Reinterpreting history via “queer theory” has been a major goal for universities, but it’s making a gaudy debut in museums this year. You can translate that as: It is virtually impossible to avoid drowning in homosexuality, if you venture into most art institutions.
Galleries and media enthusiastically pimp the gay lifestyle to all comers, but the regal state museums held themselves somewhat aloof for a spell. Repositories of a grand Christian history, they hold the relics of nations and kings. But Britain’s Tate Museum, the Prado in Spain, MOMA and the rest, are out sniffing the wind for fads, and waving cash like a mating signal.
Anyone with two connected brain cells knows the hoopla over homosexuality is merely promotion of a virtually unidentifiable minority. (In this this case, approximately 1.7 % of people self-identity as “gay,” according the U.S. 2010 census. Adding bisexuality, transwhatever, no-sex, temporary insanity, or “other” comes to a whopping 3.7 of the population.)
Forcing museum patrons into contorted “queer gazing” or “queer history” is a form of aggressive cultural imposition on the majority of a population. Other than gay propaganda, there is no discernable purpose. Slightly more of the art works center on homosexuality than the percentage of people viewing them, but that’s often from investments to push the lifestyle.
For instance, in 1999 the British Museum purchased the “Warren Cup” for 1.8 million pounds, their most costly single purchase to that time. It has absolutely no relation to British history, but was notorious for its graphic representation of male-male sex. Open sexuality was common in Roman art in the Julio-Claudian era, from which it is claimed to hail. But even that is up for debate, as the authenticity has been in dispute since its miraculous appearance in a 1911 private London collection.
By itself, Britain’s Warren Cup is an illustration of everything that could go wrong with homosexuality and the states that champion it. Sex acts depicted on both sides show an older man with a much younger male. One is a “youth” – a beardless teenager, and the other a soft, younger boy with baby fat and all. Not only was the Warren Cup denied entry into the U.S. in 1953 as a “pornographic” object, but no museums were interested in putting down money for the thing back then.
Alt-sex propaganda in Western museums benefits only a small minority, and even that wouldn’t matter if it didn’t harm a substantial number of children. Pederasty was rampant in Roman and Greek culture, and it’s the foundation of the glorious gay movement now. There isn’t space to run the mountains of research proving relationships between gay rape in childhood and the inordinate numbers of abuse victims who insist they must be “born that way.” A few years back it was a mantra that child abusers were much more likely to end up abusing children if they didn’t get help. But this is long forgotten, because homosexuality is now decreed to be a gift – and how you got it doesn’t matter (much like the diseases that so often accompany the lifestyle).
Curators don’t attempt to hide their fixation on gayness, rather than any particular works of art. Images of (non-sexual) intimacy and friendship among the same sex are implied to reek of homoeroticism. Rooting out “hidden homoeroticism” is one of the biggest things going in going in art scholarship now, as gay desires are projected randomly and promiscuously.
Read about the odious history and current aggression of gay militants, as well as how to defend yourself from them, in Marisa Martin’s eBook, “Bitter Rainbows: Pederasts, Politics, and Hate Speech
Cue the Prado, whose exhibit earlier this year (“The Other’s Gaze: Spaces of Difference”) was a shout-out for Madrid’s 2017 “World Pride” celebration. Not only did the Prado dig up the few openly homosexual pieces they had, but they projected gay intentionality on a mass of other paintings/persons. Caravaggio’s “David with the Head of Goliath” falls victim to gay revisionism, as they mention a trial for sodomy, as well as the sexual orientation of its first owner. And why is this significant? The artist’s clear intention was subverted by politics, and he has been dead too long to fight back.
To push the newest gay subset – transgenderism – the Prado featured work by Rosa Bonheur. Painting wildlife in ranches and preserves, she needed to ditch the bustle and corset. Back in 1879, Bonheur was forced to ask police for permission to wear trousers into animal stalls and mud. We may never know what she did in bed; but according to the Prado, “trousers” will make you gay.
“The Rape of Ganymede” (also at the Prado) by Peter Paul Rubens is a favorite of boy-lovers. This symbolic rape scene of a boy refers to Greek mythology – their rationale for the rampant pederasty they practiced. Romans kept the child-sodomy thing going. using the term “catamites” or male youth, who were desirable and accessible. I see a pattern here.
“The Prado is much more than a national museum,” spokesman Jaime de los Santos claimed to the New York Times, adding (Western imperialist spoiler alert): “We get visitors here who come from countries that don’t always recognize what is normal, countries that really belong to the third world in terms of human rights.”
So much is revealed in the patronizing words of this man. Gay Europeans are “normal” and a beacon of “human rights.” Conversely, any objectors (conservatives, Christians, kids who are being raped) don’t qualify as “normal” and are clueless about “rights.” His arrogance is staggering.
According to Prado director Miguel Falomir, this exhibition is overdue. He insists there has been “no dissent” about the subject in Spain, a Catholic nation. Conservatives in Europe have been losing “human rights” in spades since the advent of the modern gay rights movement. That, and the fact that it is illegal to criticize homosexuality in Britain, and unsafe in some other European nations. That is the reason you hear only crickets, Sr. Falomir. Another important Madrid museum, the Thyssen-Bornemisza, is also featuring sexual orientation in their show, “Inclusive Love.”
If you think the Prado is overplaying its hand, take a glance at London. The great Tate Museum started its Year of Endless Gayness with a David Hockney retrospective. Hockney was gay, but didn’t make a fuss about it. The Tate’s “Queer British Art, 1861-2017” will run until October. It commemorates the 50th anniversary of the decriminalization of homosexuality in the UK and Wales. Half a century, and they are still demanding more.
Art critic for the Telegraph, Mark Hudson, can’t squeeze enough gayness out of art created by straight people at the Tate. A “magnificently muscled male figure” by Victorian sculptor Hamo Thornycroft is ogled and referred to as “slack-trousered soft porn.” Hudson imputes “repressed [gay] desire” onto Edward Burra, while acknowledging he likely “never had any sexual relations with a man.” That takes real obsession. Hudson imputes a foreboding atmosphere and “something nightmarishly sinister” as proof that Burra was a gay boy. Something is wrong with these people.
All the big Tate shows in the spring of 2017 (and much of this year) are by “queer artists.” There is no escaping them. Hudson lists David Hockney, Wolfgang Tillmans, Cerith Wyn Evans and Robert Rauschenberg. And there is yet more rejoicing over Oscar Wilde, who is now apparently a saint. “Oscar Wilde Tours” follow the steps of the artist across Britain and Europe, as well as the flotsam of other gay artists. Same song, different verse in America, where “Gay Art History Tours Rethink the Metropolitan Museum’s Artwork” (in a piece by Artnet).
Something struck me about the rapists inscribed for posterity on the Warren Cup. Both wear a laurel or myrtle crown, a sign for Greeks and Romans of authority and power and worn by gods, emperors, and conquerors (the Caesars wore them). It isn’t there by accident. This disturbing image of powerful men molesting younger, subservient boys seems to give supporters of gay rights a great deal of pleasure.
Why is that?
Sources
