Weblog of the Sydney Traditionalist Forum
Hi there. It is interesting that you pick on evolution in your image. Ken Ham of the Discovery Institute, in his recent debate with Bill Nye, said he believed in evolution. Don’t you?
Hello Mrs. Flourish,
What this series of meme posters intends to do is highlight the inherent contradictions of so-called “progressive” rhetoric by juxtaposing two views commonly expressed by leftist ideologues or commentators, where those views seem to be based on mutually exclusive axioms. In other words, the meme posters aim to expose the cognitive dissonance of modern liberal thought. Here we’re contrasting the theory of evolution and the pro-homosexual policies of the secular left. Of course, not every soi disant liberal or progressive will necessarily adhere to every stereotypical criterion of leftist ideology; there is obviously an element of parody and generalisation here, but that is only to be expected given the nature of this type of political advertisement.
Turning now to your question: the Sydney Traditionalist Forum does not have an official policy on evolution per se. We have a great deal of respect for the Discovery Institute and have hosted one of our functions by screening a documentary which features the Institute and discusses its mission (Second Documentary Screening: Friday 19 October 2012). As far as we can tell, most if not all of our supporters and friends who identify with a religious tradition do not see evolution as such to be inherently offensive to their spiritual or political outlook.
Indeed, one could conceive the natural processes of evolution as part of God’s plan and the laws of nature which He in His wisdom has created. Thus, we cannot see that the alleged hostility or contradiction between the world of faith and reason is real. We believe that this alleged hostility and conflict is fostered by those of malicious intent who have ulterior motives: for example, to undermine the transcendent aspects of Western civilisation and thus demystify it and eradicate what is profound in its character – but that is another story.
Are you saying that homosexuality cannot be evolved?
Your question is unintelligible.
Consider a social environment in which sodomy is the ruling paradigm; move forward in time one generation; what observations can one make in terms of the reproductive imperative or the likelihood of the collective survival of the population, its numerical strength and its ability to pass on cultural and other memes?
If, and that’s a big ‘if’, homosexuality is to be understood as the product of an evolutionary process, then it can only be seen as part of some evolutionary J-curve, akin to sterility caused by degenerative gene mutation. Of course, this is not to suggest that homosexualism has a genetic basis; if it had a genetic basis, its inherent anti-natalism would lead to its extinction sooner rather than later.
A society that promotes either the political cause which rotates around homosexualism, or the conditions that give rise to its high frequency among the population, is a society that is committed to its self-erasure and ultimate abolition. Such a position is not rational by any reasonable criterion.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Google+ account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Twitter account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Facebook account.
( Log Out /
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
+ Lawrence Auster + Requiescate in Pace 1949-2013
Frank Salter, "The Aboriginal Question" (2018)
Frank Salter, “The War on Human Nature in Australia’s Political Culture” (2017)
Paul Gottfried, "Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt - Toward a Secular Theocracy" (2004)
Paul Gottfried, “After Liberalism: Mass Democracy in the Managerial State” (1999)
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.