Chapter Nine

THE HOMOSEXUALIZATION
OF AMERICA

    If the rise of Nazism in Germany was made possible, at least in part, by the homosexualization of German society, what does this bode for America as we watch the steady advance of the “gay” agenda in this culture?  Should we expect to witness something like the rise of a Third Reich on American soil? Or would the effect on American society be of an entirely different character?  Is the “gay” movement in the United States sufficiently similar to its German counterpart as even to warrant concern? (Certainly the German “gay” culture was far more militaristic than the homosexual movement here, for example). Or is this the wrong question?  Is there something about homosexuality (or the broader problem of sexual libertinism) that inevitably destroys the society that embraces it?
    In many ways these are questions beyond the scope of this book, yet the implications of the material we have presented compel us to address them.  Perhaps the most helpful approach is to search the history of homosexual activism in America for parallels with the German experience.
    As we noted in the previous chapter, the first openly homosexual organization in the United States was the American chapter of the German Society for Human Rights, started in 1924.  The SHR was an aberration, however.  The American homosexual movement really only began in the 1940s after the Allied defeat of the Nazis. We must begin our time line, then, with the observation that the center of international “gay” power in the world did in fact shift from Germany to the United States after the demise of the Third Reich. This represented a huge setback for the “gay” movement, requiring it to begin “from scratch” as it were, since America in the 1940s was at least as family-centered as Germany had been in the 1860s.
    We know that the implicit goal of homosexual political activism is to legitimize homosexual conduct and relationships in a society. This necessarily requires a society to abandon its commitment to marriage as the exclusive domain of acceptable sexual conduct. The abandonment of this standard logically opens the door to every other form of sexual promiscuity. Clearly, such a transformation of attitude is now occurring in America.  What we will find is that this transformation is not the result of random social forces, but of deliberate and systematic political activism by the “gay” movement.

Harry Hay and the Mattachine Society

    In the words of Jonathan Katz, “a link of a kind peculiar to Gay male history connects the abortive Chicago Society for Human Rights (1924-25) and Henry Hay, the founder of the Mattachine Society” (J. Katz:407).  This “peculiar link” is the fact that the man who recruited Hay into homosexuality (at age seventeen), Champ Simmons, was himself seduced by a former member of the SHR.  In a perverse sort of way, then, it seems appropriate that Hay would become known as the “founder of the modern gay movement” (Timmons:cover).  (In another account, Hay claims his earliest homosexual experience was a molestation at age fourteen by a twenty-five-year-old man) (ibid.:36).
    On August 10, 1948, at the tail end of an eighteen-year stint as a Communist Party leader, Hay began to organize a group that would become the Mattachine Society (ibid:132).  Not until the spring of 1951 did it receive its name, but from the beginning it was seen as a vehicle to destroy social restraints against homosexuality in American culture (J. Katz:412f).  The name Mattachine was taken from “medieval Renaissance French...secret fraternities of unmarried townsmen” (ibid.:412). The organization’s stated agenda was to preserve the “right to privacy.”  Like the SHR, the Mattachine Society became controversial upon the arrest of a prominent member.  Dale Jennings, one of the founders of the organization, was arrested for soliciting an undercover police officer to commit a homosexual act in a public restroom (ibid.:414).
    Hay was not a fascist, but he was a neo-pagan.  He participated in occultic rituals at “the Los Angeles lodge of the Order of the Eastern Temple,  O.T.O., Aleister Crowley’s notorious anti-Christian spiritual group” (Timmons:76).  Hay provided musical accompaniment to ceremonies performed by the lesbian “high priestess.”  Later in life he founded a New Age group called Radical Faeries, which met in an asram in the high desert of Arizona to offer invocations to pagan spirits (ibid.:265).  
    In some ways, Hay can be compared to Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, the “grandfather” of the gay rights movement.  Hay is his American counterpart in the sense that both men launched enduring social movements in their respective cultures.  The avowed purpose of each was to undermine the Judeo-Christian moral consensus in respect to homosexual relations.  And both had been molested as boys (though some suggest that this is the rule rather than the exception among homosexual men).  But unlike Ulrichs, Hay became increasingly militant over the course of his life until, in the 1980s, he participated in California’s notoriously violent ACT-UP demonstrations (ibid.:292).  ACT-UP, the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power, was one of the earliest manifestations of homo-fascism in the “gay rights” movement.  Though Hay was in his 70s, and is not directly linked to any of the property destruction associated with ACT-UP demonstrations, his presence validated the terrorist tactics of the group.  Hay also openly endorsed pederasty as an essential part of the “gay rights” movement (ibid.:296).  
    Harry Hay and the Mattachine Society spawned large-scale political and social activism among homosexuals that soon outgrew their expectations and their control.  Their highly motivated activists operated in groups designed like communist cells, each a “secret fraternity” bound by the common vice.  As Hay stated in a later interview, “[we wanted to] keep them underground and separated so that no one group could ever know who all the other members were” (J. Katz:410).  Slowly at first, from innumerable obscure sources, came theories, public statements and actions in support of the social acceptance of homosexuality. And as the power of the homosexualist political lobby grew, so did the ugliness of its demands and its methods.

Alfred Kinsey and the Kinsey Institute

    While Harry Hay would soon take the homosexual movement public with the Mattachine Society, most homosexual activism continued to be carried out by hidden cell groups and individual “in the closet” activists.  One such activist was Alfred Kinsey. No one but Kinsey’s closest associates and sex partners knew that his image as a respectable family man and college professor masked his role as one of the most dedicated homosexual change-agents in America.
    In 1948, sex researcher Kinsey released his culture-shattering book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male.  The first major sex study of its kind, the Kinsey Report purported to show that Americans were far more promiscuous and sexually deviant than they said they were (Reisman and Eichel, 1992:2).  For over forty years, Kinsey’s data went more-or-less unchallenged and the conclusions that he drew continue to serve as the “scientific” justification for the so-called sexual revolution.  His theory of sex as a mere “outlet” released human behavior from what Marcuse called “the repressive order of procreative sexuality.”  All forms of sexual expression were equalized in the Kinsey model.
    Recently, several studies have shown that America is not the hotbed of promiscuity and deviancy that Kinsey's study made it appear to be, even after forty-six years of influence by that study, which was loudly trumpeted as “fact” by the media and much of academia.  U.S. News and World Report reported that one such recent study, conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, that it showed that “[f]idelity reigns.  Fully 83 percent of Americans had sex with one person or had no sex partners in the past year, and half of Americans have had only one partner in the past five years” (U.S. News and World Report, October, 1994:75).
    Kinsey’s study was tailor-made for the homosexual/pederast community.  Indeed, just weeks after its release, Harry Hay formally launched the Mattachine Society. We have no proof that Kinsey and Hay actually coordinated their efforts, although we know that Hay and Kinsey met together more than seven years before the publication of the first Kinsey report (Timmons:111). We also know that influential Kinsey co-worker, Wardell Pomeroy, later became a member of the Mattachine Society’s advisory board, perhaps indicating a deeper relationship between the Kinsey organization and the Mattachines (Marotta:80).
    Kinsey’s vastly inflated figure of the number  of homosexuals in America is the basis of the enduring myth that at least 10% of the population is homosexual. His  seven-point Kinsey Scale, “in which bisexuality occupied a middle ‘balanced’ position between heterosexuality (0) and homosexuality (6)” (ibid.:10), attempted to establish homosexuality  as a norm by definition.  He further declared adult/child sex harmless.  This “finding” was based on data gathered by pedophiles from experimentation with hundreds of children as young as two months old (ibid.:36).
    In Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, Reisman and Eichel state that Kinsey “purported to prove that children were sexual beings, even from infancy and that they could, and should, have pleasurable and beneficial sexual interaction with adult ‘partners’” (ibid.:3).  Reisman and Eichel go on to suggest that Kinsey deliberately overlooked criminal sexual child abuse and purposefully falsified data to further his personal sexual and political agenda.  They cite former Kinsey coworker Gershon Legman who said that “Kinsey’s not-very-secret intention was to ‘respectablize’ homosexuality and certain sexual perversions” (ibid.:34). They also reference sociologists Albert Hobbs and Richard Lambert who observed “that the Kinsey authors seemed purposefully to ignore the limitations of their own samples in order ‘to compound any possible errors in almost any way which will increase the apparent incidence of [homosexuality]’” (ibid.:24).
    Was Kinsey a homosexual, a pedophile or both?  One historian proposed that Kinsey “may have discovered in himself the homosexual tendencies he would later ascribe to a large proportion of the population” (Robinson in Reisman and Eichel, 1992:204).  But Reisman and Eichel suggest he manifested more of the behaviors of a pedophile.  “In addition to his interest in sex experiments with children,” they write, “Kinsey was an avid collector of pornography (and maker of sex films) — an elemental feature of the pedophile syndrome” (Reisman and Eichel, 1992:205). In a later work, Reisman reports more specifically that Kinsey produced and directed films of homosexual sado-masochism at Indiana University, and that his collection of pornography included films of children engaged in sexual acts (Reisman,1998:80f).
    There is no question, however, that Kinsey fits the profile of a homosexual activist.  Like the militant homosexuals who benefitted from his work, Kinsey was “indignant about the effect of Judeo-Christian tradition on society,” write Reisman and Eichel. “It is clear that he shared [co-researcher Wardell] Pomeroy’s view that Christians inherited an almost paranoid approach to sexual behavior from the Jews” (ibid.:6).  Pomeroy, incidentally, is known for his support of adult/child sex.  In a 1992 article on pedophilia, author Michael Ebert quotes Pomeroy as saying, “People seem to think that any [sexual] contact between children and adults has a bad effect on the child.  I say this can be a loving and thoughtful, responsible sexual activity” (Ebert:6f).
    The Kinsey Institute should be recognized as the American counterpart and successor to the Sex Research Institute of Berlin.  Indeed, E. Michael Jones, editor of Fidelity magazine told one of us (Lively) in conversation that he had perused some of the surviving documents of the Berlin institute in the basement of the Kinsey building. Like its German predecessor had been, the Kinsey Institute is dedicated to the legitimization of sexual perversion.

The Sexual Revolution

    Within five years of the Kinsey report, Hugh Hefner launched Playboy magazine (and the modern pornography industry), whose initial target audience was the very generation of young men to whom Kinsey had been speaking on his college lecture circuit.  More significantly, it popularized Kinsey’s “gay” ethic of sexual license with the much of the rest of the male population of America. Hefner himself is quoted as saying that if Kinsey were the researcher of the sexual revolution, he (Hefner) was the pamphleteer (Reisman, 1998:108).
    We are not suggesting the Hefner is homosexual, only that Playboy magazine serves as a tool of “gay” social engineering in that the existence of a thriving pornography industry serves the “gay” cause by morally corrupting the men who use it.  It logically makes them less likely to oppose homosexuality on moral grounds and more likely to support public policies which legitimize sexual license.  Exposure to pornography, especially at a young age, can also be a gateway into the “gay” lifestyle itself.
     In the same manner, the “gay” cause is advanced by a successful abortion industry (which also arose in response to the sexual revolution).  The choice to kill their unborn children morally compromises both men and women (making them unwilling to criticize the choice to engage in other forms of immoral behavior), and ensures that the outcome of an unwanted child will not be a lasting deterrent to those who have chosen sexual license over family.  This explains why homosexuals, who by definition cannot bear children together, are among the most militant advocates of abortion on demand.
    The  acceptance of sexual indulgence as an important social value inevitably initiates a downward moral spiral in a culture.  In American society, the selling of the idea of recreational sex to young college-aged men in the 1950s created a “market” for immodest and sexually adventurous young women, which in turn helped to legitimize the idea of female promiscuity.  In the 1960s, once immodesty and promiscuity became acceptable for some women, the pressure increased for all women, competing for the attentions of men,  to adopt these behaviors.  This was especially true of the youngest of marriage-age women of that generation, whose personal morals and values had been influenced by a decade of sex-saturated pop culture.
    The wholesale entrance of women into the world of sexual license created a number of societal demands: for a feminist political movement to “liberate” women from social expectations about marriage and child-rearing (National Organization for Women formed 1966); for contraception on demand (Griswold v. Connecticut -- 1966); for abortion on demand (Roe. V. Wade --1973); and for “no fault” divorce (state-by-state liberalization of divorce laws began in the early 1970s).  The result of these policies has been the achievement of the “gay” goal as embodied by Kinsey’s teachings: the progressive denormalization of marriage and the steady normalization of sexual license.  The most recent census data, published in 1998, showed a fourfold increase in divorce from 1970 to 1996, while the population of “cohabiting” couples who had never married had more than doubled.
    Among the side-effects produced by these dramatic changes in the life of a people, side-effects which have increased steadily since the 1960s, are the escalation of crime (especially violent crime), the proliferation of sexually-transmitted and other diseases, and the escalation of mental illness and chronic substance abuse.  These are all results which one would expect to find in a generation of citizens raised in unstable homes. Each and every one of these social problems is a direct consequence of embracing the “gay” ethic of sexual license as popularized by Kinsey.  Meanwhile, as the pursuit of sexual hedonism became the  personal goal of an ever larger percentage of the non-homosexual population, the “gay” movement continued its advance.

The Stonewall Riot and “Gay” Militancy

“Two, four, six, eight -- Smash the family, smash the state”
(Popular slogan of 1970s “gay” activists --Oosterhuis and Steakley:2)

    By 1969, the development of a growing homosexual subculture in America had spawned an open homosexual presence in major cities.  So-called “gay bars” sprang up in Los Angeles and New York, hosting a bizarre mix of “street queens,” drug addicts and boy prostitutes (Marotta:71).  In New York, homosexuals regularly engaged in public sex acts with anonymous partners “in the backs of trucks parked near the West Village piers” (ibid.:93) and in the public restrooms.  Homosexual activity occurred so frequently in the bushes of one public park that the authorities were forced to cut down the trees to stop it (Adam:85).  In response to police efforts to discourage this increasingly offensive behavior, homosexuals began to organize to demand the “right” to public deviancy.  Emboldened by their numbers, they began picketing businesses such as Macy’s Department Store, which had cracked down on homosexual behavior in their restrooms (ibid.:85).
    On the evening of June 27, 1969 the “gay rights” movement officially adopted terrorism as a means to achieve power when a surly mob of “drag queens, dykes, street people, and bar boys” physically attacked police officers conducting a “raid” on the Stonewall Bar on Christopher Street in New York.  Stonewall was “one of the best known of the Mafia controlled bars” (Marotta:75), and was being closed for selling alcohol without a license.  It was also a haven for sexual deviants.  As police began to take some bar patrons in for questioning, a mob of homosexuals gathered across the street.  Homosexualist Toby Marotta’s The Politics of Homosexuality includes an eyewitness report by a writer for the Village Voice:

[A]lmost by signal the crowd erupted into cobblestone and bottle heaving...The trashcan I was standing on was nearly yanked out from under me as a kid tried to grab it for use in the windowsmashing melee.  From nowhere came an uprooted parking meter—used as a battering ram on the Stonewall door.  I heard several cries of “Let's get some gas,” but the blaze of flame which soon appeared in the window of the Stonewall [where the police officers were trapped] was still a shock (ibid.:72).

    By morning, the Stonewall bar was a burned-out wreck, and homosexual leaders had declared the violence a success.  Interestingly, the anniversary of this event is known today as “Gay Pride Day” and features parades and other events most notable for their public sex and nudity (ibid.:158).  It is ironic that the very activists who emerged from this new militant environment developed (in 1970) the strategy of claiming victim status through the use of the pink triangle and commemoration of the homosexuals who were persecuted by the Nazis (Adam:86).
    The rise of homosexual militancy reflected the emergence of an aggressive “Butch” faction of the American “gay” movement, similar to that which occurred at the turn of the last century in Germany. (Ironically, while these masculine-oriented “gays” assume an attitude of superiority over “Fems,” in both Germany and the United States the “gay” movement was actually launched by effeminate homosexuals and only later became dominated by “Butches”).  In The Making of the Modern Homosexual, author Gregg Blachford observed that during this time “homosexuals themselves moved away from the previous stereotype of ‘swish and sweaters’ towards a new masculine style [that became] the dominant mode of expression in the subculture” (Blachford:187).      
    Following the Stonewall riot the Mattachine Action Committee of the Mattachine Society’s New York chapter clamored for “organized resistance” (Adams:81), but control of the movement was taken out of their hands by a still more radical group of activists.  These men quickly formed the Gay Liberation Front, so titled “because it had the same ring as National Liberation Front, the alliance formed by the Viet Cong” (ibid.:91).  At the heart of this new circle of power was Herbert Marcuse (ibid.:88), a long time Socialist who had learned his politics (and perhaps homosexuality) in pre-Nazi Germany.  Homosexualist historian Barry D. Adam writes,

Herbert Marcuse, who had been a youthful participant in the 1918 German revolution and had been steeped in the thinking of the life-reform movements of the Weimar Republic, caught the attention of many gay liberationists.  His Eros and Civilization, published in the ideological wasteland of 1955, bridged the prewar and postwar gay movements with its implicit vision of homosexuality as a protest “against the repressive order of procreative sexuality” (ibid.:84).  

    The Stonewall riot became the new symbol of the “gay rights” movement.  In its wake, Gay Liberation Fronts sprang up across the country, using methods of intimidation and coercion to achieve political gains.  Immediately they targeted the medical community, whose increasing effectiveness in treating homosexual disorders threatened the logical premise of the movement (Rueda:101ff).  “Gay Liberation Fronts,” writes Adam, “stormed San Francisco, Los Angeles and Chicago conventions of psychiatry, medicine and behavior modification,” shouting down speakers and terrorizing audience members (Adam:87f).  As extreme as it had itself become, the Mattachine Society predicted the GLF’s “violent tactics” would fail to inspire the movement (Marotta:136), but they were wrong.  Though the GLF collapsed in 1972, in part because of a conflict between “drag queens and machos” [“Fems” and “Butches”], their philosophy prevailed (Adam:90).  
    On December 15, 1973 the board of trustees of the American Psychiatric Association capitulated to the demands of the radicals.  The homosexuals had begun to speak of unyielding psychiatrists as “war criminals” (ibid.:88), with obvious implications.  Possibly in fear for their safety, and certainly wearied by constant harassment, they declared that homosexuality was no longer an illness.  The resulting referendum, demanded by outraged members of the association, was conducted by mail and was partially controlled by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (Rueda:1982).  The homosexualists won the vote and the new official definition of homosexuality as a disorder was changed to include only those who were “unhappy with their sexual orientation” (Adam:88).  Historian Enrique Rueda writes,

This vote was not the result of scientific analysis after years of painstaking research.  Neither was it a purely objective choice following the accumulation of incontrovertible data.  The very fact that the vote was taken reveals the nature of the process involved, since the existence of an orthodoxy in itself contradicts the essence of science (Rueda:106).

Weimar in America

    How does all of this compare to the German experience? One striking parallel is the span of time over which homosexuality became culturally accepted in each country. In Germany, approximately twenty-five years passed from the formation of the Scientific Humanitarian Committee by Magnus Hirschfeld until sexual perversion was being openly practiced in Germany (roughly from 1897 to the mid-1920s).  In the United States, the emergence of widespread overt homosexuality occurred in the early 1970s, a quarter-century after Harry Hay formed the Mattachine Society.  
    Another similarity is the extent to which perversion advanced once the moral barriers were lowered. Let us briefly compare the two societies.
    Under the Weimar government, established after Kaiser Wilhelm II’s abdication in 1918, many traditional attitudes were questioned, including those about sexuality.  As America does today, Weimar Germany experienced tremendous conflict as these policies clashed with traditional Judeo-Christian values.  

Feelings on the ‘sexual question’ ran high.  There were disputes about the roles of the sexes and about attitudes toward marriage, the family and child rearing, and these disputes were bound up with arguments about social policy and demographic trends (Peukert: 101).

    In this climate the homosexualists made significant gains.  Almost immediately, major German cities became havens for every form of sexual expression.  William Manchester writes of “transvestite balls, [where] ‘hundreds of men costumed as women and hundreds of women costumed as men danced under the benevolent eye of the police,” and of “mothers in their thirties, teamed with their daughters to offer Mutter-und-Tochter sex” (Manchester:57).  Plant writes of “luxurious lesbian bars and nightclubs [that] never feared a police raid” (Plant:27).  
    Steakley records that “[o]fficial tolerance was manifested...in the unhindered consumption of narcotics in some homosexual bars, and transvestites were issued police certificates permitting them to cross-dress in public” (Steakley:81).   And historian-biographer Charles Bracelen Flood speaks of “sad alleys patrolled by prostitutes of all ages and both sexes, including rouged little boys and girls” (Flood:196). “Berlin’s specialized establishments included a bathhouse featuring black male prostitutes” that was frequented by Ernst Roehm, writes Flood, and “there was a sedate nightclub for lesbians, the Silhouette, where most of the women, sitting on hard benches along the walls, wore men’s clothes with collar and tie, but the young girls with them wore dresses with accented femininity” (ibid.:197).
    Germany’s version of Madonna was a woman named Anita Berber, “the role model for thousands of German girls...[who] danced naked...and made love to men and women sprawled atop bars, bathed in spotlights, while voyeurs stared and fondled one another” (Manchester:57).  Rector describes the Weimar scene as a “sexual Mardi Gras” (Rector:15):

There were about as many — if not more — homosexual periodicals and gay bars in Berlin in the 1920’s as there are now in New York City, and Berlin of the time was abuzz with the feasibility of forming a national homosexual political party.  The sexual revolution, with its free-and-easy attitudes, including wife swapping and group sex as a moral precept, was a German “invention” of the Twenties...abortions were shrugged off and condoms were on sale in open display in grocery stores and almost every other public mart  [Quoting from T.L. Jarman, Rector continues]...Freedom degenerated into license...Bars for homosexuals, cafes where men danced with men,...pornographic literature in the corner kiosks—all these things were accepted as part of the new life (ibid.:13).  

    Today, all of these things are manifest in American society as well.  The lid to Pandora’s Box that had been cracked open by Kinsey, Harry Hay and the Mattachines is now flung wide.  Rueda writes,

...there are no fewer than 2,000 [homosexual bars in America]...They range from small “sleazy” places in dark and dangerous alleys to plush establishments...Some bars cater to a conventional-looking clientele. Others specialize in sadomasochists or transvestites. There are bars which purposefully attract young people, prostitutes who serve to attract older homosexuals who in turn purchase drinks for the youngsters while sexual deals are arranged.  Printed guides for traveling homosexuals...[specify] the availability of prostitutes or “rough trade” (i.e., homosexuals who enjoy appearing violent or who actually behave violently) (Rueda:33).

    American cities also host “bathhouses,” which are not actual baths but meeting places for anonymous homosexual encounters.  “People walk in there and have sex with multiple partners and have no idea who they’re having sex with,” reports former homosexual John Paulk.  “I know this first hand and from the many many people I was associated with in the gay lifestyle” (“The Gay Agenda” Video). Paulk reports that these “bathhouses” remain open despite the AIDS epidemic.  He also describes the activity called “cruising” in which homosexuals meet for anonymous sex in public restrooms and other public locations.  While this has apparently always been common behavior in the homosexual community, Paulk implies that it is far more widespread today than ever before.  This is substantiated by other observers of the “gay rights” movement (Grant, 1993:36f).
    A great deal more could be written about the varieties of homosexual perversion that have proliferated in America's cities and towns today (and increasingly dominate the entertainment media).  Indeed, the authors feel that the behavior of homosexuality needs to be exposed to a public whose attention is systematically drawn away to “cover” issues (e.g. “victim” status, “rights,” etc.).  But it is our intention here to focus on the social, political and spiritual ramifications of this behavior.

Frame11

Consequences

    Leaving religion aside, the rationale for a society to limit sex to marriage is fairly basic.  Marriage “sanctifies” what is otherwise merely self-centered pleasure-seeking,  while also protecting individuals and society from most of the problems associated with “unwanted” children, sexual diseases and serial relationships. (How many of our most pressing social problems today are directly or indirectly related to these factors?)  
    Once a society abandons marriage as the prerequisite for sexual relations, however, there remains scant logical grounds to restrict any form of sexual deviance or promiscuity.  For example, on what grounds can a society deny homosexuals freedom of conduct if non-homosexuals have been permitted to engage in similar disease-transmitting sexual acts?  And if public health considerations no longer  outweigh the “right” to sexual freedom under the law, what justifies continued limitations upon sado-masochism, incest, beastiality and even pedophilia?  A society is left with no bases for regulating sexual conduct but its surviving moral standards and the legal concept of “mutual consent.”
    Can we have confidence that America’s moral standards will present a lasting barrier to the continued escalation of sexual deviance? Certainly not with regard to consensual sex between adults.  A quick perusal of the menu of available pornography on the Internet reveals that battle has been lost. But will the line hold against the legitimization of adult-child sex? The answer to that lies in the hands of the “gay” activists, whose dedication to their own sexual freedom has driven the sexual revolution.

Pederasty in the “Gay” Movement

    The 1973 victory of “gay” politics over scientific objectivity in the American Psychiatric Association had far-reaching consequences.  After the fall of the APA’s medical standard against the normalization of homosexuality, “gay rights” activists made tremendous gains in public acceptance of, or at least tolerance for, open homosexuality.  This fact is especially alarming when we consider that the APA has now taken action which some construe as “normalization” of pedophilia as well.  The September, 1994 issue of “Regeneration News,” the newsletter of a homosexual recovery group in Baltimore, features an article about this change.  Regeneration Director, Alan Medinger compares the new set of criteria for diagnosing pedophilia with the prior standard:

    In the earlier DSM-III-R [Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Psychiatrists], pedophilia was diagnosed as a disorder if “[t]he person has acted out on these urges or is markedly distressed by them...but the new standard defines pedophilia as a disorder only if the fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning” (Medinger, reprinted in Stop Promoting Homosexuality Hawaii Newsletter, November, 1994.  Emphasis ours).   

    The APA has taken a step which can be interpreted to imply that adult sex with children is normal as long as the perpetrators are not unhappy with their sexual orientation.  The APA has taken exception to this interpretation.
    Although many contemporary homosexual activists, especially lesbians, attempt to distance themselves from their pederastic comrades, the fact remains that pederasts (as was true in Germany) have always been at the forefront of the movement, albeit often “in the closet.”  And the “right” of adults to have sex with children has always been a basic goal of the movement.  In February of 1972, for example, a national coalition of homosexual groups met in Chicago to draw up a list of priorities for the movement.  Prominent on the list was the demand for “a repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent” (Rueda:201ff).  Already in Canada the age of consent has been lowered to age 14 (Mulshine:10).  
    The organizations dedicated specifically to “pedophile rights” or “pederast-rights” in the United States are made up of homosexual men (Rueda:173ff), and in major cities with an active homosexual community “gay” bookstores carry numerous titles which endorse man/boy sex (Grant, 1993:22).  Tom Reeves, a self-admitted pederast who was part of the early “gay rights” movement, is one of a number of writers in an anthology called Varieties of Man/Boy Love.  He explains the role of pederasts in homosexualist activism:

Almost every one of the early openly homosexual writers was a pederast.  Pederasty was a constant theme of early gay literature, art, and pornography.  The Stonewall riots were precipitated by an incident involving an underage drag queen, yet that detail was not viewed as significant.  Curtis Price, a fourteen-year-old, self-described “radical hustler,” formed the first gay liberation organization in Baltimore.  Many of the leaders of early gay liberation and the founders of the major gay groups in the U.S. were boy-lovers (Reeves in Pascal:47).  

    Another of the early leaders of the “gay rights” movement was David Thorstad, also a self-identified pederast.  Thorstad was president of the Gay Activist Alliance (Stop Promoting Homosexuality Hawaii Newsletter, November, 1994:6), one of the largest of the groups which formed in New York in the wake of the Stonewall riot.  The GAA invented “the strategy of ‘zapping’ politicians,” writes Marotta, “that would later become [its] trademark...[they] had learned that homosexuals could infiltrate political gatherings and make themselves heard through sheer brashness” (Marotta:137).  The GAA also developed the strategy of using these “carefully staged confrontations” to force politicians to enact “anti-discrimination” policies (ibid.:150).  The GAA reorganized early in 1974 as the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (Adam:88).
    Thorstad, along with Reeves and others, later went on to form the North American Man/Boy Love Association in Boston in 1978 (NAMBLA Bulletin, September, 1992:2).  NAMBLA, which is the largest “pederast rights” organization in the country, cloaks its agenda in rhetoric about concern for the rights of children to have “sexual freedom.” (Pascal:49).  In recent years NAMBLA has come under attack by some elements of the “gay rights” alliance, who have tried to exclude the group from some of the higher profile media events.  But this has evoked a violent response from its defenders.  When NAMBLA was denied a role in the 1986 Los Angeles “Gay Pride Parade,” marcher Harry Hay donned a sweatshirt printed with the legend, “NAMBLA Walks With Me.”  Timmons writes that Hay, “could not contain his outrage” that NAMBLA was excluded (Timmons:296).  More recently, as reported in the NAMBLA Bulletin, Hay was a featured speaker at NAMBLA’s annual membership conference, June 24-25, 1994:

Frame14

[He] gave an inspiring talk about reclaiming for the 1990’s the spirit of homoerotic sharing and love from various ancient Greek traditions of pederasty.  A remarkably balanced and sensitive account of the conference appeared in the August 23 Advocate from a writer who was invited to attend (NAMBLA Bulletin, September, 1994:3).  

    Other homosexualist-run “children’s-rights” organizations include the Rene Guyon Society, which was formed in 1962 “to make it possible for adults to provide sexual stimulation for virtually all children” (Rueda:177), and a group called Project Truth (NAMBLA Bulletin, September, 1994).  (While we’re discussing homosexual splinter groups we should mention the Eulenspiegel Society, formed in 1971 to promote “Sado-masochist rights” for homosexuals whose “special concern is freedom for sexual minorities and particularly those whose sexuality embraces S/M” — Rueda:175).
    Membership of groups such as these in the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA) caused it to be expelled from the United Nations Economic and Social Council in September of 1993.  Attempting to forestall its expulsion, ILGA tried to separate itself from pederast groups but quickly learned that support for the “boy-lovers” was too deeply entrenched in the association.  ILGA’s ouster of ten-year member NAMBLA and a couple of other high-profile groups caused European pederast member-organizations to step forward in protest.  Division within ILGA continues (NAMBLA Bulletin, September 1994:3).
    Another apologist for pederasty is Larry Kramer, founder of ACT-UP.  In Report from the Holocaust: The Making of an AIDS Activist, Kramer had this to say about adult/child sex: “In those instances where children do have sex with their homosexual elders, be they teachers or anyone else, I submit that often, very often, the child desires the activity, and perhaps even solicits it” (Kramer:234).  According to Reeves, “Queer Nation and Act-Up” were home to “both boys and men” who wanted “additional cultural activity beyond...their illegal relationships” (Reeves in Pascal:73).
    Pedophilia and its promotion is not limited to male homosexuals.  Virginia Uribe, a lesbian teacher in Los Angeles, has been at the forefront of a movement to “affirm gay teenagers,” through school-based pro-homosexual “counseling” (Homosexuality, the Classroom and Your Children, 1992)  Her own program, called Project 10 (named for the oft-quoted “statistic” of 10% homosexuality in the U.S. population, a figure demonstrated in several recent studies to be nearer 2%), included a book for young people called One Teenager in Ten.  This “resource” for troubled teens features lurid pornographic stories, including a graphic lesbian sex scene between a twelve-year-old girl and her twenty-three-year-old dance teacher.  The apparent goal is to activate children’s sexuality at increasingly younger ages.  At a conference promoting Project 10 to public school teachers in Oregon, University of Washington sociologist Pepper Schwartz admits targeting prepubescent children for “affirmation,” saying, “At this point, getting the majority to say ‘gay’ is good’ at nine or ten years old is going to be difficult, but just because it is difficult doesn’t mean it’s not the right thing” (Homosexuality, the Classroom and Your Children, 1992).
    The beneficiaries of “sexual freedom” for children and teens are often predatory adult homosexuals.  The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force is on record that “gay teens should be supported in coming out” (Mulshine:10), but writer Paul Mulshine notes that “the guidance, and the sex, tends to come from adult gays who bring the teens out...A study published in the Journal of Pediatrics showed that of a sample of gay teenagers who had steady sexual partners, the mean age of the partners was 25 years” (ibid.:10).  He cites a “1985 study of arrests in 12 U.S. jurisdictions [for child sex abuse, which] showed...on average, about 40 percent of arrests for pederastic homosexuals” (ibid.:11).
    Though some deny that the “right” of adults to have sex with children remains a fundamental component of the “gay rights” movement, the evidence suggests otherwise.  Alyson Publications, the leading publisher of “gay” titles, markets books aimed at pre-schoolers, such as Daddy’s Roommate and Heather Has Two Mommies, right alongside Gay Sex: A Manual for Men Who Love Men.  The latter contains detailed instructions for pedophiles and pederasts on how to successfully avoid discovery and arrest.  “Avoid situations,” advises author Jack Hart, “where a number of men have sex with the same boy, or group of boys, over a period of time” (Hart:123).  No doubt these guidelines are gratefully received by pederasts in the community, a constituency that is larger than most people realize.  For example, Reeves claimed in a 1979 speech that he personally had met “over 500 men” who “were struggling with their attraction to boys.”  “Almost to a man,” said Reeves, “they are teachers and boy scout leaders and boys club leaders” (Rueda:97).  

Scouts Under Siege

    Fortunately, America’s version of the Wandervoegel, the Boy Scouts of America, has largely been spared the problems associated with its German cousin.  This can be attributed to its commitment to Judeo-Christian ideals as represented in its pledge to be “reverent toward God” (Hillcourt:10).  Still, the number of homosexuals that have infiltrated the organization is alarming.  From 1973 to 1993 over 1,416 scout leaders were expelled for sexually abusing boys (The Washington Times, June 15, 1993).  
    Beginning in 1991 and continuing to the present time, the Boy Scouts have been targeted by “gay rights” militants for their policy against allowing homosexuals to be scout leaders.  An ostensibly “spontaneous” outcry against the Boy Scouts arose across the country, led by the once-venerable United Way agency, which pulled its funding from the Scouts in various cities.  United Way’s funding withdrawal was quickly followed by other homosexual-controlled or co-opted entities including Levi Strauss, Wells Fargo, Seafirst Bank and Bank of America (which later reversed itself) (Oregonian, July 11, 1992).  Self-admitted lesbian, Roberta Achtenberg, then serving on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, led a campaign to coerce the Bank of America into support for the homosexuals’ demands. Shortly thereafter, Achtenberg was appointed Assistant Secretary for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (Los Angeles Times, January 29, 1993), one of more than two dozen homosexuals appointed to high-level posts in the Clinton Administration (Grant, 1993:107).
    In the streets, the Boy Scouts was mocked by “Queer Scouts, a focus group of Queer Nation” (Bay Area Reporter, August 1, 1991), while homosexualists at the highest levels of government attempted to intimidate the organization into submission.  Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders used her post to castigate Scout officials (U.S.A. Today, June 2, 1994) and Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt signed an order prohibiting Boy Scouts from volunteering in national parks (The Washington Times, May 28, 1993).  In San Francisco and San Diego the Boy Scouts were barred from operating day programs in the public schools (San Francisco Chronicle, September 14, 1991) and in San Diego, city officials launched an investigation of the Scouts under its legal powers to prevent “discrimination” against homosexuals (San Francisco Chronicle, October 18, 1992).
    So far the Boy Scouts have withstood the onslaught, but late in 1992 the organization received a letter from NAMBLA predicting that it will eventually succumb to homosexual demands.  The letter is addressed to Ben Love, Chief Scout Executive, Boy Scouts of America, and was published in the NAMBLA Bulletin, November, 1992:

Dear Mr. Love,

   At its 16th membership conference, held in Chicago, August 7-9-1992, the North American Man/Boy Love Association unanimously adopted the following resolution:
   “NAMBLA calls on the Boy Scouts of America to cease its discrimination against openly gay or lesbian persons in the appointment of its scout masters.  This will permit scouts to be exposed to a variety of lifestyles and will permit more of those individuals who genuinely wish to serve boys to do so.”
   I feel especially honored to have been asked to alert you of this resolution...I have also been a scout and a scout leader and share with so many in NAMBLA affection for the movement.
   We recognize, of course, that the action for which we call is inevitable.  What a great added contribution your organization will make possible to all the boys and girls who participate in it when you take this step.  May it be taken in the near future.
    We share a common mission — to bring greater understanding and light and purpose to the young as they grow.  We invite you to join with us in cherishing individual integrity, and in seeking the opportunity for every boy and girl in our country to find their own truth.  We encourage you to help every person associated with your organization to be able to express those values from themselves which to them represent for themselves the Good, the True, and the Beautiful.  As we work together toward these ends Light will guide our way.
    We express these sentiments most respectfully,
Very Cordially,

Leland Stevenson
Co-Recording Secretary, NAMBLA (NAMBLA Bulletin, November 1992.  Emphasis ours).

    Stevenson’s letter is reminiscent of the one Wilhelm Jansen sent to Wandervoegel parents in which he told them, “you will have to accustom yourselves  to the presence of so-called homosexuals in your ranks” (Mills:167).  As we see, however, Stevenson’s ideological allies have far greater political power in the United States today than Jansen’s had in Germany in 1912.
    On June 28, 2000, the Boy Scouts prevailed in the landmark Supreme Court case of Dale v. Boy Scouts of America.  Dale, an open homosexual, had sued the Scouts under a New Jersey anti-discrimination statute for denying him the opportunity to be a scout leader. The court ruled that forcing the Boy Scouts to accept practicing homosexuals would violate their constitutional right of “expressive association.” Rather than accepting this ruling, however, the “gay” movement stepped up its campaign against the Scouts, targeting the donor base of the organization.  To this date, the Boy Scouts has stood firm.  
    Unfortunately, the moral courage of the Boy Scouts of America is not shared by all youth organizations.  The Girl Scouts allows lesbian leaders in its organization and has expelled at least one heterosexual leader who refused to keep this policy secret from parents.  Brenda Mailand, a Girl Scout employee in Lansing Michigan was fired after she refused to sign the following pledge:

As an employee of the Michigan Capitol Girl Scout Council, you may not proactively inform members, parents of members, prospective members or parents of prospective members, or members of the general public (including media) of the Council’s and GSUSA’s position on sexual orientation (Private letter, February 9, 1993).

    The Big Brothers/Big Sisters organization actively promotes “gay rights” through its organization.  In 1991 Big Brother/Big Sisters’ Board of Directors lobbied the Boy Scouts to change its policy against homosexual leaders, saying “the use of ‘non-traditional’ volunteers in the service delivery to youth can serve the best interest of children” (Private letter, August 9, 1991).  Homosexual “big brothers” and “big sisters” are actively recruited in some cities (Just Out, March 1, 1993). 
    Absent a reversal in American cultural trends, it seems likely that the barrier to adult-child sex will fall in the not-too-distant future.   What then?  Can any society hope to escape disaster whose citizens have, to such a profound degree, lost the capacity to restrain themselves and others regarding sexual perversion? We cannot necessarily predict the future from what happened in Germany, but the possibility of following a similar path is very real.  That path leads from sexual license to violence, murder and sadistic cruelty.

Atrocities

“The wicked prowl on every side when vileness
is exalted among the sons of men” Psalms 12:10.

    Has sexual perversion led to increasing violence in America?  Fortunately, to this point America has not experienced the wide-scale atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis in Germany, but the actions of certain male homosexuals in recent history are reminiscent of the worst SS butchers. As noted in a January 21, 1984 editorial in The New York Times, “Many of the most violent multiple murders have been committed by homosexual males.” The correlation is even closer that the Times observation would suggest. Robert Hazelwood, a well-respected former agent of the FBI’s Behavioral Science unit, offered the following insights:

With reference to your question about homosexual killings, I will provide you with what I have learned in more than 34 years of professional law enforcement experience, countless training and educational programs provided by the forensic communities (pathologists, mental health, legal) and law enforcement, as well as my own experience in having consulted on more than 4,000 homicide cases (cases involving from 1-30 victims) including over 300 homicides involving homosexual males.
    When a deceased male is found nude or partially clothed and the murder involves “overkill” (i.e., much more violence than necessary to kill) and/or multiple stab wounds to the heart or throat and/or mutilation of the genitals then the investigator begins with the supposition that the crime is a homosexual-related murder. From my own experience, I can assure you that this assumption is proven true in at least 95% of the cases (Private letter, July 12, 1999).

    Dr. Brian Clowes cites some alarming statistics showing that eight of the top ten serial killers in the United States were homosexuals and that homosexuals were responsible for 68 percent of all mass murders (Clowes:97). The following is a list of nine leading homosexual serial killers, eight of which were among the top ten most prolific killers as of 1992. Clowes’ sources are listed in the text and are reprinted from Debating the “Gay Rights” Issue:

Donald Garvey: 37 Murders...[a] nurse’s aide [who] was convicted of 37 murders in Kentucky and Ohio. Psychologists testified that “Harvey said he was a homosexual.” The New York Times, August 20, and August 17th, 1991.

John Wayne Gacy: 33 Murders...[a] professed homosexual ...who killed 33 young men and boys and buried them in his basement. The New York Times, February 22, 1980.

Patrick Wayne Kearney: 32 Murders...The New York Times described him as “an acknowledged homosexual” and “...perpetrator of the ‘homosexual trash bag murders.’” The New York Times, July 27, 1977.

Bruce Davis: 28 murders...killed 28 young men and boys after having sex with them. The New York Times, January 21, 1984.

Corll, Henley and Brooks: 32 Murders. Dean Corll, Elmer Wayne Henley, and David Owen Brooks were the members of a Texas homosexual torture/murder ring that captured and mutilated 27 young men. The New York Times, July 27, 1974.

Juan Corona: 25 Murders...an admitted homosexual, killed 25 male migrant workers. The New York Times, October 4, 1972.

Jeffrey Dahmer: 17 Murders...a convicted child molester and practicing and admitted homosexual, lured 17 young men and boys to his apartment, had sex with them, then killed them and dismembered them. He ate parts of his victims bodies...Dahmer was active in “gay rights” organizations and had participated in “gay pride” parades. Michael C. Buelow. “Police Believe Suspect Killed 17.” The Oregonian, July 26, 1991, pages A1 and A24. Also: “Relative in Dahmer Case Sues.” USA Today, August 6, 1991, page 3A. Also October 1991 Focus on the Family Letter.

Stephen Kraft: 16 Murders...killed at least 16 young men after drugging, sodomizing and torturing them. Robert L. Mauro. “The Nation’s Leading Serial Killers.” The Wanderer, October 31, 1991.

William Bonin: 14 Murders...tortured and killed 14 young men...had sex with his victims before and after they died. Robert L. Mauro. “The Nation’s Leading Serial Killers.” The Wanderer, October 31, 1991. (Clowes:96)

    William Bonin was executed by lethal injection at California's San Quentin prison on February 23, 1996.  As reported in the Orange County Register, February 22, 1996, Bonin, the so-called “Freeway Killer,” killed at least 21 boys and young men and dumped their bodies along California freeways (our original source mentioned only 14).  After having been  jailed in the early 1970s for raping boys, Bonin had vowed that in the future “there will be no witnesses.”  
   Although various stories reported that Bonin had raped men at gunpoint in the army and had been engaged in sex with a man at the time of his final arrest, the media failed to identify Bonin as “gay.” Standard “gay” rhetoric denies that male-on-male child molestation qualifies as homosexual conduct.  Here, the perpetrator clearly was homosexual in his adult sexual relations as well, but the “gay” label was scrupulously avoided.
    Thomas Hamilton of Dunblane, Scotland, is Britain's worst mass-murderer in modern history.  Hamilton killed 16 children at an elementary school on March 13, 1996.  According to The New York Times, Hamilton was obsessed with boys. Ousted from the Boy Scouts in 1974 for “complaints about unstable and possibly improper behavior following a Scout camp,” Hamilton later formed his own boys’ club.  Once again, children complained that “he was overly familiar, made them take their shirts off and was obsessed with photographing them.”  Upset that he had been branded a “pervert,” Hamilton apparently took his revenge against the town of Dunblane by killing their children.
    In a spree of “gay-on-gay” violence not seen since Nazi Germany, one homosexual man, Gaetan Dugas, was directly responsible for killing over a thousand homosexual men by deliberately infecting them with the AIDS virus. Indirectly he may be responsible for tens of thousands, eventually perhaps hundreds of thousands of AIDS deaths. One of the first known AIDS carriers, Dugas was known as “Patient Zero” because he caused so many of the earliest infections (Clowes:97).
    Even after his diagnosis Dugas “justified his continued sodomy with the excuse that he was free to do what he wanted with his own body. Even when he was in the final stages of AIDS he would have anonymous sex with men in homosexual bathhouses, and then show his sexual partners his purple Kaposi’s Sarcoma blotches, saying, ‘Gay cancer. Maybe you’ll get it’” (“The Columbus of AIDS.” National Review, November 6, 1987:19).
     As reported in the Marin Independent Journal, February 5, 1996, the first known murder connected to the Internet resulted from a homosexual encounter between two men in East Windsor, New Jersey.  After meeting “through an online chat room, an electronic gathering place for gay men,” they decided to get together. “But their offline meeting Jan. 4 turned deadly, police say, when George Hemenway shot Jesse Unger in the head, as a 15-year-old boy looked on.”  According to the story, the last homicide in this Trenton suburb of 22,000 was 10 years ago and also “stemmed from a homosexual ‘street encounter,’ police say.”
    Other major news stories have had a homosexual element that assumes greater significance when viewed in the context of the homo-fascist connection.  For example, just days after du Pont fortune heir John E. du Pont attracted national attention for his role in a shooting and a dramatic police standoff at his Pennsylvania mansion, details of his bizarre private life  began to emerge.  A single man who lived with his mother until her recent death, du Pont used his personal fortune to support his hobbies, which centered on traditionally ultra-masculine themes: collecting guns and military artifacts (such as an armored personnel carrier he drove around his estate) and collegiate-style Greco-Roman wrestling.
    A Gannett News Service report published in the January 30 edition of the Marin Independent Journal contains allegations that du Pont was a homosexual who used his wealth to recruit others into the homosexual lifestyle.  “‘You really don't want to hear the whole truth.  It would blow you away,’ said Andre Metzger, a wrestling coach who sued du Pont for sexual harassment.  Metzger said du Pont used the Foxcatcher training facility to gain access ‘to kids and adults’ for homosexual relationships.”
    Around the turn of the millennium, America was stunned by a string of mass murders in public high schools.  The most horrific of these was the attack by teenagers Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris on their classmates at Columbine High in Littleton, Colorado. Fifteen died that day, including Klebold and Harris, who committed suicide.  There are two important facts which are relevant to our study. The first is that according to fellow students, the killers were homosexual.  The Gay Today news website reported, in an article titled “The Waking Dream: Homoerotic violence at Columbine High,” that “according to some accounts, Klebold and Harris were allegedly ‘bisexuals,’ which is a teenage code word for the “G” (gay) word, which teens, especially high school teens in Colorado, cannot use.” NAMBLA Bulletin editor, Bill Andrietti wrote that

A gay angle surfaced almost as soon as the shootings hit the news, with rumors circulating that the boys with the bombs and guns were -- variously -- certainly gay, absolutely heterosexual, or self-avowed bisexuals...Many gay public relations experts thought it best to downplay Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold’s possible homosexuality....[while a press release from the homosexual Metropolitan Community Church reported that] Campus jocks remember calling Eric and Dylan “faggot,” “homo,” and “queer” because “they showered together” or “were seen holding hands.”
    But asking whether Klebold and Harris were “really” gay misses the point. Like a wick soaked in gasoline, their relationship was soaked with homoeroticism. The theme of braving death together in battle runs through the literature of queer love....In his diary, one of the two spun out a fantasy of living on an island alone with the other....Whether they had girlfriends or not, Harris and Klebold shared a pact unto death that, if twisted horribly, also was romantic (Andrietti, Bill. “Homosexuality and the Massacre, The Guide, June 1999).

    The second relevant fact is that the killers deliberately selected April 20th to launch their killing spree because it was Adolf Hitler’s birthday. This choice was attributed, by surviving students, to the fact that “they believed in...what Adolf Hitler did”....“They’re white supremacists” (Meek, James Gordon. “Littleton’s Casualties of War,” Gridlock Magazine, undated, quoting from The Washington Times and The Washington Post).   
    Not all of the school mass killers were alleged to be homosexuals, although a possible homosexual connection was raised in several of the incidents with the highest number of victims. Michael Carneal killed three and wounded five students as the victims prayed together at Heath High School in Paducah, Kentucky. Carneal denied being a homosexual, but had been accused of being “gay” by fellow students (Martinac, Paula. “Lesbian Notions” Called Out LGBT Religious News Service, May 24, 1999).
    Mitchell Johnson (13), the older of the two boys who killed five and wounded ten at Westside Middle School in Jonesboro, Arkansas had been repeatedly sexually abused by a relative of his day care provider when he was six or seven years old. It is assumed that the abuser was male. (Arkansas Democrat Gazette, April 7, 1998).
    Luke Woodham attributed his murder of his mother and two students (nine others were wounded) to rage over a failed romance with a girl, but he had also been angered over being called “gay” at school (Time.com, July 6, 1998).  By itself, this is rather unpersuasive evidence that Woodham struggled with homosexuality. However, we find it most interesting that in a pre-rampage explanatory note to a male friend, Woodham referred those who would be looking for clues about his motives to a section from The Gay Science by Friederich Nietzsche (The Cincinnati Post website, 11-09-98).  The section contains Nietzsche’s famous commentary on the theme that “God is dead.”  The Gay Science is not about homosexuality, but we wonder if reference to it might be intended to convey a cryptic message about Woodham’s struggles. (Nietzsche’s homosexuality is an acknowledged fact in “gay” circles these days -- see Charles Stone, “Of Whom Nietzsche dreamed,” Harvard Gay and Lesbian Review, Winter 1999.)  Interestingly, Woodham identified this and two other books as his favorites: Necronomicon, a book of magic, and Mein Kampf (ibid.).
    More significant than the possible homosexual inclinations of the killers is the fact that school shootings have arisen in the context of rampant moral degeneracy among students. The degree to which America’s children have been corrupted was documented in a 1999 PBS Frontline special “The Lost Children of Rockdale County.” Following a 1996 outbreak of syphilis among teenagers in the middle-class community of Rockdale, Georgia, officials were shocked to learn that large numbers of local schoolchildren, from twelve years old and up, were routinely engaging in group sex together. Girls of fourteen were admitting to having had from 30-100 sex partners. Not only were the children not ashamed of their actions, according to one health care worker, students were “laughing and high-fiving” each other as they tested positive for syphilis.
    Three years later, on the one-month anniversary of the Columbine massacre, Rockdale County became the site of its own school shooting.  Fifteen-year-old Thomas Solomon shot and wounded six of his fellow students at Heritage High School in the city of Conyers  (Grigg, William Norman. “Another Lost Generation?,” The New American, October 23, 2000).  Grigg writes

To [the] grim indices of cultural decline must be added the recently coined category of “school shooters” -- murderous teenage sociopaths....One of the most potent indictments of our degenerate culture is found in the...FBI report “The School Shooter: A Threat Assessment Perspective”...listing the warning signs intended to help school officials recognize and evaluate potential shooters within their student populations. Relatively few social commentators have been willing to explore the unspoken assumption behind that report -- namely, that our present culture...can be expected to generate teenage mass murderers on a regular basis (ibid.).

    As we can see, our nation is already reaping the destructive consequences of having embraced the “gay” ethic of sexual license. Once a nation of high moral values and strong families, we are now a fractured and morally confused society.  It is not certain that we shall go the way of Germany, but absent a reversal of the current trend, it is very likely that we shall face some form of cultural disaster before the homosexualization of America is complete.