Again Stephens: “The marriage of interest-group politics and welfarism has always been the Achilles’ heel of modern democracy. The present crisis has driven a spear through it. What Europe has isn’t merely an economic or even a political crisis. It is a civilizational crisis. A critical mass of Europeans has become addicted to the very stuff that ails them. Maybe they will, in time, sober up. Or maybe not. Sometimes decadent democracies find their Thatcher. Other times, they find their Juan Perón.”

Well already European and British nanny staters and their Nazi-style health brigades are after easy targets such as smokers, obese people and drinkers. So all the harmless traditional indulgencies are under attack and targeted for eradication. However in a perverse logic the very habits that European Jews, Christians and Muslims became to eschew as sinful (incest, sodomy, pedophilia, promiscuity, adultery, sex with animals and what not), are on the way of becoming legitimate everyday past times. In a way revealing how one power elite is just replacing the previous one is the observation that when finally anything that was “coming out” as new identity has been rubber stamped and is now being tolerated per ordre de Mufti the homosexual elites today are denying tolerance to opinions that once facilitated their own elevation to the public gravy train. The only hope left for conservatives to dissemble this erotocratic Fabian racket seems to be a combined effort of all major Abrahamic denominations. For it is the unique feature of the monotheist Deity that it creates sans sex out of nothing.