11.1 C
Friday, September 29, 2023

Gergely Szilvay: We need an anthropological counter-revolution

By Krisztina Kincses

 How did the West become a hotbed of LGBTQ movements? When did feminism become an extremist ideology? Is there a correct form of gender theory? We spoke with journalist Gergely Szilvay at the publication of his book The Critique of Gender Theory, published by the Center for Fundamental Rights.

 Your last book On Gay Marriage was published in 2016. What prompted you to write your latest book?

I always thought I should write a book like this, but when I wrote the book about homosexual marriage, I thought I would no longer write books on the subject, and if necessary, I would translate some literature into English. However, I could not found such a book on the market. International literature deals with this topic but as a sub-problem, for example, with Douglas Murray’s work The Madness of Crowds or Charles Murray’s work Human Diversity. I did not find any literature that would critically, comprehensively, and monographically address this topic, in addition, I had enough material to write a book. The last impetus was given by an article on a news portal in the second half of 2019, in which the author wrote in a call for help in a case related to transsexuality: “When will someone break it all apart?” That is when I decided to try to gather in a clear and scientific way the most important aspects of this topic for those who do not know it but would like to see what it is all about.

This is literature that has a gap in the literature.

For several years now, I have had a feeling that although all conservatives and right wingers know that our way of thinking is correct, they are still uncertain, as the other side also has seemingly convincing arguments that needed to be gathered and refuted in detail. It is also worth looking at solid data and scientific results, from adoptions to transsexuality, or even in the “environment or biology” debate, as they are the basis for a good argument. I got involved in the whole affair because of the outrage at the time: I did not understand why we could not properly express what was wrong with the ideology of gender, and I felt that this backwardness needed to be eliminated. Of course, in the background is the fact that “gender experts” often attack the basic evidence of life, while we, ordinary people, do not usually defend the evidence. I intend to respond to these sometimes startling attacks on evidence in my books.

A recent survey by the Center for Fundamental Rights found that 66% of Hungarians believe that there are only men and women. What do you think is the result of the growing prevalence of various LGBTQ movements and lobbying organisations from East to West?

In the words of Márton Békés, we still have the ‘advantage of falling behind’. The question is whether we are now on a different path than the West or we are on the same path, but we are lagging behind. I myself am a bit sceptical: I think that if the right wing does not do enough grounding, that is, if it does not strengthen the immune system of society, and if eventually Western “prosperity” comes to our country, then these ideologies popular in the West will be also more present in our country. An extended second edition of the Critique of the Theory of Gender will be published soon, containing a special chapter on the reasons for the existence of this ideology. I would be happy if Central Europe remained a quiet corner of the region, somewhat tamed by old Western history, and does not join the self-destructive progress of the West.

So the West was the most suitable environment for the flourishing of gender ideology with all its extremes?

Today, there is a great deal of prosperity in the West, accompanied by indifference, that means that the members of society have become indifferent. On the other hand, the prevailing self-image today is that we need to realise our inner selves. This can be good, of course, but it overshadows everything. The inner self, which has become increasingly dominant since Rousseau, may be at odds not only with social norms but also with our biology. Since the beginning of the twentieth century, that is, since Freud, gender and sexuality have become increasingly important for personal identity. Sexuality and sex are, of course, an important part of our humanity, but today they are absolutized as if nothing else matters. In the Middle Ages, honour was an important part of self-esteem, it was recognised by society, and it could be lost. It has been replaced by human dignity, which we now understand as automatic recognition by society, because if you do not recognise someone’s human dignity, you have denied them humanity. While everything is considered a social construct, human rights and human dignity are mystically excluded. They say our personality and gender are social constructions, but our rights and dignity are born with us. Nobody understands that. To this the Marxist taste of history must be added: history is the struggle of the oppressors and the oppressed.

It seems that we Hungarians are doing relatively well with the mentioned 66%.

66% is not so bad, as it is a two-thirds majority, which means that we are doing well compared to the West. From here, the situation is still favourable for both sides, as it can be reversed. However, the entire LGBTQ movement is very strong and violently pressures, and those who might resist it are afraid. They fear for their jobs, for their prestige, they fear that all their posts on Twitter will be deleted for years to come. Members of the LGBTQ movement always present themselves as acceptable, friendly and tolerant, but in reality they intimidate a large part of society. They advertise themselves as rational, but in reality they are irrational: they promote tautologies such as “family is family,” although this slogan means the exact opposite of what it suggests. It is like saying “a table is a table,” by which I mean that a table with a broken leg is the same as a table with undamaged legs, and that a chair can be a table if it wants to. It is about emotional, manipulative, conscious, educated, and thoughtful communication. It has little to do with rationality.

How did we come from the original feminist endeavours?

The fact that the acronym LGBTQ has become a domestic word in public life in itself points to the grotesqueness of this issue. In my experience, the terms complex and artificial mean complex and artificial ideas. Gender theory is linked to the second wave of feminism that emerged in the mid-20th century. Its essence is to neglect and deny the meaning and consequences of biology. This is the main thesis, as gender roles can only be separated from biology if we treat our body as a pile of substances. However, all of our cells are male or female, our bone structure is male or female, and the brain functions differently. Separation of soul and body, i.e. the idea of feminism as a human being benefited the gay movement, and the trans movement also benefited from it. If you want: the trans movement turned feminism upside down, just as Marx turned Hegel upside down.

How did we come to the point where we have to defend normalcy today?

I think the basic misconception of all modernity is that the basic categories of the world are degradable for our own freedom and comfort. Postmodernism radicalised it. The whole ideology of gender as a phenomenon is very visceral, intuitive, and irrational, making it difficult for people to respond reflexively to these influences. Gender ideologues believe that if the norm is not valid always and everywhere in the world, then it does not apply at all. They look for very rigid definitions of everything, such as gender roles, and if they cannot find exactly the same gender roles in time and space, they immediately label them as relative cultural products. For them, a small exception breaks the rule. Therefore, normalcy is also a cultural product that serves the interests of a certain class, especially heterosexual men, and therefore needs to be reshaped.

Can you give us a practical example of this effort?

One day, news was published in the US about someone wanting to marry their son. Under this pretext, voices have emerged calling for the abolition of taboos regarding “consensual incest”. The argument against the prohibition of incest is the same as the argument against homosexual marriage: that what is considered incest has changed throughout history. Why is it wrong to love each other? Why does this bother those who are not in an incestuous relationship? Are they afraid of their privileges? Will they feel better because of the ban on incest? Why can I not marry my own mother if I want to? This is not just a theoretical assumption; the United States is already working on it. This is the same argument used by proponents of pederasty.

What are the long-term consequences of the rise of gender ideology?

Many mental health problems can result from not being aware that biology has consequences. If devices or cars are not used properly, they break down; if we deny the laws of physics in the construction of a house, saying that they are arbitrary inventions, our house collapses. If we do not recognise the cause of this, we will be left with nothing. The same goes for ourselves.

The goal of gender theorists, as you write, is to create a society without gender roles. Is such a society feasible?

Proponents of gender ideology strive for absolute freedom, in which the world is not limited by any rules. They believe that it is not enough that there is a prevailing normality, but that everyone can live their life next to it, as one who deviates from the norms feels uncomfortable; in other words, there should be no norms, the only minimalist norm should be that there are no norms and that they are all accepted. This, in turn, would lead to further atomisation and ultimately to the disintegration of society.

Then we can also talk about the family as the foundation of society.

Carle C. Zimmerman wrote a book entitled Family and Civilisation in which he studied how the power of the family is related to the stability of society. He found that when the power of the family weakens, society falls apart. We are now in the last phase of the last phase he described. Zimmerman predicted exactly what would happen at the end of the 20th century. The society of the LGBTQ movement will sooner or later cease to exist, and with it the rights it has fought for.

You mention the need for a “correct” theory of gender and an anthropological counter-revolution. What exactly do you mean by proper gender theory?

In principle, gender theory is a theory of gender roles. In other words, logically speaking, gender theory should not have denied biology, but it has happened in the past. Anthropological counter-revolution is the recognition of one’s own physicality, the union of body and soul. It is interesting that although the traditional view of man is accused of being anti-erotic, it is the traditional view of man that confirms the unity of body and soul, i.e. does not deny the body. What is happening in modern American universities is certainly not liberating in terms of sexuality, signing consents, and creating roles. It bureaucratises social and intimate relationships to the point that they are completely bizarre, like a scene from Monty Python.

Source: Magyar Nemzet through UME, our partner in European media cooperation.


Latest news

Related news