his was an act of compliance with the reigning behavioralndogma, a collaboration with power, not a challenge of power,nas the homosexuals are simply an officially sanctioned socialnminority these days, thanks to the decree of liberal culturenand fashion. Thus, the young inverts gained entrance tonthe festivities in keeping with the new social mood, but,naccording to press reports, people started to leave whennthey appeared. No one was hostile or repressive, but theirnmanifested union offended something in everybody. Everybody’snsense of normalcy was hurt.nThat’s obvious to anyone with unatrophied common sense.nIt is far from obvious to homosexuals and all those who seena civil rights cause in sexual deviation. At the very corenof the contemporary homosexual crusade is a claim to normalcy.nThe rest of mankind, or one should say the overwhelmingnmajority of mankind, cannot and will never acceptnthis as either justified or true. Normalcy in the realm ofnsexuality is the duality of genders, which conditions procreation,nwhich guarantees the continuity of life. Anythingnthat contradicts this fundamental scheme cannot also bennormal, lest words lose their meaning and interhuman communicationncease. A physical digression from the standardnis ailment or sickness, which we regard as a temporary absencenof the normal functions of the body. However, nothingnseems more unacceptable to a homosexual than calling hisndisposition a sickness: he does not consider himself infirmnin any way, and perhaps with good reason. Thus, we havena lingering conflict, whose essence is the sense of normalcynand its vicissitudes, in an era when understanding, compassionnand even indulgence no longer assuage human grievances;nnormalcy must be abused and trampled in order to redressninjustices or errors of the past. And this abuse gravely distortsnour ability to build a society and create social moodsnwhere comity, humanness and genuine tolerance can flourishnand benefit us all.nWhatever the bickering of modern psychoshamans whonnever will acquiesce to normality as a verifiable phenomenon,nmost people would repeat Laurence Sterne’s words deep downnin their soul, chiefly because normalcy is no longer a notionnfrom the realm of psychology, anthropology, physics or medicine.nIn our time, it has become a moral concept—today itndetermines both our distinction between right and wrong,nand our ethical choices. Only with such a perspective can wencorrectly perceive feminism not as an idea, but as an affirmativenaction on behalf of those who are wronged either bynnature or society; as such it has all the irrational features ofnaffirmative actions that are movements of the heart rathernthan the mind, whatever their source or destination. WhennFreud first suggested that normalcy and sanity were relativenimpressions of the human mind, many were apprehensivenabout whether—assuming that his findings were truen—a society, let alone a civilization, could be structured onnsuch a discovery. But Freud was still a man of intellectualnnntact; those who read him properly soon conclude that authenticnFreudism is only a system of suspicions. His epigonesnbegan to relentlessly press down the pedal, and now, thanksnto the social results of their efforts, many see clearly thatnnormalcy and sanity are moral preconditions for our verynsurvival. Deviations and aberrations can be commiseratednand alleviated, but accepting them as a coeval principle of ansocial order spells suicide. However, our premonitions andnour will to cope with the misguided legacy of Freud havenbeen rendered moot by the unexpected twist of culturalnmoods. Hysterias and neuroses have fled the boundaries ofnscientific studies and have invaded the rolling landscapes ofnliterature and literary fads; they have quickly turned intonshallow poses and fashions among the elites and, smoothlynblended with phony egalitarianism, have begun to infect thenmasses. By the second part of the century, the reigningncultural modes had alacritously agreed to draw an equalnsign between normalcy and abnormalcy: whoever simplyndeclared himself and his proposals normal and sane easilynacquired the stamp of normalcy and sanity from the liberalnculture, regardless of any criteria of reason, objectivity, logicnor experience. Acts and events followed profusely, andnsuddenly we found ourselves in a reality whose spokespersonsnheld it utterly unbecoming to maintain that both CharlesnManson and Gore Vidal thrive on insanity. To express anview that the Woodstock subculture bred abnormalcy wasnthe ultimate in bad manners, let alone taste. Any demandnthat a commonly obligatory principle of human existencenbe upheld was called repression in psychology and oppressionnin national affairs. Sexual chaos, erratic bestiality ofnman toward man, the dissipation of the social fabric and andismal cheapening of the quality of life duly ensued.nOn ‘ne of the major wishes of human mind and heart isnfor a coherence of wishes and attainments. As every ideal,nthis coherence is hard to reach: we are by nature neithernwhite nor black but a sort of composite grayish. However,nan overtly proclaimed renunciation of striving toward coherence,nand replacing it with the disjointedness of personalnexertions and endeavors, is an invitation to abnormality,nand gives it special powers to regulate existence. It is soonntransformed into a lethal threat to the assorted stabilitiesnand securities that form the basis for an organized society.nCertainly, some would say: “So what.”” but most will respond:n”Wait and see . . .” The subculture of the mid-’60s injectednhuge masses with an aberrant conviction that youth was thencenter of one’s life span and no one should bother aboutnwhat might happen later. It resulted in a generation unablento project itself as becoming older in its preferences andnpropensities. Just one adolescent who was so limited couldneasily be disregarded as a juvenile idiot, but a mass of peoplencontinued on page 39nSeptember/October 1979n