Engels on Homosexuals

[Sky]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1869/letters/69_06_22.htm



Manchester, 22 June 1869

Dear Moor,
I don't know whether you have such fine weather there was we have here, but daylight has been so exhausted that, on the longest day, we had to turn the gas on at 4 o'clock in the afternoon. And it is devlish to read or write when you don't know whether it is day or night.

Tussy is very jolly. This morning the whole family went Shopping; tomorrow evening they want ot go to the theatre. She has read right through Hermann und Dorothea, not without difficulty because of the idyllic philistines' twaddle. Now I have given her the younger Edda, which contains nice stories; then she can read from the elder one the songs of Sigurd and Gudrun. She also plays the piano sedulously. I have also read Danish Kjämpvesier with her.

So that is Wilhelm's entire success: that the male-female line and the all-female line of the Lassalleans have united! He really has in view of the precipitacy with which the business has been conducted--and then he will, once again, be the chosen one of general suffrage. Wilhelm is also preserving an obstinate silence about this event.

The Urning [1] you sent me is a very curious thing. These are extremely unnatural revelations. The paederasts are beginning to count themselves, and discover that they are a power in the state. Only organization was lacking, but according to this source it apparently already exists in secret. And since they have such important men in all the old parties and even in the new ones, from Rosing to Schweitzer, they cannot fail to triumph. Guerre aux cons, paix aus trous-de cul[2] will now be the slogan. It is a bit of luck that we, personally, are too old to have to fear that, when this party wins, we shall have to pay physical tribute to the victors. But the younger generation! Incidentally it is only in Germany that a fellow like this can possibly come forward, convert this smut into theory, and offer the invitation: introite[3], etc.

Unfortunately, he has not yet got up the courage to acknowledge publicly that he is 'that way', and must still operate coram publico 'from the front', if not 'going in from the front' as he once said by mistake. But just wait until the new North German Penal Code recognizes the droits du cul[4]; then he will operate quite differently. Then things will go badly enough for poor frontside people like us, with our childish penchant for females. If Schweitzer could be made useful for anything, it would be to wheedle out of this peculiar honourable gentleman the particulars of the paederasts in high and top places, which would certainly not be difficult for him as a brother in spirit.

At the end of the week, Schorlemmer will be going to Germany for 4 weeks via Grimsby and Rotterdam.

The strikes here in the cotton factories have been over since this morning, when the Oldhamites went back. So overproduction has no restraints any more.

Close of post. Best Greetings

Your,
F.E.

1. K.H. Ulrich's 'Argonauticus'. Zastrow und die Urninge des pietistischen, ultramontanen und freidenkenden Lagers.
2. War on the ****s, peace to the arse-holes.
3. enter
4. rights of the arse-hole

[RHIZOMES]

I was not aware we had to take everything written by Marx and Engels as holy writ.

[Demogorgon]

Proof that knowledge expands as time goes on. I have no doubt that Engels was wrong. I equally have no doubt that were he to be alive today he would not hold such an attitude.

[IcarusAngel]

Since Communism and Socialism are not absolutist theories it's less of an issue for them, or us, because communities are supposed to vary from time to time. The communities are constantly improving themselves, by new theorists etc.

This is in contrast to capitalism, which is an absolutist belief, meaning you're supposed to take capitalists at their word 100% of the time, no matther which sort of capitalism you believe in: Laissez-faire capitalism, or state capitalism, what have you.

So when the founding fathers of the United States, who talked about inalienable rights and God given rights, or the "classical-economists" who told how the market is supposed to be run, are proven racists and sexists and immoral it's more of an issue for them.

And by the way, they were all racists and sexists, which is why many Libertarians continue to hold these beliefs to this day.

[Sky]

Proof that knowledge expands as time goes on. I have no doubt that Engels was wrong. I equally have no doubt that were he to be alive today he would not hold such an attitude.

Agreed. Efforts to turn Marxism into a dogma must be resolutely opposed.

[pusher robot]

This is in contrast to capitalism, which is an absolutist belief [citation needed]

Fixed that for you.

[freakazoid]

And by the way, they were all racists and sexists, which is why many Libertarians continue to hold these beliefs to this day.

They do?


Since Communism and Socialism are not absolutist theories it's less of an issue for them, or us, because communities are supposed to vary from time to time. The communities are constantly improving themselves, by new theorists etc.

Except when it comes to issues of religion for most.

[Awful Reality]

This was written at a time when homophobia was not just ubiquitous, it was societally absolute (in most cultures; Europe).

[Black Dagger]

So what about Engels makes his opinion of 'homosexuals' important? I.E. worthy of a thread. I'm not trying to be combative, i just don't understand why someone would start about topic of this?

[Bud Struggle]

This was written at a time when homophobia was not just ubiquitous, it was societally absolute (in most cultures; Europe).

I agree. Just because a founder of a movement says something negative about gays it doesn't make the movement homophobic. Very similar to the Bible remarking on something thousands of years ago--it doesn't necessarily make Christians homophobic either.

[IcarusAngel]

They do?

Yes, they certainly do. Many of today's right-wing Libertarians are racist, sexist, prejudiced, homophobic, and even, at times, overtly nationalist (anti-immigrant, pro-nation state, etc.).

Of course, left-libertarians are anti-racist.

And I'm not excusing Engles by the way. I like a lot of his writings, but he should have known better.

Part of leftism is challenging all unjust institutions and promoting equality, and of course, racism is anti-equality.


Except when it comes to issues of religion for most.

Maybe.

You already know my position on this, though, as I went over my beliefs in one of the religious threads, citing Marx etc. to back up my positions.

[Awful Reality]

I agree. Just because a founder of a movement says something negative about gays it doesn't make the movement homophobic. Very similar to the Bible remarking on something thousands of years ago--it doesn't necessarily make Christians homophobic either.
Except religious people are supposed to regard their bible as absolute truth.

Engels isn't absolute truth.

[IcarusAngel]

I agree. Just because a founder of a movement says something negative about gays it doesn't make the movement homophobic. Very similar to the Bible remarking on something thousands of years ago--it doesn't necessarily make Christians homophobic either.

It shows how Engles was flawed. In my opinion, there is no excuse for his behavior on this one. There were certainly anti-racists before he was around. Even Rousseau, who, occasionally using disparaging terms, admired people of other cultures, creeds, and "races."

Certainly someone like Engles, supposedly for equality, should have known better.

Engles and Marx should be studied, but they are perhaps no more important than a modern, twentieth century Marxist.


Very similar to the Bible remarking on something thousands of years ago--it doesn't necessarily make Christians homophobic either.

Precisely what I was talking about. Those theories in the Bible can't be "modified" in the sense that communism can be modified, because the Bible is a "holy book."

Suppose Communism was anti-gay. It could easily be modified to remedy that problem, as there is no reason to be against homosexuals.

Of course, Communism was never actually anti-homosexual, because communism merely suggests that society should be run by community, it doesn't say much about how the communities are actually supposed to be run -- people figure that out through democracy.

Yes, mistakes can be made. But it puts faith in individuals to ultimately do the right thing.

This is in contrast to your belief system, capitalism, which tells people how society should be run by protecting private property. Thus, capitalism tells people when force is and isn't justified, and who gets to apply that force, and who it is supposed to benefit (usually, the elite, upper-class property owners).

So it, like Christianity, is another absolutist, reactionary system.

[IcarusAngel]

Except religious people are supposed to regard their bible as absolute truth.

Engels isn't absolute truth.


Exactly.

(fourthinternational's post was entered while I was still writing, so I didn't see it.)

[Bud Struggle]

Precisely what I was talking about. Those theories in the Bible can't be "modified" in the sense that communism can be modified, because the Bible is a "holy book."

The Bible can't be modified to some, of course--those that take it word for word literally. But I bet you could find Communists that take Marx word for word literally, too. In general though, Christianity has been modified to take the "greater meaning" of the text into consideration over the precise litteral meaning. There are a great many Christian denominations that have no problem with gays--and as a matter of course even more not have problems withgays in the near future. Christianity is indeed evolving.


Suppose Communism was anti-gay. It could easily be modified to remedy that problem, as there is no reason to be against homosexuals. Of course. The same with Christianity--though these things take time.


Of course, Communism was never actually anti-homosexual, because communism merely suggests that society should be run by community, it doesn't say much about how the communities are actually supposed to be run -- people figure that out through democracy.

And there's one of my problems with Communism--every time it's tried democracy goes out the window.


Yes, mistakes can be made. But it puts faith in individuals to ultimately do the right thing.

Fine.


This is in contrast to your belief system, capitalism, which tells people how society should be run by protecting private property. Thus, capitalism tells people when force is and isn't justified, and who gets to apply that force, and who it is supposed to benefit (usually, the elite, upper-class property owners).

Nope. The Democracy that has been concurrent to Capitalism (at least in America and Europe and other major Capitalist countries) has made it a vastly flexable and resilient system, unlike Communism with it's dictators and cults of personality.


So it, like Christianity, is another absolutist, reactionary system.

One could make the case that Communism--a political philosophy that has come and gone like feudalism--is the reactionary system. While Capitalism (though in ever changing forms) remains.

Cheers!

[Bud Struggle]

Engels isn't absolute truth.

There's something we can ALL agree on! :D

[KC]

And there's one of my problems with Communism--every time it's tried democracy goes out the window.

What kind of democracy?

[Bud Struggle]

What kind of democracy?

Representative Democracy of one sort or another. Listen: none of them is perfect--but at least there is a chance for the voice of the people to be heard. Unlike the cults of personality in the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, China, etc.

Even if one were to posit that Stalin and Castro and Mao were "great" people--how much beter would thouse countries have been if they stepped aside after eight or ten years and let other people with other views take over?

A regular change of leadership is a sign of a stable system and creates a progressive evolution of ideas in a country.

[KC]

Representative Democracy of one sort or another. Listen: none of them is perfect--but at least there is a chance for the voice of the people to be heard. Unlike the cults of personality in the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, China, etc.I believe you mean bourgeois democracy, which isn't representative at all (especially the American version). As for the "voice of the people being heard" the highest form of democracy existed in the years after the Russian Revolution with real direct and representative democracy.


Even if one were to posit that Stalin and Castro and Mao were "great" people--how much beter would thouse countries have been if they stepped aside after eight or ten years and let other people with other views take over?

A regular change of leadership is a sign of a stable system and creates a progressive evolution of ideas in a country.

Oppression of dissent (in any form, even the most arbitrary) and fierce restrictions on freedom of speech under these administrations stemmed from theoretical/ideological errors committed on the part of the leadership of the Soviet Union and spread internationally through the Comintern.

[Bud Struggle]

I believe you mean bourgeois democracy, which isn't representative at all (especially the American version). I don't know about that--I talk to my state representatives all the time, and speak to my federal representatives on occasion, too. While they don't do everything I ask of them--my requests are certainly heard and understood.


As for the "voice of the people being heard" the highest form of democracy existed in the years after the Russian Revolution with real direct and representative democracy.

I have no reason to doubt you on this. But it quickly fell apart.


Oppression of dissent (in any form, even the most arbitrary) and fierce restrictions on freedom of speech under these administrations stemmed from theoretical/ideological errors committed on the part of the leadership of the Soviet Union and spread internationally through the Comintern.

I have no reason to doubt you here, also. I just wonder if those errors were endemic to the Comunist system in general, because the mistakes of the Soviets seem to have been repeated over and over again in every country with a Communist revolution.

[KC]

I don't know about that--I talk to my state representatives all the time, and speak to my federal representatives on occasion, too. While they don't do everything I ask of them--my requests are certainly heard and understood.

Is that why the US is still in Iraq, despite a 10-15% congressional approval rating and the vast majority of Americans' and Iraqis' desire to be out? Do you know what it takes to become president?


I have no reason to doubt you on this. But it quickly fell apart.

Of course, but the problems weren't ideological; they were due to subjective and objective conditions (namely, death of the most conscious and active segments of the working class dying in the civil war, the failure of the German revolution and counterrevolution).


I have no reason to doubt you here, also. I just wonder if those errors were endemic to the Comunist system in general, because the mistakes of the Soviets seem to have been repeated over and over again in every country with a Communist revolution.

No they haven't been; every other country has from the very outset of their revolutions started with such a leadership; their revolutions weren't about workers' and peasants' democracy. Russia degenerated; these other countries more or less started out degenerated from their outset.

[Kronos]

Who cares what Engels said. Sexual orientation is irrelevant to revolution, and neither is it a moral or ethical problem.

[Die Neue Zeit]

And there's one of my problems with Communism--every time it's tried democracy goes out the window.

Who said among us that the deprivation of voting rights for actual bourgeois and some petit-bourgeois ("some" referring to those hiring labour for profit, as opposed to peasants and urban merchants) elements in order to force them into the ranks of the working class is a bad thing? :p

Workers' democracy, even in its truest form, is quite different from "pure"/bourgeois democracy (namely, in its obvious class orientation).

[Bud Struggle]

Who said among us that the deprivation of voting rights for actual bourgeois and some petit-bourgeois ("some" referring to those hiring labour for profit, as opposed to peasants and urban merchants) elements in order to force them into the ranks of the working class is a bad thing? :p


Yup, Can't wait for the Communist Revolution. :thumbup: Robert the Great is going to be the Most Glorious Leader and I'm going to be Supreme Commissar of the KGB. I'm looking forward to having a little "chat" at my headquarters with you, Jacob. :lol:

[Bright Banana Beard]

Yup, Can't wait for the Communist Revolution. :thumbup: Robert the Great is going to be the Most Glorious Leader and I'm going to be Supreme Commissar of the KGB. I'm looking forward to having a little "chat" at my headquarters with you, Jacob. :lol:

hehe TomK, I love your joke! I think you should be qualified for the most funniest OIer of RevLeft.

[Bud Struggle]

hehe TomK, I love your joke! I think you should be qualified for the most funniest OIer of RevLeft.

It's not a joke: I'm dead serious.

What you people fail to understand is that after Communism comes the same people will be in charge. We just won't be called the bourgeoise anymore--we'll be called the "Defenders of the Revolution." :cool:

[Unicorn]

Engels was in no way opposed to homosexuality. He just opposed the way some contemporary gay rights activists equated the struggle for social equality with class struggle. Social discrimination is however the consequence of class stratification and the focus must be on class struggle.

[Sky]

The point of this thread is to imply that it is ridiculous to take such a rigidly sectarian view towards certain political groups (Mugabe, etc) on the basis of a position on homosexuality. Marx, Engels, and their successors were not exactly champions of the homosexual cause. While of course the rights of homosexuals should be defended, the question of homosexuality is at best a minor concern for working people and need not be elevated to some kind of inviolable Marxist doctrine.

[Lector Malibu]

The point of this thread is to imply that it is ridiculous to take such a rigidly sectarian view towards certain political groups (Mugabe, etc) on the basis of a position on homosexuality. Marx, Engels, and their successors were not exactly champions of the homosexual cause. While of course the rights of homosexuals should be defended, the question of homosexuality is at best a minor concern for working people and need not be elevated to some kind of inviolable Marxist doctrine.

As long as people are repressed be them sexually, racially, or gender wise . Those oppressions remain an important concern for revolutionary's world wide.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It's not a joke: I'm dead serious.

What you people fail to understand is that after Communism comes the same people will be in charge. We just won't be called the bourgeoise anymore--we'll be called the "Defenders of the Revolution." :cool:

Sorry, but I don't see aristocrats and descendents of aristocrats ruling society these days. :rolleyes:

If anything else, the class to keep an eye out on are your factory's mid-level managers, the mid-level managers of your commercial real estate, etc. The bourgeoisie have outlived their creative usefulness.

I don't see the exact same bourgeois (down to the last person) who are overthrown capable of worming their way back after so much distrust and class anger (not to mention information databases on known bourgeois and petit-bourgeois elements).

[Awful Reality]

Representative Democracy of one sort or another. Listen: none of them is perfect--but at least there is a chance for the voice of the people to be heard. Unlike the cults of personality in the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, China, etc.

Even if one were to posit that Stalin and Castro and Mao were "great" people--how much beter would thouse countries have been if they stepped aside after eight or ten years and let other people with other views take over?

A regular change of leadership is a sign of a stable system and creates a progressive evolution of ideas in a country.

LOL at Representative democracy as democracy.

[Awful Reality]

Yup, Can't wait for the Communist Revolution. :thumbup: Robert the Great is going to be the Most Glorious Leader and I'm going to be Supreme Commissar of the KGB. I'm looking forward to having a little "chat" at my headquarters with you, Jacob. :lol:

For once I have to agree with TomK: It's sad that so few people know that the everyone in the USSR was either in the NKVD/KGB or a target of it. Did you know that Stalingrad was actually a massive gulags and the only reason Stalin was so adamant about protecting it was because he wanted to keep all the labor slaves? True fact.

I mean, you've got tons of evil Stalinists on the prowl these days, and let's face it: society needs a wake up call. Everything I disagree with is evil: and so is communism. They're warmongers, and we only invaded Grenada so that they wouldn't become a warmongering slave-state themselves.

Then we can look at the human rights violations: Stalin killed all Ukranians, including his son! Remember the evil quote: "A lieutenant is not worth a barrel of grain!"

And remember Kalashnikov? The NKVD came after him too, cause he got injured in the war. Truth says Stalin wanted a gun chambered in 6.66x39.

[/saracsm]

Fuck, TomK, you are so trite.

[Bud Struggle]

For once I have to agree with TomK: It's sad that so few people know that the everyone in the USSR was either in the NKVD/KGB or a target of it. Did you know that Stalingrad was actually a massive gulags and the only reason Stalin was so adamant about protecting it was because he wanted to keep all the labor slaves? True fact.

I mean, you've got tons of evil Stalinists on the prowl these days, and let's face it: society needs a wake up call. Everything I disagree with is evil: and so is communism. They're warmongers, and we only invaded Grenada so that they wouldn't become a warmongering slave-state themselves.

Then we can look at the human rights violations: Stalin killed all Ukranians, including his son! Remember the evil quote: "A lieutenant is not worth a barrel of grain!"

And remember Kalashnikov? The NKVD came after him too, cause he got injured in the war. Truth says Stalin wanted a gun chambered in 6.66x39.

[/saracsm]

Fuck, TomK, you are so trite.

Well, of course that wasn't my point. BUT I WAS in the Soviet Union before it fell and right after it fell. (I was there right after the Soviet Army tried it's attack on the Russian Parliament--I and my wife stayed with local people as we used to do at the time--and NOBODY was sad that the Soviet Union fell and for two reasons the first was lack of food, there were long difficult lines to get anything worthwhile to eat. Huge empty supermarkets with NO FOOD in them. The second reason was people ALWAYS lived in fear of the KGB. It was a real, constant presence in their lives. They couldn't say what they wanted and they couldn't trust anyone.

It sucked to live like that. Places like Poland had a more Fuck the Government attitude--but the Soviet Union was a rough place to live under Communism.

FWIW: I haven't been there in a while and Putin is probably just as bad.

[Awful Reality]

Well, of course that wasn't my point. BUT I WAS in the Soviet Union before it fell and right after it fell. (I was there right after the Soviet Army tried it's attack on the Russian Parliament--I and my wife stayed with local people as we used to do at the time--and NOBODY was sad that the Soviet Union fell and for two reasons the first was lack of food, there were long difficult lines to get anything worthwhile to eat. Huge empty supermarkets with NO FOOD in them. The second reason was people ALWAYS lived in fear of the KGB. It was a real, constant presence in their lives. They couldn't say what they wanted and they couldn't trust anyone.

It sucked to live like that. Places like Poland had a more Fuck the Government attitude--but the Soviet Union was a rough place to live under Communism.

FWIW: I haven't been there in a while and Putin is probably just as bad.

Right, cause Yeltsin kicked ass!

Polls say that today almost 2/3 want the Soviet Union back.

I hope you realize that you're saying Gorbachev sucked. SURPRISE! Nobody's going to argue with you on that one.

[Bud Struggle]

Right, cause Yeltsin kicked ass!

Polls say that today almost 2/3 want the Soviet Union back.

I hope you realize that you're saying Gorbachev sucked. SURPRISE! Nobody's going to argue with you on that one.

Yeltsin was a pretty cool guy, that's for sure. As for what sucked--it was the Soviet Union. And it didn't die with a bang but with a wimper.

[Awful Reality]

Yeltsin was a pretty cool guy, that's for sure.

This is sarcasm, right?

[Bud Struggle]

This is sarcasm, right?

Yup. And Putin's pretty cool, too. :rolleyes:

[Awful Reality]

Yup. And Putin's pretty cool, too. :rolleyes:

...In any case, I fail to see how your attack on Gorbachev-ite USSR was relevant. Nobody supports him.

[Bud Struggle]

. Nobody supports him.

Not just him. Nobody supported Communism. :(

[Kropotesta]

don't you mean state capitalism....

[Unicorn]

Well, of course that wasn't my point. BUT I WAS in the Soviet Union before it fell and right after it fell. (I was there right after the Soviet Army tried it's attack on the Russian Parliament--I and my wife stayed with local people as we used to do at the time--and NOBODY was sad that the Soviet Union fell and for two reasons the first was lack of food, there were long difficult lines to get anything worthwhile to eat. Huge empty supermarkets with NO FOOD in them. The second reason was people ALWAYS lived in fear of the KGB. It was a real, constant presence in their lives. They couldn't say what they wanted and they couldn't trust anyone.

It sucked to live like that. Places like Poland had a more Fuck the Government attitude--but the Soviet Union was a rough place to live under Communism.

FWIW: I haven't been there in a while and Putin is probably just as bad.
If socialism in the USSR was so bad why did 34.9% of the Russian people vote for the Communist Party in the 1995 Russian legislative election? Those elections were not even fair as the communists did not have access to the Kremlin-controlled media.

Communists would have regained power in Russia already if Yeltsin and Putin hadn't used anti-democratic tactics suppress the Communist party.

[Bud Struggle]

don't you mean state capitalism....

I guess we have conflicting interests. :D

[Awful Reality]

Not just him. Nobody supported Communism. :(

People were pretty happy even through Brezhnev.

[Awful Reality]

If socialism in the USSR was so bad why did 34.9% of the Russian people vote for the Communist Party in the 1995 Russian legislative election? Those elections were not even fair as the communists did not have access to the Kremlin-controlled media.

Communists would have regained power in Russia already if Yeltsin and Putin hadn't used anti-democratic tactics suppress the Communist party.

Highly Likely.

[Dimentio]

You are truely trolling aren't you?

And Marx said some things which were racist. That is what irritates me with dogmatics. You are treating two ideologists living and acting almost 150 years ago as some form of gods.

[Bud Struggle]

If socialism in the USSR was so bad why did 34.9% of the Russian people vote for the Communist Party in the 1995 Russian legislative election? Those elections were not even fair as the communists did not have access to the Kremlin-controlled media.

Communists would have regained power in Russia already if Yeltsin and Putin hadn't used anti-democratic tactics suppress the Communist party.

I agree Russia isn't democratic--but then again it wasn't democratic when the Communists were in charge. All those long years under dictatorship--democracy never took hold. You couldn't expect the "Capitalists" that came after the Communist to play by different rules than the Communists, could you?

Communism in the Soviet Union just "negated" itself and went away.

[RGacky3]

Those elections were not even fair as the communists did not have access to the Kremlin-controlled media.

Communists would have regained power in Russia already if Yeltsin and Putin hadn't used anti-democratic tactics suppress the Communist party

Considering your a Marxist-Leninist, and considering you support the USSR, that post is so laughable it should be framed.


People were pretty happy even through Brezhnev.

So? People are pretty happy in many places.

[Awful Reality]

So? People are pretty happy in many places.

If the people are happy, what's wrong? I mean, it could always be better, but you judge a country of how content its citizens are.

[Sky]

And Marx said some things which were racist.

Evidence?



That is what irritates me with dogmatics. You are treating two ideologists living and acting almost 150 years ago as some form of gods.

I have only demonstrated flexibility on the issue and oppose any kind of dogmatism whether it be homophobia or militant anti-homophobia. To unconditionally condemn and insult certain political groups and individuals such as Robert Mugabe, Hezbollah, and others on the basis of some non-existent Marxist theory on homophobia is short-sighted dogmatism at its worst.

[RGacky3]

If the people are happy, what's wrong? I mean, it could always be better, but you judge a country of how content its citizens are.

People are happy everywhere, people are happy in the United States, happiness does'nt nessesarily have to do with liberty and justice, or even wealth. Many of the countries with the highest living standards have huge suicide rates, many dirt poor countries have citizens that are happy, that does'nt justify anything.

[Taboo Tongue]

Many of the countries with the highest living standards have huge suicide rates, many dirt poor countries have citizens that are happy, that does'nt justify anything.
Hmm maybe that means there is something more to life than how many sheets of rectangular paper you have in your pocket...

Back on topic however
Maybe my reading level is too low, but is he speaking of all homosexuals or (primarily) just homosexual paedophiles with high positions in the bourgeois government and political parties?