Homosexuality in Woke Communist China

https://www.scmp.com/sport/paris-olympics-2024/article/3272119/chinas-cctv-stunned-silence-lgbtq-scene-paris-olympics-opening-ceremony

I used to enjoy watching the Olympics. Some years we'd even have cable turned on for a month so we could watch them. But at some point the debauchery (and the sundry base and vulgar ads) became too unbearable and so we gave up. I wasn't at all surprised to hear about all the filth in the opening ceremony - I did not watch it.

This article from the South China Morning Post caught my eye because it belies the claims made by the Right in America about 'woke' and 'communist' governments and the ideology's supposed promotion of homosexuality. China is of course not actually communist but it is certainly authoritarian. And, though the nation embraced capitalism more than forty years ago it retains the 'communist' appellation in its ruling party - the Chinese Communist Party or CCP.

Some have argued that a resurgence of communism has occurred under Xi Jinping who took power in 2012. He uses the framing and nomenclature at times but it's just a facade for his authoritarian capitalist model.

But if we go back to the times of Mao, it could be argued that China was a type of communist nation and leaving aside the many debates about Stalinism, for the sake of argument we'll say the same about the Soviet Union. One would think given the arguments made by the American Right these regimes should have been overrun by sodomites - but nothing could be further from the truth. Marxist and Communist regimes are notoriously intolerant toward such behaviour - and often puritanical when it comes to public morality.

And why is that? Because homosexuality is not connected to the values of communism but instead represents the decadent West in which individualism is taken to the extreme and absolutised. It's about living for one's self not for society, not sharing in its visions, goals, and the larger cause. It's aberrant and socially worthless and thus in a Marxist framework it is immoral.

Speaking of the Olympics, as I watched them while growing up during the Cold War, I always remember being told that the communist athletes were so stoic because of the repressive nature of their society while American athletes strutted, smiled, and engaged in all manner of ostentatious behaviour and exhibitionist bluster. This was largely celebrated and for some reason these values are conflated with 'Christian society'. It never occurred to me at the time that the reserve of athletes from other parts of the world might not necessarily be tied to repression but a sense of sobriety, gravity, and dignity - even a humility that is utterly lacking in the individualist American character.

This is the great irony - the liberal individualist system so vigorously championed by the Christian Right is the system that produces decadence and that in turn produces perversion. Ezekiel 16 hints at this with regard to the wealthy but selfish city of Sodom - but it's a lesson not learned, and even ignored as it doesn't fit the political narrative.

Chinese television is censored but (one could argue) at least you don't have to be barraged with all the homosexual material. Would it be worth not living in a liberal society in order to avoid all the degeneracy? I prefer to reject both models.

It should be noted that until the rise of Xi's authoritarianism there was a burgeoning homosexual rights movement in China. It's still present but has lost all its momentum. Its heyday was during the capitalist quasi-libertarian boom period of the early 2000's - which is what we should expect.

We can then assert the Christian Right is confused and contradictory in its own claims. It rails against the authoritarianism of the Chinese 'communist' system even while these Evangelicals would like to erect a similar authoritarian regime - though on a different basis. The slogans would change but for the life of the average person the censorship, surveillance, and fear would amount to the same thing. Such a censorious, centralised, and regulatory regime is of course highly authoritarian and thus contrary to the US system. And yet these folks don't see this as they vigorously wave the flag and see themselves as super-patriots - and their cultural mythology allows them to recast the American Founders in their own image. If they want an authoritarian state, then fine - but you can't wave the flag and claim the Founders as your own. And for the record, that's not conservatism but an expression of revolution as they seek to overthrow the existing order. And we see this with Trumpism - it's not conservative but it's certainly Right-wing and has already flirted with putsch-politics.

Maybe a regime of censorship wouldn't be so bad, but these internal contradictions will blow up in the end and websites like mine which anathematize their Dominionist Christianity would be shut down. The contradictions have also come to the fore in the split between authoritarian and libertarian wings - with some in defiance of all sense attempt to embrace at the same time. What they stand for is actually not libertarianism but single-party authoritarian rule and oligarchy. The ruling class is granted privileges and wide (even libertarian) latitude within a tight circle of Christian authoritarian control even while those who are not must toe the line or face the wrath of the state. In other words its liberty for some, a boot in the face for others. In terms of ideology - it's just a self-serving lie and rests on no principle apart from raw power.

In the past the Christian Right used to rail against actual Libertarianism. At one time the party was in favour of abortion and tacitly supported the notion of gay rights - all these things being embraced on the basis of individual autonomy. Libertarianism is after all an absolutizing of the concept of liberty and the rights regime - to the point that it becomes anti-social and subversive. Some have custom-crafted the scope of liberties and attempted to fit this dubious creed (and ethic) into a Christian social framework. Regardless the bulk of society is against them.

And in the context of the Church there is no hope for honest and fruitful discussion when this kind of confusion rules the day.