Sunday, April 14 2024

We received a long letter from one of our readers which responds to a
widespread, yet unexpressed feeling. The question our readers poses at the
end of the letter is the following: is the Italian government also subject
to the ideological colonization of Gender Theory? Happy reading.

“Gender theory is ideological colonization. Think of the Balilla (Italian Fascist Youth Organization, at the time of Mussolini, N.T), think
of the Hitler Youth.” This appeal was launched by the Pope on the return
flight of his pastoral visit to the Philippines. Without a doubt they are
strong and direct words, spoken in no uncertain terms, which left many
amazed while generating controversy, and in some cases, disappointment.
They represent a staunch “no” against any attempts by gender
ideology to manipulate or destroy the family. This is in fact the true
heart of the question, what is really being dealt with, when the Pope uses
the expression “ideological colonization.”

The example that Francis used—of a Minister of Public Education’s corrupt
attempt to finance the building of public schools in exchange for
introducing pro gender theory textbooks—becomes even more appropriate and
meaningful. What is more, citing an example involving schools was not
random, because it is gender ideology’s main battleground and
terrain for meddling. Behind the mask of freedom and equal rights, it tries
to gain access to institutions involving children. It enters to disfigure
the heart and foundation of the institution of the family, with the goal of
redefining the very concept of marriage.

One could almost speak of an anthropological colonization, aimed at
radically questioning the concept of human nature. It is happening in every
country and woe to anyone who tries to object. Gender ideology does not
allow opposition, it imposes one form of thought—which is why the Pope
compared it to the dictatorships of the last century. Whoever does object
is immediately accused of wanting to discriminate, without the possibility
to appeal. But these are not just false feelings or perceptions. It is
enough to leaf through the more than 40 pages of the document entitled


National

Strategy for Preventing and Fighting Discrimination Based on
Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity for 2013-2015”



(In Italian, N.T) found on the website for the Department of Equal
Opportunity, a department of the Presidential Council of Italian
Ministers—that is to say, the Italian government. It isn’t text taken from
a blog, a forum, or an association that is, so to speak, biased, but from
an official document coming from a real and true government source. Not
only this, but it is an explicit strategy with a clear, operational desire,
with goals, a target, a method, and a plan of action. It is an long text
which, after describing the context of LGBT people in Italy, Europe, and
the rest of the world, immediately begins to list the four pillars on which
to base an action strategy for change.

Strategy plan of action

Not surprisingly, the first among these pillars is precisely schools.
Entering into the educational system, gaining leverage on the minds of
children who are still incapable of autonomous, aware, critical analysis,
is a necessary step for someone with manipulative intentions. The following
are just two of their identified tools for action: the accreditation of
LGBT associations as formative institutions with the MIUR (Ministry of
Italian Education), and the enrichment of formation by preparing
bibliographies about LGBT themes and new family realities. Among their
goals, we highlight the promotion of LGBT empowerment in schools, both
among teachers and students. What is frankly astonishing however is the
document’s tone, keeping in mind that it is speaking about children with
the explicit intention to raise them like battery-chickens. It is
impersonal, yet lucid in its determination for change and imposing one
will, just as in a marketing plan. Schools become the battleground par excellence, the ideal way to cross borders and pass on the
ideology. It is not by chance. Convincing adults is, in fact, infinitely
more difficult, since we are talking about people who are already formed
with their own ideas, values, and experiences. If the process can start in
kindergarten however, to explain that there are no sexes, but rather only
genders that you may choose as you like, and perhaps even change, then
certainly there is a greater possibility for success through manipulation.
An effective barrier to this “ideological colonization”—to return to Pope
Francis’ expression—is constituted by families themselves. In fact, in many
cases, parents realize that their children are being attacked and
threatened by this ideology at school. The desire that schools be reduced
to re-education camps is real in this document. Even more, it is central
for the very success of their strategy.

The other three pillars through which to address change are the following:
the workplace, a natural meeting place for relationships and socialization;
jails, a presumed locus of violence and abuse
towards LGBT people; the media. This last point deserves a
moment of reflection. It is essential for any dictatorship—another return
to Pope Francis’ initial words which compared gender ideology to fascist
regimes—in addition to their control over education and formation of young
people, to have control of the media. Explaining the reason is almost
redundant. If one has control of the media, he also controls its messages.
In this analysis it is interesting to mention how this “national strategy”
clearly seeks, without hiding, the favor and support of the media… assuming
that it does not already have it.

This support—not to mention control—would find its legitimacy in a genuine
system of governance, as the final section of the text itself suggests. It
is an articulate model which, quoting the document, “foresees a synergy of
action between institutions, civil society, social parties, and other
involved associations.” This analytical list of an integrated system also
expresses the desire for involvement form employers’ organizations and
trade unions, public administration, FNSI (the National Federation of
Italian Press) and the Order of Journalists. In short, it shows every major
institution together with their opinion leaders.

At this point, the legitimate question to ask is the following: does this
document go beyond the balance necessary for offering justified prevention
and information concerning sexual discrimination, which should always be
condemned? To what extent, on the other hand, does it go too far—becoming
an imposition of other absolute truths, through an approach that aims to
homogenize man and woman at a global level, responding to the dictates of
global politics? (See our article



The New Language of Power Speaks in the Name of Gender



). What we are noting here is a lobby’s typical pattern of action and
imposition. It begins with real needs and problems, such as violence and
abuse, or discrimination due to sexual orientation. It goes beyond however,
not seeking a solution with respect to cultural, social, natural, and
anthropological identities, but rather the exploitation of the problem at
all costs by a powerful group with personal interests that distorts reality
according to its own vision and to achieve its own goals. Certainly, like
every ideology, in order to be successful, gender theory needs to be
totalitarian. It can never be questioned because ideologies are constantly
contradicted by reality.

For this reason, let us examine more closely the reality that is condemned
by the pro-gender theory document, along with the information it uses to
support its thesis…

Ideological Priorities or Social Priorities?

Among the data presented concerning the phenomenon of discrimination
relating to gender, the document explains that the cases of discrimination
reported by the Contact Center grew from 43 in 2010 to 144 in
2012. How much money and energy should be invested to avoid these
situations? These are certainly terrible numbers. In our opinion however,
much more worrying are the 400,000 minors in Italy that were victims of
witnessing so-called “inter-family violence” in 2011 (ISTAT and Save the Children). These children witnessed scenes of physical,
psychological, or economic abuse suffered by their mother at the hands of
her husband or companion. From that year onward, the various Italian
governments, who curiously succeeded one another without changing their
strategy towards gender discrimination, seemed to worry less and less about
this state of affairs. Indeed, neither do they worry about the 342,000
students in Italy that are exposed to the risk of asbestos poisoning due to
serious structural problems in 3,600 school buildings (CENSIS 2014). The
same goes for the 20,214 minors that were followed by social-health
services after delinquent episodes in 2013 (ISTAT 2014). Indeed, they are
not alarmed that in 2014, 30% of Italian families considered the danger of
crime to be a problem in the area they live (ISTAT 2014).

The Contact Center’s figures for the fight against gender discrimination
are also very disparate from the number of young people at risk for drug
addiction. In 2013, from a sample of 34,385 young people between the ages
of 15 and 19, 21% had used marijuana once or repeatedly (2% more than the
preceding year). 2% had used cocaine (1.86% in 2012), while .33% used
heroin (.32% in 2013), 1.33% methamphetamine, also known as ecstasy (1.12%
in 2012), and 2% used hallucinogenic drugs (1.72% in 2012).

What is more, in 2010 ISTAT indicated that 52% of women between the ages of
14 and 65 (over 10 million) have been the victim of at least one episode of
violence during their lives.

Without a doubt it is important to avoid every form of discrimination. Yet
it is even more important that the political agenda place priority on
questions that have a greater social impact statistically. Without question
each of the 144 cases mentioned deserves a response. It is perhaps
necessary however, to begin by investing more money and energy into solving
problems that affect hundreds of thousands of people that live in
situations of extreme risk.

Reduce the Choir to One Voice

The document we are talking about only sees two positions on the issue. On
one side, the one that favors gender theory and identifies attraction to
people of the same sex with a specific sexual behavior. On the other side,
there is so-called “homophobia.” In recent years however, the various
nuances present in this area have emerged. Nowadays more and more people
among homosexuals see the situation in ways that are different from the
predominant self-proclaimed categories, who act as if they hold the
exclusive mandate to represent everyone with a homosexual orientation. In
this vein, Paul McHugh (former director of the Department of Psychiatry at
the famous John Hopkins Hospital) along with other


doctors, have seriously questioned sex change operations on the
basis of scientific research


carried out at important Swedish and American hospitals. What is more,
certain groups do not agree with the idea of adoption by same sex parents.
Xavier Bongibault, atheist and homosexual, as well as the founder of “Plus
gay sans marriage” in France, is one such example. Something similar
happened in Italy when the famous designers Dolce&Gabana, who are
openly homosexual, declared themselves against the adoption of children by
gay couples. They also voiced surprise when faced with widespread
intolerance of their legitimate opinion.

Other institutions like Courage (present in Europe and the USA)
propose chastity as the true path to follow for personal fulfillment.
Philippe Ariño, a French activist, also moves along this line. He is famous
in Italy for having published Omosessualità concorrente
(Countercultural Homosexuality).

Finally, in the context of Italian media, following the suggestions
proposed in this document, the Minister of Equal Opportunities published a
report to provide specific directions to the communication media. These



Guidelines for respectful information of LGBT people



were approved in December 2013 and aimed at communications professionals.
The document specifies what is considered adequate terminology for
journalists to employ when faced with news related to such topics: Imagine
a government instructing journalists what to say about its policy!

Imposition: For the People but Without the People

Is it possible to continue living in a pluralistic society and yet freely
speak out views on gender issues? In reality, things keep getting more and
more complicated on this subject. In April of 2014, Brendan Eich, CEO of
Mozilla (the company owning Firefox) resigned following pressure over a
1,000 dollar donation he made six years earlier in 2008 towards the
campaign promoting Proposition 8 in California. The Proposition, stating
that “in California, the only form of valid and recognized marriage is
between a man and a woman,” was accepted in a referendum, only to be
questioned a few years later by the Court. In 2014, Barilla also had to
yield to certain lobby boycotts, and change its advertising to include same
sex couples. Not long after, in 2015, a District Court in the United States
redefined marriage to include homosexual persons, effectively annulling a
state amendment in Florida which had been approved by almost 62% of voters
in the previous 2008 vote.

The same thing has happened in others states and countries.

In 2014 the Croatian Parliament approved a law allowing civil unions for
same sex couples. It took place despite the fact that various associations,
gathering over 700,000 signatures, had succeeded in promoting a referendum
in favor of the family, in which 66% of voters supported “the introduction
of a provision within the Croatian Republic’s Constitution that would
define marriage as the union of lives between a man and a woman.”

So too was the case in the United Kingdom. Although he had not included,nor
mentioned, homosexual marriage, Prime Minister James Cameron disregarded
500,000 signatures presented to him which aimed to convene a public
consultation in 2012. One year later, without any type of public debate, he
approved the equal treatment for both institutions.

These events do not only occur in the political sphere, but also in
everyday life: a bakery that refuses to make a wedding cake for spouses of
the same sex; a florist that does not wish to provide certain types of
marriage decorations; a photographer that declines an event; homosexual
couples who wish to pursue psychotherapy, denied by their therapist;
pastors or priests who are thrown into court accused of citing the Bible….
The more that time passes, greater are the people stigmatized for not
accepting the opinion of a minority group.

In the sector of education, behind the fight against homophobia are people
who seek to re-educate young generations by imposing gender theory upon
them. In Italy, a High School in the city of Modena was the stage for an
ideological speech delivered by Vladimir Luxuria (a well-known Italian
belligerent transsexual, N.T) without the possibility to hear other
speakers suggested by parents. In various schools in many regions, other
warmongering homosexual associations are freely distributing leaflets and
advertising about becoming homosexual.

A new tendency to approve laws and initiatives for the people, but without the people is in full swing. It is all promoted by a
minority rule that aspires to change the concept of marriage. A
confirmation of this comes from initiatives promoted in Columbia, Uruguay,
Paraguay, and in some African countries. Here is one such example: In
February of 2015, the journalist and gay activist Bruno Bimbi declared that
the protagonists of the first homosexual union recognized by Argentina in
2009 (between Alex Freyre and José María di Bello) were not really
together, and that the whole ceremony was an orchestrated farce carried out
ad hoc to force the approval of a law concerning homosexual unions. They
adopted three children and their fictitious union, celebrated in 2009 in
the media’s spotlight, ended five years later. How is it possible to
pretend to have a life together and adopt three children for only five
years?

The moment has already come to ask ourselves: what the meaning of freedom
of expression and thought truly is, and how much is the majority opinion is
really being taken into consideration.

Previous

The 10 Best Children’s Apps on iPad and iPhone

Next

Paying Attention to Those Left Behind. Daniele Rosa tells us about the family’s value for Bayer

Check Also