Also Available in:
This article is from
Journal of Creation 33(1):26–29, April 2019

Browse our latest digital issue Subscribe

A global anti-Christian totalitarian threat

A review of The Global Sexual Revolution: Destruction of Freedom in the Name of Freedom by Gabriele Kuby
Parousia Media, Sydney, 2017

Reviewed by John Loiterton

The prologue to The Lord of the Rings speaks of “the race of men, who above all else desire power”.1 It is ironic that it takes a work of fiction to so profoundly express to modern man what is clearly revealed in God’s word (Matthew 20:25–27). Human history since the Fall has been a sad story of constant power struggles, and there has been no end of emperors, dictators, and totalitarian regimes.

The 20th century bears ample witness to the terrible costs of totalitarianism, in the forms of Nazism and Stalinism.


Gabriele Kuby has published this book as a warning against “a new totalitarianism that is destroying freedom in the name of freedom” (p. 5; figure 1).2 Kuby outlines a new ‘soft totalitarianism’ that appears “light years away from the terror systems of Nazism and Communism” but that is slowly but surely eroding our freedoms, and especially the freedoms of those whose values oppose it, namely Christians (p. 11).

The “21st century’s looming totalitarianism wears a different costume from that of the 20th—no mustache, no jackboots” (p. 283). It is about “a new sexual totalitarianism that seeks to destroy the meaning and reality of marriage and family” (p. 259). It “wears the cloak of freedom, while step-by-step destroying the conditions necessary for freedom” (p. 283). But from where does such a destructive force arise, and for what reason? And what exactly is it?

The nature and aim of the threat

Kuby reveals the core of this threat to freedom as an ideology called gender mainstreaming. Most of us will not have heard of this term before. This ideology stands directly opposed to the Bible’s teaching that humans are made in the image of God, and in particular is opposed to the revelation that “male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). It aims to destroy the gender identity of man and woman and every ethical standard of sexual behaviour. Its tools are gender fluidity, sexual orientation, and the sexualization of children from infancy. Its aim is to destroy the family as we know it, because family is the primary structural element of society. In order to make society malleable and reform it in the image of the ideologues behind this subversive threat, God’s providential instruction to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28), which is the basis of family, must first be opposed.

The origins of the threat

Figure 1. Gabriele Kuby, author of The Global Sexual Revolution

Kuby describes the development of this threat to freedom, from the intellectual trailblazers of the French Revolution through Thomas Malthus, Margaret Sanger, Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Alexandra Kollontai, Wilhelm Reich, Magnus Hirschfeld, Sigmund Freud, C.G. Jung, John Watson, Edward Bernays, Bernard Berelson, Alfred Kinsey, John Money, and Simone de Beauvoir, to the 1960s student rebellions and the legal deregulation of sexuality.

The well-justified fight of women for equal rights in the 19th century morphed into a radical feminism that aimed to make the sexes the same and that in the name of ‘equality’ battled against marriage, the family, and the child; against women as mothers, and for complete deregulation of sexuality. And, of course, they supported abortion on demand, while the founding feminists of the 19th century opposed abortion as ‘child murder’.3 This radical feminism wanted to deconstruct the binary sexual identity of man and woman and what they called ‘compulsory heterosexuality’.

This process of social engineering required a new word, “because language does not just reflect reality; it creates it” (p. 46). The binary word sex thus gave way to imposing a new meaning to the word gender, previously a grammatical term. ‘Gender’ had the flexibility to be defined as desired.

The pioneer of post-modern gender ideology is Judith Butler (figure 2), who is a member of the Rockefeller and Guggenheim foundations and honorary doctor of the Swiss University of Fribourg. Her 1990 book Gender Trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity4 is the foundational work on gender theory. If Butler’s views had been expressed in simple words, they might have been dismissed as fanciful, but because she clouded her destructive ideas with highly philosophical terminology that was hard to understand, her ideas were accepted. In essence, Butler was saying that there were no such things as ‘men’ and ‘women’ and that sex is a fantasy we believe because we are told it is so. For Butler, identity is solely a function of a gender and sexual orientation chosen by the individual and thus flexible, changeable, and diverse. The illusion of two sexes is created by the ‘incest taboo’ and by use of words like man and woman and must be eliminated in favour of free self-invention. The concepts of man and woman, marriage and family, father and mother, sexuality and fertility, and of heterosexuality as the norm must be destroyed.

Figure 2. Judith Butler, pioneer of post-modern gender ideology

The development of the threat

Kuby emphasizes that whilst revolutions have generally been ‘bottom up’ from the masses, the current sexual revolution is top down from the globally active power elites. The United Nations (UN) has been at the forefront as it has changed from its earlier emphases. The UN’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights expressed universal moral values derived from the Judeo- Christian image of man. Article 16(3) proclaimed that the “family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.”5

Over the course of a few short decades, starting with the collapse of communism in 1989, the UN has changed dramatically. Today, Kuby states:

“ … the UN and its powerful suborganisations fight for dissolution of men’s and women’s sexual identity, elimination of marriage and the family, for dividing the generations through autonomous ‘children’s rights’, for doing away with sexual morality, and for abortion as a ‘human right’” (p. 53).

An important step in the implementation of gender mainstreaming was the development of the Yogyakarta Principles (YPs).6 As Kuby explains:

“A group of ‘renowned human rights experts’, having no official authorization or legitimation, formulated these principles in 2007 at a conference in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. In March of that year, they presented them to the public at the UN building in Geneva to lend them a glow of authority. The YPs are a ‘new tool for activists’” (p. 68).

The YPs are furnished with a 200-page handbook called An Activist’s Guide to the Yogyakarta Principles,7 which translates the YPs into political action. The YP’s authors apparently see human rights as merely a tool for enforcing the YPs worldwide and the Activist’s Guide shows how cultures that oppose this can be revolutionized.

The primary goals are acceptance of non-heterosexual (LGBTI+)8 behaviour and dissolution of binary sexual identity. Additional goals are homosexual ‘marriage’ with adoption rights and privileges for LGBTI people.

The implementation of the threat

In order to foist on the majority a subversive agenda aimed at undermining it, obfuscation is required. This includes tactics such as presumption of false legitimacy, manipulation of terms and the false pretence of accord with international law.

Methods of implementation include hollowing out of national sovereignty, financing of LGBTI organisations by the UN and European Union (EU), test cases in the name of human rights, public demonstrations, media influence, implementation of the LGBTI agenda in the school system, training the bureaucracy, curtailment of freedom of contract, curtailment of freedom of speech, suppression of non-compliant information, and even criminalization of opposition.

Another major step in implementation has been getting the EU onto the gender bandwagon. In 2006, former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky warned of a new totalitarianism in the EU based on a massive lack of democracy in its bureaucratic structure, referring to the EU as “a ‘monster’ that must be destroyed … before it develops into a full-fledged totalitarian state.”9 The EU has adopted a new human rights document that no longer mentions men and women in the context of marriage and family. The European Parliament has 20% of its members representing LGBTI rights, totally out of proportion with the 2% of the population that is homosexual. The Directorates General (similar to ministries) are promoting this agenda, together with new agencies such as the Fundamental Rights Agency and the European Institute for Gender Equality. The European Parliament and the Council of Europe regularly pass laws aiming to impose new definitions of marriage and family on recalcitrant member states, which, interestingly, tend overwhelmingly to be ex-communist states.

Implementation is primarily through political activism. Typically, a conference introduces gender mainstreaming as a political strategy and guiding principal. This is followed by a signed statement committing to gender justice as a constituent element of democracy. It is then embedded in policies and employment guidelines, with provisions for education of experts. This then leads to public education.

In politics, the media, universities, foundations, the courts, business, schools, and day-care, gender mainstreaming then becomes the path to post-modern progress. This process is very well entrenched in Western Europe, Canada and parts of Latin America, for example, but countries such as Australia are in the early stages of implementation with the new Same Sex Marriage legislation and Safe Schools curriculum.

The process is that gender mainstreaming becomes the ruling ideology and no one can oppose it without being shunned, defamed, and silenced with accusations of ‘discrimination’ and ‘hate speech’.

This process hinges on the political rape of language in which the meaning of words is corrupted. One of the first casualties of totalitarianism is the freedom to publicly challenge the threat. Every totalitarian regime controls the media, but here we see something new: a subversive control of language. Language exists to express reality, and thus can be used to represent reality other than as it is. Poets and novelists do this in an agreed manner accepted by their readers. But to turn words into false labels that misrepresent the content of the package is a form of deception. When political dictators do this, we call it propaganda. But now we have something more subtle; an alteration of the meaning of language so as to change society. Terms like chastity that express traditional values are made suspicious and are discarded. Terms like diversity with positive connotations are given new content and then exploited. New terms like polyamory are invented for transmitting new ideologies. New terms like homophobia are introduced to smear opponents. The terms values, freedom, tolerance, justice, equality, discrimination, diversity, marriage, family, and parent have all experienced major redefinitions.

Another aspect of implementation has been the pornification of society. What was once forbidden by general society has now become completely normal. A headline from the Huffington Post on May 2013 states that “Porn sites get more visitors each month than Netflix, Amazon and Twitter combined”, with the article stating that “30 percent of all data transferred across the Internet is porn.”10 Kuby points out the well-documented fact that pornography is highly addictive, highlighting the lamentable fact that the addict

“ … is caught in a vicious circle of a search for gratification through a means that provides the false appearance of gratification, only to throw him into even greater need and dependence. What he thinks he needs for his well-being destroys him and others. The drive develops a life of its own, becomes a tyrant, and makes the person a slave to gratification of the drive” (p. 138).

Kuby addresses the role of the homosexual movement in great depth and contrasts that with a lucid explanation of the Christian perspective on homosexuality. This is ground that is likely more familiar to the reader, so while these topics compose more than 20% of the book, this review concentrates on other aspects.

The perversity of the threat

Perhaps the most distressing aspect of this threat is the sexualization of children. The material in chapter 12 will prompt a defensive response in most parents and is almost beyond belief. Kuby states that since mandatory sex education was introduced in German schools in the 1970s, it has been “a journey toward complete demoralization of sexuality”. Kuby explains that children “are incited to masturbate” (p. 215). This was so shocking that I requested a copy of the material. Kuby sent me a copy of Lisa & Jan, which has been used since 1996 and in one picture shows a small boy with a teddy bear masturbating.11 Perhaps nothing exemplifies the shocking nature of the agenda to sexualize children from infancy more than Kuby’s statement that “in the accompanying booklet for parents, [Sielert, one of the authors] clearly states that children must be guided into it: ‘Naturally, children discover this pleasure on their own if they are positively caressed ahead of time by their parents. If they don’t know at all what lust is, there will be no sex play’” (FN332, p. 223). This is pedophilia and should be abhorrent to any parent. Kuby states that the core objective of this obligatory school sex education “was ‘sexual liberation’ through destruction of Christian values” (p. 217). As a parent, you might decide that you would rather home school than have your child subjected to material so damaging to their innocence. But in Germany, home schooling is illegal.12 There is no escaping the State’s desire to subjugate your God-given authority as a parent to protect your children. Kuby asks:

“HOW IS IT POSSIBLE that a whole generation has fallen into the hands of a cultural revolutionary mafia that appears bent on turning future generations into amorphous, rootless masses of sex-addicted consumers?” (p. 228).

The author

Gabriele Kuby was born near the end of WW2 in Konstanz, Germany, in 1944, and is the mother of three children. Kuby appears to have impeccable credentials for her current role, with a degree in sociology after having grown up in an environment of intelligence and incisive intellect. One of her uncles was E.F. Schumacher, a noted German economist, and another uncle was Werner Heisenberg,13 winner of the Nobel Prize in 1932 “for the creation of quantum mechanics”.14

Courage is another essential attribute for Kuby’s role and she had strong examples. After Hitler came to power, Heisenberg insisted on teaching about the roles of Jewish scientists and was attacked as a “White Jew” and investigated by the SS.15 Kuby’s father, Eric (1910–2005), was a left-wing journalist and screenwriter who opposed the Nazis.13

Proudly following in her father’s steps, Kuby became part of the left-wing student movement for a short time whilst studying at the Free University of Berlin. Kuby searched for truth all her life, and in 1973 started a search for God that lasted 20 years. Kuby investigated New Age, esotericism and psychology, with elements of Buddhism, Hinduism and American Indian spirituality. Eventually, in 1997, Kuby converted to Christianity as a Catholic.13

Catholics will be very comfortable with Kuby’s devout Catholicism, which is quite evident in several chapters of the book. Evangelicals may initially find Kuby’s particular flavour of Christianity a little challenging. But, like myself, they will no doubt appreciate her love of Jesus, which is evident in the book and in her talks16 and may perhaps find in Kuby a reason to challenge the limits of their own perceptions.

Since her conversion in 1997, Kuby has published 12 books, focusing increasingly on the sexual revolution. She is an international speaker who has toured Australia, Taiwan, South Korea, USA and Columbia. The Global Sexual Revolution: Destruction of freedom in the name of freedom has so far been translated into 14 languages, with more in preparation.


Not surprisingly, given the issue of gender fluidity, Kuby notes Jesus’ emphasis that “from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’” (Matthew 19:4) (p. 191). But this is not just a convenient text for Kuby, who appears to present Adam as a historical person: “Adam’s special position among all creatures is shown by his giving names to all animals” (p. 116).

Nonetheless, Kuby uses language that appears at first to be equivocal, speaking of the “first creation story” and stating that “It could be true” (p. 189). These are not words that I would choose to use, but in discussions with Kuby it became clear that her aim is to reach a wider audience with her message, including those who are evolutionists. Kuby’s approach is at this point propositional rather than declarative, so as to encourage engagement. Whilst that was for me an initial stumbling point, I came to appreciate Kuby’s approach. Her aim is to draw into the discussion those who do not hold to a biblical view of origins and present them with the truth, as she states it, that “‘God created mankind in his image; in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them’ (Genesis 1:27)” (p. 189). Kuby states that “On this belief rests all of Western culture, which became the model for the entire world” (p. 189). She posits that “It is unlikely that lies or delusions can give rise to such creative force as seen in the Western culture built on Christianity” (p. 189).

Posted on homepage: 20 March 2020

References and notes

  1. The Lord of the Rings: The fellowship of the ring [DVD], New Line Cinema, USA, 2001. Return to text.
  2. All references are to the first Australian edition, which is out of print and has recently been replaced by the second edition. Return to text.
  3. See documentation in Cosner, L., Abortion: an indispensable right or violence against women? creation.com/abortsex, 6 February 2007. Return to text.
  4. Butler, J., Gender Trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity, Routledge, New York, 1999. Return to text.
  5. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ohchr.org, accessed 11 June 2018. Return to text.
  6. The Yogyakarta Principles, data.unaids.org, accessed 11 June 2018. Return to text.
  7. An Activist’s Guide to The Yogyakarta Principles, ypinaction.org, accessed 11 June 2018. Return to text.
  8. ‘LGBTI’ is an abbreviation for ‘lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual and intersexual’. The abbreviation is constantly changing as new variants are added, so ‘+’ is commonly added to reference other variants, such as questioning, queer, pansexual, two-spirit, androgynous, and asexual. Return to text.
  9. Belien, P., Former Soviet dissident warns for EU dictatorship, The Brussels J., February 2006, brusselsjournal.com. Return to text.
  10. Porn sites get more visitors each month than Netflix, Amazon, and Twitter combined, Huffington Post, 5 May 2013, updated 12 July 2017. Return to text.
  11. Herrath, F. and Sielert, U., Elterninformation, Lisa & Jan, Ein Aufklärungsbuch für Kinder und ihre Eltern, Beltz Verlag, Weinheim, 1991. Return to text.
  12. Hauck, I., German parent flees, gives testimony, hslda.org, February 2016. Return to text.
  13. Eric Metaxas interviews Gabriele Kuby on her book, The Global Sexual Revolution, youtube.com, 3 April 2018. Return to text.
  14. The Nobel Prize in Physics 1932, nobelprize.org, accessed 27 April 2018. Return to text.
  15. physics.ucla.edu/~moszkowski/histnucl/np30/heisjp.htm, accessed 25 August 2018. Return to text.
  16. ACL National Conference EMBOLDEN—Gabriele Kuby, youtube.com, 12 December 2017. Return to text.

Helpful Resources