Chapter Ten

CLOSING THOUGHTS

The Danger of “Gay Rights”

Scott Lively

    I am writing this conclusion to the third edition on the same day that President Bill Clinton has called for “hate crimes” legislation based on “sexual orientation” (code words for homosexuality).  A few  days ago, in an act unprecedented in the history of the presidency, Mr. Clinton aligned himself with the homosexual cause at a fund-raiser for the Human Rights Campaign Fund, the “gay” movement’s largest political action committee.  Knowing what it cost this president in 1993 to endorse “gays in the military,” I am wondering what “gay” leaders might have promised the president in exchange for this new endorsement.  Or can it be that public perception of the “gay” movement has changed so much that the Clinton administration (notorious for its reliance on polls and “focus groups”) has decided that it is now safe for the president to identify himself and his office with the “gay” political agenda.
    This question has personal significance for me, since I was one of the few people to publicly challenge then-candidate Clinton on his support for “gay” issues during his first run for presidential office.  In response to my questions during a live Town Hall television program (simulcast from Seattle, Washington and Portland, Oregon), Mr. Clinton said he was against promoting homosexuality as a valid, alternative lifestyle to young people.  At that time he also affirmed the right of the Boy Scouts to exclude “gay” scout leaders.
    I raise this issue to contrast the benign public image of “gays” with the face of the “gay” movement that we have seen in these pages.  Those whose perceptions of the “gay” movement have been shaped primarily by the popular media may find President Clinton's pro-“gay” political actions appropriate, even laudable.  Such people have been persuaded that “gays” are society's victims in need of protection.  But the “gay” movement I have seen and investigated is neither benign, nor are its members “victims.”  It is vicious, deceptive and enormously powerful.  Its philosophy is Machiavellian and its tactics are (literally) Hitlerian.  
    What explains the dichotomy of perspectives on the “gay” movement?  If any of the facts in this book are true, then the image of the “gay” movement Bill Clinton and other pro-“gay” opinion makers would like you to accept cannot be true.   Are typical heterosexual supporters of “gay rights” simply unconcerned about the association of homosexuality with personal and societal dysfunction and violence?  Or have these presumably well-intentioned people been denied complete information?   
    I have always been cautious of the word conspiracy, yet this is the word which best describes how the “gatekeepers” of American popular culture have helped to shape public opinion on this issue.  The truth about homosexuality and the Nazi Party (indeed most information that might reflect negatively on the “gay” movement) appears to have been deliberately suppressed.  We know that so-called “gay rights” has become a virtual cause celebre among the self-styled cultural elites in government, academia and the news and entertainment media.  Over fifty years ago Samuel Igra also observed that homosexualism “had become a veritable cult among the ruling classes” in Germany prior to the rise of Hitler.  I have come to believe that America's cultural elitists, perceiving themselves to be the moral arbiters of our society and the protectors of “gays,” have used their power and their positions to protect and shield the “gay” movement from all unfavorable publicity.  More than this, they have colluded to promote an image of “gays” as sterling citizens.
    When I initially learned the truths set forth in this book, I was first astonished and then angered.  Why had this information never surfaced during the many months in which the Oregon campaign to stop the “gay” agenda was continually being compared (in the local and national media) to the Nazi regime?  The information is certainly not hidden.  Anyone with the most basic research skills could easily find many of the two hundred-odd sources we have cited in this book.  Are we to believe that the hundreds of trained journalists, college professors and politicians who helped guide the debate on that campaign (and many similar events) failed to discover any of these sources?  We must assume that at least some of these professionals knew of these facts but decided not to inform the public.   At best  this represents an appalling level of arrogance (allowing that they might have disregarded these facts as not credible — denying “common” people the right to make up their own minds).  The more plausible (and more frightening) conclusion is that the facts were withheld because of their likely negative impact on the “gay” movement.
    “Gay” political power derives in large part from the public perception that homosexuals are victims.  As Kirk and Pill so baldly admitted in The Overhauling of Straight America, “gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector.”  What would happen to the protective instinct of Americans if they knew that many of the worst villains of the Third Reich were “gay”?  How closely would America scrutinize the “gay” agenda if “homoeroticism” were revealed as the very foundation of Nazism? (And I believe the movement would not survive such scrutiny). The evidence points to a conspiracy of silence — a nearly universal self-censorship by the same opinion-makers who mock conspiracy theories and decry any form of censorship.
    If the facts in this book are true, and if it is also true that the “gatekeepers” of our public information are deliberately keeping these facts from us, can we hope to educate our fellow citizens before the “gay agenda” plunges this nation into social chaos? The outcome is uncertain.  Surely, however, there have been times in the past when the inevitable repetitions of history were derailed by a few warning voices.  It is our hope that the facts we have presented here will penetrate the fog of media-sponsored misinformation and “political correctness.”
    Have we exaggerated the urgency of our task?  I think not.  The future of America, indeed of civilization itself, depends upon the preservation of the natural family -- God’s model for effective human society and the training ground for healthy human relationships.  Yet the goal of the “gay” movement is the devaluation of the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic (monogamous heterosexual family-centered marriage) and its replacement with a “gay” affirming pagan alternative.
    The “gay” movement in America (as contrasted with the German version) is different in style but not in substance.  It remains characteristically selfish and hedonistic, but more importantly it continues to be defined by what it is against: Judeo-Christian family-based society. This “gay” vision for America is best defined in a widely circulated satirical essay written by a homosexualist under the pseudonym “Michael Swift” (probably to remind us of the political satire of Jonathan Swift. Although the writer intends to discredit this view of the homosexual agenda, its very eloquence (in the context of our study) belies this attempt. Echoing from the ancient Spartan culture, from the Teutons, from the Knights Templar, from the SA under Ernst Roehm, and now from the American “gay rights” movement comes this, our final glimpse into the fascist heart of homosexualism:

This essay is outre, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed dream of being the oppressor.
  We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools [Project 10], in your dormitories [forced homosexual roommates], in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups [Wandervoegel , Boy Scouts], in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses [“gays in the military”], in your truck stops, in your all-male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons will become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.
  Women, you cry for your freedom. You say you are no longer satisfied with men; they make you unhappy [radical feminism, lesbian separatist movement]. We, connoisseurs of the masculine face, the masculine physique, shall take your men from you then. We will amuse them; we will embrace them when they weep. Women, you say you wish to live with each other instead of men. Then go ahead and be with each other. We shall give your men pleasures they have never known because we are foremost men too and only one man knows how to truly please another man; only one man can understand with depth and feeling the mind and body of another man.
    All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked [anti-discrimination ordinances, minority status based on homosexuality]. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men [graphic “pro-gay” sex and AIDS education, mandatory “sensitivity training,”].
    All homosexuals must stand together as brothers; we must be united artistically, philosophically, socially, politically and financially [the multi-faceted and powerful “gay rights” movement]. We will triumph only when we present a common face to the vicious heterosexual enemy [suppression of internecine conflicts and other negative information about homosexuals by the homosexualist dominated media].
    If you dare to cry faggot, fairy, queer, at us, we will stab you in your cowardly hearts and defile your dead puny bodies [“hate crimes,” speech codes, fines].
    We shall write poems of the love between men; we shall stage plays in which man openly caresses man [the play Bent and a multitude of others; the lesbian counterpart in the television show, Ellen]; we will make films about the love between heroic men which will replace the cheap, superficial, sentimental, insipid, juvenile, heterosexual infatuations presently dominating your cinema screens [Hollywood promotion of homosexual “love-making” and of the “gay rights” agenda in movies and television]. We shall sculpt statues of beautiful young men, of bold athletes which will be placed in your parks, your squares, your plazas [public funding of homosexual pornography by the National Endowment for the Arts, National Public Broadcasting Service]. The museums of the world will be filled only with the paintings of graceful, naked lads.
   Our writers will make love between men fashionable and de rigeur, and we will succeed because we are adept at setting styles [invention of “gay-speak” — “gay,” “homophobia,” “diversity,” “sexual orientation”]. We will eliminate heterosexual liaisons through usage of the devices of wit and ridicule which we are skilled in employing.
    We will unmask the powerful homosexuals who masquerade as heterosexuals [outing]. You will be shocked and frightened when you learn that your presidents and their sons, your industrialists, your senators, your mayors, your generals, your athletes, your film stars, your television personalities, your civic leaders, your priests are not the safe, familiar bourgeois, heterosexual figures you assumed them to be. We are everywhere [a commonly used bumper-sticker]; we have infiltrated your ranks [strategic “surprise” announcements by “conservative” homosexuals, e.g. Mel White, former ghostwriter for Christian leaders]. Be careful when you speak of homosexuals because we are always among you; we may be sitting across the desk from you; we may be sleeping in the same bed with you.
   There will be no compromises. We are not middle class weaklings. Highly intelligent, we are the natural aristocrats of the human race, and steely-minded aristocrats never settle for less [Brand/Friedlander, Fuehrer principle]. Those who oppose us will be exiled [the “Fems”].
     We shall raise vast, private armies, as Mishima did, to defeat you [Rossbach and Roehm, Frederick the Great]. We shall conquer the world because warriors inspired by and banded together by homosexual love and honor are invincible as were the ancient Greek soldiers [Plato's Banquet ].
  The family unit — spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence — will be abolished [homosexual “marriage” and adoption]. The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must be eliminated [Plato's Republic]. Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory. They will be bonded together in communal setting, under the control and instruction of homosexual savants [Sparta].
   All churches who condemn us will be closed [attacks on the McIlhennys, St. Patrick’s Cathedral]. Our only gods are handsome young men. We adhere to a cult of beauty, moral and esthetic. All that is ugly and vulgar and banal will be annihilated [Kummerlings]. Since we are alienated from middle-class heterosexual conventions, we are free to live our lives according to the dictates of the pure imagination [Nietzsche, Hitler]. For us too much is not enough.
   The exquisite society to emerge will be governed by an elite comprised of gay poets [Adolf Brand, Stefan George, Plato’s “philosopher-kings”]. One of the major requirements for a position of power in the new society will be indulgence in the Greek passion [pederasty]. Any man contaminated with heterosexual lust will be automatically barred from a position of influence [SA leadership]. All males who insist on remaining stupidly heterosexual will be tried in homosexual courts of justice and will become invisible men.
    We shall rewrite history [Holocaust revisionism, extravagant claims that historical figures (like Lincoln) were homosexual], history filled and debased with your heterosexual lies and distortions. We shall portray the homosexuality of great leaders and thinkers who have shaped the world. We will demonstrate that homosexuality and intelligence and imagination are inextricably linked, and that homosexuality is a requirement for true nobility, true beauty in a man [Hans Blueher].
    We shall be victorious because we are filled with the ferocious bitterness of the oppressed who have been forced to play seemingly bit parts in your dumb, heterosexual shows throughout the ages [victim-plunder strategy]. We too are capable of firing guns and manning the barricades of the ultimate revolution [ACT-UP, Queer Nation, blood terrorism].
    Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks.

(By Michael Swift, “Gay Revolutionary.” Reprinted from The Congressional Record . First printed in Gay Community News, February 15-21, 1987).

B'' H

The Final Word

Kevin E. Abrams

“The foundation of any ‘human’ civilization is a moral and healthy sexual constitution, everything else is window-dressing.”
The Jerusalem Post, May 21, 1996

     After we learn of the role “gays” played in the National Socialist movement, the Nazi attitude towards homosexuality may still seem contradictory and confusing, a riddle only partially solved.  We may still wonder, if so many of the leading Nazis were “gay,” why they would target homosexuals for incarceration or extermination as today’s “gay” activists claim.  How can today’s “gays,” who express so little regard for Biblical ethics, now portray themselves as joint victims with the very Jews who suffered persecution and virtual extermination at the hands of the largely “gay” Nazis?  How do the official Nazi invectives against homosexuality reconcile with the fact that “gays” held key positions in the Nazi government throughout its despotic reign, inclusive of the Holocaust.  Were the Nazis then victims of their own persecution?
    And why are we so compellingly urged by the Left to sanction “gay rights,” when, as the wide spectrum of “gay” and non-“gay” sources listed in this book’s bibliography incontrovertibly show, Germany’s militant “gays” were largely responsible for propelling Hitler into the Chancellor’s office?  And now, knowing the extent to which German “gays” contributed to the success of the Nazi movement, how should we interpret a looming “gay” swastika over America?

Spiritual Truth

    Jewish scholar Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch who lived in the last century, is remembered for his most profound and extensive treatise on Torah philosophy.  HOREB, meaning Sinai (the mountain where the original Torah was given by God and received by Moses), was written and published as a refutation to the Jewish pretensions of the German Reform Religion, which, today, is at the forefront of the movement to promote “gay rights” in America’s Jewish community and within Israel. In opposition to both natural and Divine law, Reform has ordained lesbians as “rabbis” and sanctioned “gay” unions. “Gay” Jews have also imposed themselves on the Holocaust, cynically and pragmatically exploiting the deaths of six million Jewish men, women and children as a dramatic metaphor to portray themselves as victims, as if Hitler had targeted Jewish homosexuals primarily because they were “gay.” But what of the truth in history?
    From an ethical monotheistic perspective, Rabbi Hirsch points out in the following excerpt from HOREB, how it is the primary concern and duty of each of us to guard the dignity of our fellow man:

God, who created man to be just, that is to say, to leave and give to all entities in all their relations that which is their due, has also endowed his mind with the faculty of mirroring the reality of things in their various relations so that man may be able to perceive the entities and their relations, and, on the strength of this knowledge, give to them what the teachings of justice lay down as their right.
    This reproduction of reality in the mind is truth. Truth therefore, is a precondition of justice; for only according to the image of the things and their relations which appears in man’s mind can man behave towards them; if this image be false, his behavior will be different from what is due to them: he becomes unjust. And thus, if nothing else, justice itself - which is our Divine calling - will guarantee that, as far as that calling of ours demands, we shall be able to perceive the reality of external things from their reflection within ourselves.
     God has knitted together the community of man with the vital thread of love, and has ordained that man should rely on his brother for the spiritual good - namely, truth. But he who, instead of truthfully expressing in words what he has experienced to be real, communicates a false image of it to his brother, who accepts it and bases his behavior on it - either being unjust to his fellow-creatures or, having a wrong conception of their intentions towards him, being destroyed by them - that man turns into a curse that supreme blessing of the Creator; for he who denies truth to his brother, thus violating the highest duty towards him which God has imposed, calls down a curse - he who lies calls down a curse. And as material property is valuable only as a means for a life devoted to justice, and the liar steals the first condition of that justice - namely, truth, and gives falsehood in exchange, thus giving birth to injustice, the liar is even more dangerous than the thief.
    The thief takes only the means of life as such, while the liar takes those of a just life, producing, in turn, injustice - and misery. For just as God links the supreme good, justice, to truth, so does He do the same with regard to the minor good, happiness. For to appreciate the nature of things you rely on your knowledge of them; and if somebody deceives you about their true nature, he robs you of a support or causes you to lean on a support that is insecure. And by stealing from another directly something precious - truth - and so indirectly the most precious thing - justice - the liar also kills himself spiritually; for he extinguishes in himself that Divine spark which alone makes of a him a human being created for the benefit of his fellow-men (Hirsch:248ff). [And what of “gay rights?” Never have so few taken so much from so many.]

Who were the Nazis?

    We must recognize who the Nazis were.  Ideologically, the Nazis were pragmatic, technocratic, tribal pagan utilitarians. They viewed human life with a detached and cynical pragmatism. They exploited whomever and whatever they could to achieve their political and military goals. Typically, the Nazis approached such issues as euthanasia, homosexuality and abortion with a ruthless expedience. Sterilization and abortion were preferred for anyone classified inferior or defective (but never for healthy Aryans).
    To the technocratic Nazi mind truth was dictated by the necessity of the moment (dealing thus in lies they brought a curse upon themselves and all they touched). “Defectives” were euthanized and inferiors sterilized, while it was a crime for Aryan maidens to have abortions. While privately tolerating and even promoting homosexuality, the Nazis denounced it frequently in public using trumped-up charges of homosexuality to arrest and remove those who disagreed with Hitler’s military and political goals. Former neo-Nazi Ingo Hassellbach, in his revealing 1996 book, Fuhrer-Ex, confirms how the utilitarian Nazi double standard was applied in other areas: “Opposition to abortion  had been one of the consistent planks in the Nazi platform since the Movement’s beginnings in the 1920s, and for a simple reason: abortion was race murder. While permissible, even desirable, among the colored women and Jews of the world, among Aryans it was the ultimate sin” (Hasselbach:111).
    The Nazi version of racial eugenics evolved into the key political and military platform of the Nazi Party, which enabled the Nazis to portray the Jewish people as a defective and inferior class, along with the physically deformed and other non-productive members of German society. In effect, however, the Nazis simply projected their own depravities upon the Jewish people, demonized and dehumanized them, and then used them as scapegoats as they themselves proceeded to plunder the world. Nazi racial theories served as a pretext to justify the elimination of a people whose deeper “offense” was its commitment to an unyielding moral standard.  
   As Professor Giora Shoham explains in his book, Valhalla, Calvary & Auschwitz, the Nazis, like today’s “gays,” “longed to shed the normative constraints of Judaeo-Christian law and morals and to return to the amoral irresponsibility of their paganism. They resented the Jews, who symbolized to them the imposition of restraints on their hedonistic paganism....When this sense of law and justice is rejected, the tribal chieftain, [and homoerotic warrior] reigns supreme. Thus, the separant power of Odin knew no limits; consequently, the omnipotence of Adolf Hitler, der Fuehrer, recognized no boundaries of law, morality or mercy” (Shoham:27).
    Increasingly, as they emerge from the closet, today’s “gays” do bear a striking resemblance to yesterday’s Nazis.

Left-Right Polarities

    To understand the pagan mind in this context we must recognize the truth about left-right polarities in the political sphere.  With minor discrepancies, all left-wing ideology can be identified as “regressive,” and right-wing ideology as “progressive.” Left-wing regressives incite mutual plunder, encourage dependency and pragmatically aspire to the lowest common denominator. Genuine right-wing progressive conservatives encourage creativity, inspire mutual affirmation, trust and human productivity. By nature, all socialism falls on the regressive side, in that “socialism,” is simply a political ideology which often lacks a true sense of social justice. Evil disguises itself as virtue (e.g., the goal of racial purity) because it has no life of its own (which is why sad bondage wishes to be known as “gay liberation.”)
    Generally, adherents of  the Left fail to do what is necessary to guard the dignity of their fellow man. A left-leaning historian, for instance, would fatalistically argue that “history” repeats itself, while a conservative like Voltaire could observe correctly how it is instead “man who always repeats himself.” No wonder left-regressives cannot learn from history. If history just “happens” then little can be learned from it or done to prevent it from happening again. Basing one’s decisions on a revised, corrupted or inverted version of history, however, is another matter. Some of man’s worst follies are committed because of erroneous or falsified information.
    In trying to understand the Nazi phenomenon we often ask ourselves how a gang of murdering thugs could have seized power in such a civilized nation? The truth is that Germany during the Weimar period was one of the most uncivilized nations in the world. Hitler himself referred to Berlin as the whore of Babylon. We consistently err in  judging the advancement of human civilizations on the basis of art and technology. The Nazis loved classical music, and they were astute  in the use of science and technology. The question we must ask about every society is, to what end is human culture is employed?  For left-wing regressives, culture serves destruction and death.  For right-wing progressives, culture focuses upon life.
    A positive and utilitarian attitude toward homosexuality, euthanasia and abortion would therefore (then as now) be a left-wing regressive orientation, and a typical Nazi profile (with very specific contradictions and qualifications). It bears repeating that the Nazis were first and foremost technocratic, utilitarian pragmatists who believed in the survival of the fittest and the societal goals of physical beauty and racial perfection, Aryans being the “fittest” and most perfected, and Jews the least “fit” and least perfect.  In truth, racial characteristics are irrelevant.  Only the morality of a individuals and nations can determine whether they are civilized or barbarians -- builders or plunderers.
    How do homosexuals fit into this picture? Although Nazi rhetoric listed homosexuals among the unfit, the Nazis never targeted homosexuals for destruction. To the contrary, unless the homosexual in question was Jewish, or a political enemy, the Nazi organization was often protective of homosexuals.  Originally, the SS was founded for precisely the purpose of protecting Viennese homosexuals. The Nazis actually attempted to cure homosexuals at the Goering Institute, albeit in many ways which proved futile. (forcing a gender-weak frightened male to sleep with a female prostitute proved ineffective). “Gay” rights activists often take Nazi propaganda against homosexuals and regurgitate it as historical truth. Nazi and “gay” historical revisionism, with their inversion of history and civilized values, are one. In today’s “gay” victim strategy, the perpetrator is posing as the victim.

Fifth Columns

    In their quest for power, Nazi homosexuals were no different from  today’s “gays.” Then, as now, the strategy was one of deception, infiltration and subversion.  Our study of  “gay” history reveals how Nazi “gays,” both historically and today, act as subversive fifth columns in their host communities, preparing the way for “gay” Nazi power while overtly and covertly spreading anti-“gay” propaganda in an attempt to veil their own goals.  The Pink Swastika documents how top French and British Nazis were “gays” and that American Nazi Frank Collin, who led the 1977 march on Skokie Illinois, was a “gay” pederast. So what of so-called ‘liberty?’”
    The idea of liberty held by modern liberals is quite new. According to them, liberty connotes a radical individualism that rejects all social norms and institutions which the individual has not agreed to.  Subscribers to this idea defend the right of Nazis (who themselves despise the idea of rights) to march through Skokie, Illinois, but not the right of Skokians and their elected leaders to maintain order and defend the dignity of the principles and customs they hold most dear. Likewise, they support the right of homosexuals and atheists to invade and destroy the Boy Scouts.
    In Nazi history, failed fifth column sedition activities in target nations are recorded in the October 12, 1937 The New York Times in  bold headlines reading, “Czech Nazi Official Is Seized by Police.” The Prague dispatch quoted in the Times reports “a major political sensation caused by the arrest, under the criminal code ‘dealing with homosexuality,’ of Hans Rutha, a high official in the country’s camouflaged Nazi Party.” And from October 17, 1937, further headlines read, “14 members of Czech Nazi Party Held for Morals Offences,” identifying Rutha, as the “‘right hand man’ of the Nazi Party Chief,” i.e., as “gay” Ernst Roehm was to Hitler. On December 3, headlines report, “Members of Youth Organization Face Homosexual Charges.” And on December 10, 1937, a Times story from Prague announces that “fourteen Czechs, all the accused, had received ‘suspended sentences’ after trial on homosexual charges” (J. Katz:553f).
    Despite such random clues, the world of that day was duped. Left-regressive, self-identified lesbian, Gertrude Stein, felt that Hitler should have received the Nobel Peace prize in 1937. Apparently, Britain’s Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, also thought Hitler could be bribed to honor peace with the September 30, 1938 Munich agreement. His payment was Czechoslovakia, but “peace in our time” only cleared the way for Hitler’s invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939. History shows that militant “gay” efforts often produce a result that is anything but peaceful. Further, while individual “gays” may “come out of the closet” for various reasons, their agenda and the truth about the depth of their infiltration of powerful institutions, remans hidden.  We can also learn from the Nazis’ victims that bribery never satisfies extortionists. They always come back for more, which is why (in our day) demands for “rights” have no end.  Each capitulation of American society to “gay” demands draws increasing demands, which will continue until they destroy the institutions which support society, including the homosexuals themselves.
    The age of AIDS has launched “gay“ activism into full gear. As the liberal dogma would have it, no one is responsible for AIDS; it just happens. Taking its cue from no-fault divorce and no-fault insurance, the Left has also created the concept  of no-fault utilitarian sex.   British occultist and Satanist, Aleister Crowley sums it up: “do what thou wilt, shall be the whole of the law.”But “do what thou wilt” is no law at all! Crowley’s maxim is in reality a negation of all natural and spiritual law; it only promotes chaos and a left-wing regressive descent into oblivion and non-existence. His maxim reflects a complete lack of concern and respect for the dignity of his fellow man and a contempt for life.

“Gay” Sedition

    “Gay” strategists choose to employ the biological model of homosexuality for the dual purpose of denying choice and escaping responsibility. In calling for research into a so-called “gay“ gene, their purpose was never to cure or rectify, but to justify homoerotic conduct and the homosexual identity. “Gays” correctly reason that if sexual behavior is a choice, it carries with it both responsibility and accountability.  Their insistence that homosexuality is “not a choice” functions to bring ever more recruits into the “gay” fold and keep them there by discouraging them from seeking change.  For many of today’s young men, their ability to choose has been hijacked by a sophisticated program of psychosexual sedition and manipulation, largely sustained by the social weaknesses of our time.
    To limit the animating source for human behavior to the brain and animal instinct (as many of today’s behavioral scientists do) is both reductionist and left-wing regressive. Human motives and actions are, to a significant extent, determined by the vastly greater non-physical aspects of human existence.  Inclinations are non-physical, and behavior causes physical change.  (Planting the seed of human life in the passage designed for the expulsion of waste  not only causes disease, but also exerts a destructive force upon the individual soul and on the value of all human life).
    ”Gays” have forgotten that responsibility for personal conduct goes hand-in-hand with our personal dignity and authority. Realistically, we can never dignify something which is profoundly undignified, no matter how hard we strive to.     This brings us to another seditious element of “gay” culture, pornography.  Dr. Judith Reisman, co-author of Kinsey Sex & Fraud and Founder of the Washington based Institute for Media Education, is an expert on the impact of pornography on society. During a lengthy private conversation, Dr. Reisman asserted that “all pornography promotes homosexuality.” I have pondered her comment many times since then, and have come to see its correctness. In her 1994 analysis, Kinsey, Hefner & Hay, The Indoctrination of Heterophobia in American Men & Women, Dr. Reisman explains;

Pragmatically, Playboy (that is, all pornography) manifests a blatant homosexual ethos. Its heterophobia is sustained by an utilitarian analysis of Playboy images and philosophy. It is not too much to say, that just as the imagery of stained glass windows and holy cards once initiated, instructed and indoctrinated potential adherents in a religious faith, the didactic images in “soft” and “hard” pornography similarly initiate, instruct and indoctrinate potential believers in the tenants of its religion, its homosexual morality. Hugh Hefner took great pains to write his own bible; he called it the “Playboy Philosophy.” And on this note, it is well accepted that “Alfred Kinsey...gave Hefner the research base for the “Playboy Philosophy.”...In fact Kinsey can properly be identified along with his supporters and co-workers, as the one most responsible for justifying the kind of behavior which led to AIDS, and more than Harry Hay, the real father of American’s homoerotic revolution (Reisman, 1994:7f). [In reality, pornography expresses a vicious hatred and contempt for the dignity of all men in that it treats men as nothing more than an appendage to be manipulated by the twisting and exploitation of female sexuality.]

Sons of Oedipus

    Clinical research concludes that the target of human sexual affections is not predetermined at birth, but conditioned by a combination of environmental and sociological factors. It would be helpful to turn back to the “Oedipus complex,” to present a psychosexual model for the roots of homoerotic attraction. [Oedipus was the legendary figure who killed his father and married his mother.]
    Although “gay” research mocks and rejects the validity of this Freudian construct, the idea offers helpful insight into the complex structure and development of the homosexualities.  The classic Oedipus complex may be defined as a lust-hate demeanor towards the mother and an irreconcilable combination of longing and contempt for the father.  In the words of Dr. Joseph Nicolosi,

Homosexuality is a developmental problem that is almost always the result of problems in family relations, particularly between father and son. As a result of failure with father, the boy does not fully internalize male gender-identity, and develops homosexuality. This is the most commonly seen clinical model (Nicolosi, 1991:25).

    Analyst Peter Loewenberg in The Nazi Revolution, Hitler’s Dictatorship and the German Nation, writes, “Boys who become homosexuals are often those who were left alone with their mothers and formed an intense attachment to them that was unmediated by the father’s presence and protection.”
    The regressive promotion of an androgynous culture advances an equality in which gender distinctions, roles and identity are blurred and inverted.  This leads to a loss of healthy self-identity. Paradoxically, the freedom of choice being offered by liberal left-regressive social theorists to today’s youth destroys a child’s ability to choose. In a similar vein, radical feminism actually destroys femininity while emasculating males, and socialism destroys social justice. By robbing our children of their ability to conduct themselves morally, today’s left-wing regressives are grooming a new generation of potential Nazis.
    Today, while chronic homoerotic behavior is limited to a small percentage of the population, its roots (either deficiencies in psychic gender patterning, or deviance initiated by adult-child sexual abuse) may be more widespread. Clinical studies reveal that the sexualization of a search for masculinity is the genesis of homoerotic attraction.  It follows that the current generation of fatherless youth may be prime candidates for homosexual recruitment.  And the same amoral thinking which allows them to consider homosexuality as a “normal” option  may also make them dangerously susceptible to the next Hitler. It is no accident that Hitler and his cronies came to power on the backs of emasculated German male youth.

Akhtar’s Metaphor -- A New Beginning

     A primary goal of any people striving to maintain a civilized human society must be to prepare our children to become reliable and loyal husbands and wives and competent fathers and mothers. There is nothing in the world a young man wishes to do more than to be able to love, admire and respect his father.   This vision can only be fully realized in the context of a healthy natural family.
    There are two primary obligations which the parent has toward his children: to instill in them a moral and healthy sexual constitution and to ensure they are equipped with an honest and productive way of providing for themselves and their families. These two personal assets enable any person to live life as a dignified human being. The parents’ obligation, therefore, is to guard the dignity of their children. Conversely, the Biblical injunction contained within the principle of the family is for the children to guard the dignity of their parents. If we kept this in mind, many families could be reunited and divisions resolved. Our challenge is to repair America’s soul before the body perishes.
    Dr. Salman Akhtar’s book, Broken Structures, offers a metaphor for healing the broken person which is also applicable to the mending of a nation. Teaching a course on character pathology to a class of clinical psychology interns, Dr. Akhtar was asked if a severely disturbed client could ever be so completely healed by psychotherapy that he would be indistinguishable from a person who had always been well-adjusted. From the book Broken Structures in which Dr. Akhtar tells “The Parable of Two Flower Vases,” I will conclude with his words:

I thought for a moment. Then, prompted by an inner voice, I spontaneously came up with the following answer. Well, let us suppose that there are two flower vases made of fine china. Both are intricately carved and of comparable value, elegance, and beauty. Then a wind blows and one of them falls from its stand, and is broken into pieces. An expert from a distant land is called. Painstakingly, step by step, the expert glues the pieces back together. Soon the broken vase is intact again, can hold water without leaking, is unblemished to all who see it. Yet this vase is now different from the other one. The lines along which it had broken, a subtle reminder of yesterday, will always remain discernible to an experienced eye. However, it will have a certain wisdom since it knows something that the vase that has never been broken does not: it knows what it is to break and what it is to come together .

Kevin E. Abrams
November 14, 1997