What is very significant and serious, according to the author, Veneziani, is the stringent correspondence that has been established between our interiority and the external hood which, in this way: " touches the existential sphere and pervades minds, souls, permeates the Spirit of time "(p. 11), in a word it creates the culture broth of the mainstream , of the intellectually and politically correct. Everything appears in motion, without borders or limits: " the sexes cross over and change, differences fade and become uniform, nature is abolished, reality is revoked, territories lose their borders " (p. 11). Mainstream censorship applies to everything, of the only religion left on the square, that of "human rights". In essence, it is centered around the rejection of natural law, in the name of the self-determination of a subject reduced to Narcissus. It is up to him alone to "define himself" in one way or another. It is the transgender society , which dominates in every sphere, of the continuous flow . In it, Veneziani recalls, the idea of Nature has been removed, surreptitiously replaced with that of "environment". Such a removal has unbalanced the man-woman relationship itself, as the "femicides" show. The emphasis placed on gender-based violence, in reality, is aimed at depriving the institution of the family, the last vehicle of Tradition, of credibility: " in the face of a few thousand cases of violence […] at home, there are millions of traditional families and couples who do not know violence”(p. 45). While on the one hand, the miserable practice of the rented uterus appears legitimate to common sense, biopolitics makes the defense of the health of the body its own religion. After all: " in the name of health in danger, as we have experienced, it is possible to revoke freedom [...] the Constitution and democracy " (p. 51). More at the link.
https://www.barbadillo.it/104383-marcello-veneziani-contro-la-cappa-del-conformismo/
On his part, Del Noce viewed the sexual revolution as part of the post-Marxist bourgeois culture, because under the cover of “freedom” it actually affirmed an individualistic and fundamentally irreligious view of man as producer and consumer, in which the human body lost its symbolic dimension to become an instrument of “well-being” and an object of trade. The left’s failure to grasp this development had created a paradoxical situation, which Del Noce describes as follows:
If by “right” we mean faithfulness to the spirit of tradition, meaning the tradition that talks about an uncreated order of values, which are grasped though intellectual intuition and are independent of any arbitrary will, not even the divine one; and if by “left” we mean, on the contrary, the rejection not merely of certain historical superstructures but of those very values, which are “unmasked” to show their true nature as oppressive ideologies, imposed by the dominant classes in order to protect themselves, well, then it seems that in no other historical period has the left advanced so dramatically as during the last quarter of a century…. And yet, one has to say that Domenach is right: if by “right” we mean “management technique at the service of the strongest,” regardless of what ideologies are used to justify this management, we have to say that its victory has never been so complete, because it has been able to turn completely the culture of the left into its own tool.