The incoherence of liberal secular thought really shines through in a recent episode from the Trump administration.
The Trump administration is launching a global campaign to end the criminalization of homosexuality in dozens of nations where it’s still illegal to be gay, U.S. officials tell NBC News, a bid aimed in part at denouncing Iran over its human rights record.
U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell, the highest-profile openly gay person in the Trump administration, is leading the effort, which kicks off Tuesday evening in Berlin. The U.S. embassy is flying in LGBT activists from across Europe for a strategy dinner to plan to push for decriminalization in places that still outlaw homosexuality — mostly concentrated in the Middle East, Africa and the Caribbean.
“It is concerning that, in the 21st century, some 70 countries continue to have laws that criminalize LGBTI status or conduct,” said a U.S. official involved in organizing the event.
This is precisely what I mean when I emphasize that Trump is philosophically liberal. He is just as committed to an individualized notion of personal liberty as any Democrat. The only difference between him, as a Republican, and the Democrats is in defining details of what personal liberty consists of and how that personal liberty can be best achieved and guaranteed. Both the left and the right agree that personal liberty is the most important value all governments must uphold, and they both agree that the “free world” has a moral duty to pressure and, ultimately, coerce other nations to abide by this “universal value.”
And this is what we see now with LGBT. The “enlightened” West has come to accept that every man has the human right to put his penis in the rectum of other men. Rectum penetration is pleasurable to a certain group of people in the West. Therefore, anything that discourages, speaks against, denounces, hinders, or in any other way prevents people from pursuing that pleasure is tyranny. It doesn’t matter what the moral status of such an action is. It doesn’t matter what deleterious spiritual, psychological, and physical effects of such an action. It doesn’t matter how that action affects families and society writ large. ALL that matters is the individual pleasure and a person’s “human right” to experience it. This is what liberalism is.
Although the decriminalization strategy is still being hashed out, officials say it’s likely to include working with global organizations like the United Nations, the European Union and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, as well as other countries whose laws already allow for gay rights. Other U.S. embassies and diplomatic posts throughout Europe, including the U.S. Mission to the E.U., are involved, as is the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor.
The UN’s entire purpose is to impose liberalism on the entire globe and coerce compliance. Usually it is Muslim countries who have to face severe economic sanctions for refusing to submit to the liberal international order’s iron fist. Muslims have to starve to death and forego medical supplies and other life necessities for not relinquishing the Truth in the face of an uncompromising liberal beast.
The choice for Muslim countries is clear: Allow men to rectally penetrate each other or your children will starve to death. And even if after all your children are dead and buried, if you still don’t submit, we will invade your lands, kill your men, rape your women until there is no one left to say a single homophobic word. Let freedom ring!
Narrowly focused on criminalization, rather than broader LGBT issues like same-sex marriage, the campaign was conceived partly in response to the recent reported execution by hanging of a young gay man in Iran, the Trump administration’s top geopolitical foe.
It is amazing how brazen they are in spelling out their strategy. They start with decriminalization and force all countries to comply or face brutal consequences. But of course, that is only the beginning. They then will repeat the same strategy by upping the bar. Accept same-sex marriage or face crippling sanctions or worse. Then when that standard is met, they raise the bar again. Facilitate sex change surgery for the transgendered, otherwise you are transphobic. And on and on, thus ensuring a permanent state of subservience and subjugation from the rest of the world, held hostage by the endless liberal “march of progress” and pursuit of individual pleasure.
Now what makes all this especially incoherent is an LGBT publication that criticized the Trump admin for this move:
The truth is, this is part of an old colonialist handbook. In her essay, “Can the Subaltern Speak?” postcolonial theorist Gayatri Spivak coined the term “White men saving brown women from brown men” to describe the racist, paternalistic process by which colonizing powers would decry the way men in power treated oppressed groups, like women, to justify attacking them. Spivak was referencing the British colonial agenda in India. But Grennell’s attack might be a case of white men trying to save brown gay men from brown straight men, to the same end.
Though plans may or may not exist to invite local LGBTQ+ advocacy groups to the table, that they are not there at the plan’s inception is dangerous. Inviting European activists to solve problems in the Middle East, African or the Caribbean — which, once again, are not monolithic in the slightest — is a toothless effort, more PR than progressive.
This is typical of the joke that is academic decolonial discourse. They want to criticize Trump for an imperialistic policy move. But they also don’t want Muslim countries to execute sodomites. So rather than contend with this contradiction in an honest way, they find a technicality to gripe about like, “Oh why isn’t Trump including local LGBT activists in his planning against the Muslim world?!” or “Shame on Trump for thinking the countries he is targeting — for good reason — are monolithic?!” Other spineless academics gripe about, “Why is Trump picking on Iran when US allies like Saudi also have such anti-LGBT policies?!” These are all creative but laughable ways to avoid the implications of liberal secularism, which these decolonial academics are just as devoted to as Trump is, though they try their best to mask their hypocrisy.
By the way, I am not a supporter of the Iranian government. They are a corrupt regime that has caused havoc in Syria and Iraq with their regional machinations. But I don’t think the West is justified to attack Iran or bully Iran or any country with Muslims, for that matter.
And while I denounce many things the Iranian government does, criminalization of sodomy is not a problem. It’s a great thing. All Muslim countries should uphold the hadd for sodomy and ta`zir (discretionary punishment) for same-sex degenerate sexual acts in accordance with the Sacred Law. Muslim countries must not compromise on this. We cannot let the Muslim world follow the path of boundless pursuit of bodily pleasure and defiling hedonism that has all but destroyed Western society. The Muslim world needs to take a stand no matter how angry that makes the perversion enthusiasts in America and Europe.
I’m concerned that countries like Malaysia might succumb to international liberal pressure on this and roll back the laws that they have currently which criminalize same-sex behavior. I’m praying that they will stay strong despite the odds.
Speaking of Malaysia…
So where are the liberal Muslim activists (and the imam’s who promote them) who criticize everything Trump says and everything his administration does? Where are they when it comes to this recent LGBT news? Don’t they want to denounce Trump’s attack on a Muslim country? Don’t they want to cry “ISLAMOPHOBIA!” and wring their hands in moral outrage at the Bad Orange Man? Don’t they want to highlight Trump’s evil plot against the Muslim world?
Why have they suddenly gone silent on Trump? I thought the Bad Orange Man — stay with me here — is bad.
Is it wrong to conclude these activists care more about not hurting the feelings of their sodomite best friends than utter a word of protest against the brutal campaign underway against Muslims overseas?