Introduction

 

Let’s start with a few specific fabrications about homosexuality!

Gays would have you believe that their lifestyle is natural, normal and healthy. Genetically determined no less. Those who think otherwise are unbalanced hate seething bigots who suffer from homophobia. Additionally, they endure significant mental distress and chronic ill-health brought about by societal rejection and hostility. Gays would be free from the troubling chains of self-doubt if a profoundly prejudiced society was a little friendlier and less censorious.

 

The best available scientific evidence internationally, demonstrates unequivocally, that homosexuals, as compared to heterosexuals, are at increased levels of pathology and are inordinately affected by promiscuity, infidelity, substance abuse, domestic violence, child sex abuse and psychological instability.  As will be shown here, some are addicted to an insatiable range of sexual behaviours that are disturbingly shocking, outrageous and hazardous.  Consider, but briefly, those who actively seek the acquisition of full-blown AIDS as a means of enhancing their sex life?  

Running parallel with the ‘gay gene’ myth is the falsehood that the homosexual condition is fixed and thus incurable. Any attempt to reverse the condition is judged to be intensely harmful and damaging. Indeed, any suggestion to the contrary is extended evidence of blatant prejudice and chronic homophobia deserving of censure, punishment even. Thus, helpful heterosexuals are seen as a humiliating hindrance.

 

To understand homosexuality you have to enter a seductive labyrinth of mesmeric make-believe and fertile fantasy.  Take for example the very basic notion of marriage.  Importantly, a fundamental biological union between a man and women, which usually, but not inevitably, functions to produce progeny, without which, society is finished.

 

Homosexual men and women defy logic and nature when they attempt to mimic it, because it is impossible to unite that which is biologically incompatible.  Not only is the familial genealogy fractured, but also the influence of the male and female sexual complementarities that flow naturally from conventional homogeneous unions.  Moreover, the majority of gay activist reject the concept of marriage and wish to smash it as an oppressive institution that inhibits sexual licentiousness.  Thus, homosexual politics involve profound contradictions and inconsistencies.

 

It is interesting to note how few homosexual men and women have availed themselves of the provisions for legally binding ‘civil partnerships’.  The Governments' initial prediction of 62,000 civil partnerships in the first five years was wildly exaggerated since only 40,237 have been recorded.  For critics, this is not surprising.  It should also be observed that as the number of civil partnerships get less each year, the number of dissolutions keeps inexorably growing.  This does not stop homosexual activist Peter Tatchell from demanding the fullest recognition for same-sex marriage.  Meanwhile, bisexual Lib Dem Simon Hughes MP predicts the redefinition of conventional marriage in the immediate future.

 

Consider also, gay parenting though largely confined to a few?  As far as a child is concerned there is no such thing as ‘two Mums’ or ‘two Dads’. It defies the natural order of reproductive relationships.  The creation of a child strictly depends on the fertilisation of the male sperm and female ovum to which offspring is inexorably bound forever, to which gays, as a functioning unit, are excluded. Homosexual parents fool only themselves at immense cost to each other and society at large.  It should also be observed that their own narcissistic interests displace that of the child.  More bizarre still, are those cases reported by an irresponsible media of homosexual ‘men’ giving birth to a child - a biological impossibility.  In all cases, moreover, the normal pivotal and personal commitment of parental sacrifice is subordinated to work against the welfare of the child, whose concern is removed on the expiatory alter of political correctness.

 

Of course, the gay parenting conspiracy is now facilitated through legal instruments in permitting individual tailored pacts to withhold, or otherwise, the true family history and identity of the child.  The legal, social and psychological impact of this experiment does not augur well for the future well-being of the child since the real family background and biography; as opposed to the parodied; can be suppressed.  A child’s fundamental right to know its true origins is being forfeited.  But even in cases where this is known, any relationship with the authentic absent parent is likely to be somewhat superficial and fleeting because it serves as a threat to the viability of the two ‘parents' in the gay adoptive role.

 

More chilling, are those cases of gay parents who create disabled ‘designer babies’ to suit their lifestyle.

 

Feminist and lesbian campaigner Tammy Bruce has cogently observed, “Today’s gay activists have carried the campaign a step further, invading children’s lives by wrapping themselves in the banner of tolerance. It is literally the equivalent of the wolf coming to your door dressed as your grandmother.”  She continues, “By targeting children, you can start indoctrinating the next generation with the false construct that gay people deserve special treatment and special laws.”

 

In a major American study of donor-conceived children, “My Daddy’s Name is Donor” (2010), revealed that young adults conceived through sperm donation are hurting more, are more confused and isolated from their families.  They fared worst on outcomes such as depression, delinquency and substance abuse.  Nearly two-thirds agree, “My sperm donor is half of who I am.”

 

Nearly half are disturbed that money was involved in their conception. More than half say that when they see someone who resembles them they wonder if they are related. Almost as many say they have feared being attracted to or having sexual relations with someone to whom they are unknowingly related. Approximately two-thirds affirm the right of donor offspring to know the truth about their origins. And about half of donor offspring have concerns about or serious objections to donor conception itself, even when parents tell their children the truth."

 

Another study of 19,000 young people, Parental Cohabitation and Adolescent Well Being, richly demonstrates that children with biological parents do best.

 

About 2,000 babies are born in Britain each year using donated sperm, eggs or embryos.  This will include a sizeable number of lesbians.  Of course, these are only the ones the  Human Fertility and Embryology Authority document.  A considerable number of lesbians obtain sperm donations informally from commercial and sometimes dubious sources.  Many travel abroad to destinations like Spain, the Czech Republic and America.  Often, large sums of money are involved.  British sperm donors no longer have a right to anonymity but sperm trading is now an international enterprise.

 

The rapid growth of homosexuality over the last fifty-years is glaring testimony to the fact that gay rights are a cunning deception over unambiguous logic and established sound science, particularly since the fundamental right to engage in homosexual activity is not deeply rooted in British science, history, tradition, morality, religion or culture.  From another point of view, the current exponential rise of homosexuality undermines any genetic component. It is too sudden and swift to be genetically determined. Genetic mutations take about 30 generations - that’s 900 years.  

 

History teaches that homosexuality is conditioned by social, cultural and political forces and is self-taught.  The ‘gay gene’ idea is the biggest lie of the century.  It’s simply amazing how many quite intelligent people have fallen for it, but then, the bigger the lie repeated enough will eventually stick.  Interestingly, it was Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels who perfected the ‘Big Lie’ technique which was based on the principle that a lie, if audacious enough and repeated sufficiently will be believed by the masses.   

 

With eager Government support, Britain’s foremost homosexual political pressure group - Stonewall - have perfected the big lie tactic by the bucket load.  It is an agitprop organisation that is knee-deep in a swamp of hogwash and fabrication.  It pushes unadulterated propaganda disguised as serious science based research to foment its crippling twisted cause.  This is given close scrutiny here on our page on Victimhood.

 

If current popular assumptions about homosexuality are in part driven by poisonous Marxist ideology, which will be discussed shortly, they are also based on fraudulent research carried out in the 1940’s by the American Zoologist Dr. Alfred Kinsey at the Kinsey Institute for Sexual Research.  He was based at the Indiana University and received financial support from the RokeFfeller Foundation.  He posed as an impeccable neutral scientist in a marriage of convenience to promote a picture of respectability.  

 

His forged analysis eventually led to major changes in American society involving law, science, medicine, education and politics.  In fact, it contributed to a profound moral revolution that spread from America to the rest of the world.  The magnitude and scale of Kinsey’s lies reverberated onto a largely gullible world.  But not anymore!  Seminal research by Dr. Judith Reisman is pivotal in exposing the many perfidious lies associated with Kinsey.  This included the so called 10 percent gay population myth, his encouragement of pornography, homosexuality, paedophilia, abortion and incest.

 

Kinsey’s deceptive and criminally associated research Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male (1948) provided a body of so-called experimental evidence demonstrating that children are ‘orgasmic’ and capable of sexual pleasure from infancy. This fuelled the paedophilia movement. He also held that morality and sexual mores were conditioned by cultural forces which were detrimental to homosexuality and paedophilia.  He was a moral revolutionary whose mantra was fornicate early, often and with great gender variety.

 

His documented sex ‘experiments’ had been carried out by known paedophiles, criminals and child molesters. This involved up to 2,035 children. The youngest was 5-months old. He also used data obtained by Rex King, a serial criminal pederast, who had sexually molested and aroused 800 children. This amounted to the formalisation of child molestation on a massive scale.

 

Much of this data was also secretly obtained from a former World War Two Nazi doctor. Fritz von Balluseck worked in a Polish concentration camp and was encouraged by the Nazi SS to carry out sex experiments on children. He cruelly raped many. It was subsequently shown that he had been molesting children for 30 years when he was denounced by the German press after he was convicted for the rape and murder of a 10-year old child. He was described as “...the most important pedophile in the criminal history of Berlin.”  Not only did he sexually assault his own daughter but he had also raped the 11-year-old son of a vicar and forced the boy to write down his experiences for Kinsey’s records.  At the time the American press where noticeably silent about the connection between von Balluseck and Kinsey. An FBI investigation came to nothing because Kinsey had obstructed it and his colleagues covered it up.

 

Of the 5,000 male respondents who made up Kinsey’s research base 2,446 were convicts, 1,003 homosexuals, 50 transvestites.117 mentally ill, 650 sexually abused and 342 “other”.  This yielded 4,608 n=Aberrant and 873 n=Normal subjects. Clearly, he was not concerned with the average American on the Manhattan omnibus.  Instead, he dug deeply into deviancy in a big way to portray a loose-living immoral American man.  It was manifestly a comprehensive lie intended to pave the way for the normalisation of homosexuality itself.

 

He was an omni-sexual compulsive/obsessive masochist. He masturbated fixatedly with a ‘toothbrush’ inserted in his urethra. He is known to have also circumcised himself with a pocket knife without the advantage of any anaesthetic. And violent sexual behaviour might have contributed to his early death.  It is essential to closely look at Kinsey and his legacy because he truly is the father of the modern gay movement.  Many gays think Harry Hay is, but history shows that Hay and his Mattachine Society took many of their ideas from Kinsey.

 

If the 2010 general election has depressingly demonstrated anything, it is that, with rare exception, all the major and minor political parties have now defiantly signed up to the sodomy lobby.  In the case of the Conservative Party, in particular, this is proving to be a major shift in Conservative ideals.  

 

We are all now snappily sliding down the slippery slope to Sodom-by-the-Sea!  

 

Business in gay boisterous bathhouses; just like that in glum-laden GUM clinics that dish out the antidote to hepatitis A, B and AIDS, including PEP’s (Post-Exposure Prophylaxis) treatments to counter the serious consequences of risky faecal-borne sex involving some 500,000 homosexual men; is booming like never before.  Costly public health measures to counter the onward expansion of life-threatening cankerous sexual diseases; currently £700 million just for HIV; to counter such problems are increasingly proving inadequate and the dilemma gets distressingly worse.  

 

Doctor Gwenda Hughes, head of the Health Protection Agency STI section warned in 2010 of high rates of STI’s among gay men.  In the last 10 years, for instance, diagnosis of chlamydia has risen by 341 percent.

 

Terrence Higgins Trust’s Chief Executive Sir Nick Partridge said: "It’s staggering that almost half a million people each year are affected by preventable sexually transmitted infections. Gay men continue to top the list, accounting for two thirds of syphilis and over a third of gonorrhoea diagnoses last year, while being only 6% of the population.”

 

Gays have been very successful in making homosexuality a civil rights issue when in fact it is truly a public health issue.

 

So much for wrong gay rights!
 

What has been achieved by the homosexual community, nevertheless, amounts to a tour de force. These rights are rooted in a sophistry of false reasoning that depends on hidden bogus assumptions and the use of calculated confusing polysemous terms the most common of which are sexual orientation, heterosexism, diversity, multi-culturalism, inclusiveness, discrimination, homophobia, victimhood and tolerance. These form the very basis of political correctness, or, as we will see, Cultural Marxism, which inverts both rationality and truth with the ultimate intention eventually of destroying our liberal democracy.

 

Consider, for a moment, the accusation of homophobia?  This is commonly defined as an irrational fear of homosexuality or homosexuals.  In truth, any idea of irrationality or fear should invoke pity, help and understanding, not scorn and punishment.  But that is no part of gay politics.  Criticism of homosexuality, however stated, is never seen as a measure of personal or religious morality, or of traditional cultural virtue.  

 

Religious ethics, in particular are condemned as a form of hate simply for rejecting homosexuality as a sin.   Christians are free publicly to discuss all forms of sin with the one exception of homosexuality.  That is utter taboo.   Many people feel that an insidious pressure is being brought to privatise the Christian religion as a precursor to criminalizing it.

 

Even science based evidence has to be mocked and undermined if it questions the substance of homosexuality as defined by gays.  The irrationality of the homosexual world is projected upon that of the heterosexual and it is the latter that is perceived as the problem to be scorned and stamped upon.  Conditioned by vacuous value-judgements, homosexual vengeance is sought through a vendetta of vitriol and vituperation.  There is no surprise then, telling the truth draws scorn, derision, hate and even violence or its threat.

It may be suggested that gays want to normalise homosexuality, but that misses the point because what they ultimately seek is the universal classification of heterosexuality as deviant. Homosexual activists are already looking at the possibility of making homophobia a mental disorder describing it as an ‘intolerant personality disorder’.  

 

Far fetched, you might think? Well, consider this? Right now, under existing legislation, if you are considered politically incorrect regarding anything to do with homosexuality you could be branded a criminal. For example, if a person uses even temperate words or behaviour about homosexuality that is subjectively perceived by anyone to be evidence of hate, the matter can now be formalised within the criminal law. The element of hate does not have to be proved. Currently, it might be problematic to define one as a deviant, less troublesome a criminal facing seven years in jail. Such is the knife-edged imperative which drives the ravaging sexual politics of our society. On the face of it, this may appear a small and unimportant departure from the traditional conventions of British law, but it has, nevertheless, a serious potential for crushing freedom of thought and expression.

 

There’s more!

 

Unnoticed, ‘Big Brother’ Britain has now smashed its clunking bruising fist into the very heart of primary and secondary schools; with, of course, the best of intentions; in an attempt to curb racist, homophobic or transphobic attitudes in the playground.

 

Thus, local and central government, directed by five abstruse pieces of turgid legislation, countless reams of detailed and boundless guidance and an army of nit-picking officials, now closely supervise childish playground banter, which, if politically incorrect,  is formally recorded on a central database at Whitehall for unending analysis.  Persistent unacceptable behaviour will receive particular attention.  

 

The view is held that the real aim is to identify parents who may be teaching their children inappropriate attitudes – the ‘bigots’ and ‘racists’ of tomorrow.  

 

In March 2010, ten-year-old Peter Drury, a pupil at the Ashcombe Primary School in Westonsuper-Mare, Somerset, casually called his friend a ‘gay boy’.  Following a complaint from another mother, details were officially entered in the schools ‘hate register’ as a homophobic remark.  He will now be monitored on a computer database in central London for the rest of his school days for any signs of prejudice.  Protestations from his parents that he barely knew about sex, let alone homosexuality, made no difference. Headmaster, Peter Turner, subsequently shunned all enquiries, referring instead to the North Somerset Local Authority.

 

Dr Michele Elliot, director of the children’s charity Kidscape, said, “Children are being criminalised and singled out here from a very early age when they don’t know what they’re doing.”   

 

In 1986 the United States Supreme Court rejected the view that homosexual sodomy be viewed as a fundamental privacy right no different from marital sexual relations. So, 17 years later, the gay movement then claimed constitutional minority status protection as a ‘suspect class’ defined by immutable characteristics. They played what might be described as a gay race card. They deceitfully substituted the notion of identity in order to obfuscate their behaviour. Today, the gay movement refutes the obvious fact that homosexuality is based on behaviour – sodomy. Rather they view it as innate. Note this is a legal, social and political opinion, not science.

Moreover, although gays now insist they were born that way, they simply cannot provide irrefutable evidence since none exist. Indeed, a gay activist writer of limited talent and fame named Karoly Maria Kertbeny anonymously coined the word ‘homosexual’ in 1868 to replace the term ‘Knabenshander’ or defiler of boys. He wanted to remove the criminal association that terms like sodomite and pederast expressed. Its origin therefore is inspired by obscure journalism rather than definitive biology.  Notwithstanding, since then, homosexual propagandists have continued to deny any association between homosexuality and paedophilia and it continues to this day.

 

Incidentally, some 30 years later the term heterosexual was first published, but it was not until the 1960’s that it became common.  This, of course, coincided with the development of the gay movement in the USA and Europe.  

 

Kertbeny is now an iconic figure in the Hungarian gay movement. This, despite the current trend by homosexual men and women to remove the term ‘homosexual’ from our lexicon on the basis they find it offensive and degrading since it suggests an abnormal medical condition susceptible to treatment - hence the word .gay’, or more indefinite - LGBT - now further mockingly refined by some as ‘Gilberts’.  

 

Transsexuals met with initial resistance for inclusion by the gay movement, but finally made it despite an ongoing undercurrent of disapproval.  New evidence is now slowly emerging of new ‘sexual orientations’ seeking their rightful place alongside the LGBT, which include polyamorists, pan, boy-lovers, BDSM or kink and zoophilia.

It is suggested here, that gays are apparently just normal men and women who become conditioned by addictive homosexual tendencies. They have failed to resist or openly courted variable discordant pathological sexual urges that breach normative social, psychological and cultural standards.  Just like heterosexuals, homosexuals are born chromosomally as either male XY, or female XX.  There is substantial biological evidence that men and women are hard-wired as a distinct sexual category with one exception – the asexual, intersex, androgynous or hermaphrodite, of which there are several distinct types.  Here the chromosomes are typically confused.

 

Gay activists continued attempt to establish a biological basis for homosexuality is becoming increasingly difficult because they face an impossible challenge. A study in 1995 found that between 99.7 and 99.9 percent of the genes of any two unrelated people, gay or not, lesbian or not, bisexual or not and transsexual or not, are the same. Nevertheless, geneticists have established linkages to some 1450 biological conditions like physical diseases and think it is impossible directly to link a gene to behaviour. These finding drives a coach and horse through the claim for any homosexual gene.

 

Psychologists generally agree that heterosexual development is not genetically determined.  It is largely determined by environmental influences.  Thus, if heterosexuality results from a learning process that involves relationships with parents and peer groups which include highly individual experiences, sexual encounters and repeated behaviours, then so does homosexuality.  This explains why there is such a large variety of heterosexual and homosexual practices among cultures and even within them.  Hence in some cultures homosexuality is unknown and in others it has been obligatory.  Indeed, one can even trace a significant variability of homosexual behaviours over the last 50 years.  Dangerous practices that were virtually unknown several decades ago such as fisting (insertion of hand/forearm into the anus) and rimming (anal/oral contact) are now common.  

 

Notice also, that some males are more susceptible to homosexual behaviours when confined to a strictly masculine environment, that; on leaving; are quickly abandoned.  Public schools, prison and the armed forces may be such examples.  If heterosexual or homosexual behaviours were genetically determined they would be practically identical in all societies and on a permanent basis.  Indeed, what anthropologists find is that behaviours are culturally mandated in some and culturally proscribed in others, which accounts for a hugely complex diversification.

 

It is useful to note that distinguished American Professor Edward O Lauman and others, who reported on their seminal research in 1994 The Social Organization of Sexuality remarked on the fluidity of behaviours associated with homosexuality.  They observe, “...homosexuality is a complex multidimensional phenomenon whose salient features are related to one another in highly contingent and diverse ways.”  Similarly, the British Health Protection Agency which monitors, HIV prevalence among homosexuals, find great difficulty in identifying homosexuals as a distinct group of individuals.  They are instead a fluid group that emerges as a result of a shared behaviour, changing over time with no obvious or implicit demographic or cultural characteristics such as those that define ‘young people’ or ‘black African’.
 

Dr. Neil Whitehead is a reputable American research scientist who has written over 120 published scientific papers. His book “My Genes Made me do it” (1999) is based on a comprehensive 13-year review of over 10,000 scientific papers and publications on homosexuality. He writes, "Geneticists, anthropologists, developmental psychologists, sociologists, endocrinologists, neuroanatomists, medical researchers into gender, and twin study researchers are in broad agreement about the role of genetics in homosexuality. Genes don't make you do it. There is no genetic determinism, and genetic influence at most is minor." Genes determine the body’s structure and function and not behaviour or attitude.   The gene’s function is biochemical.  This book is freely available online just click here. It’s really an excellent read!

 

Both homosexual gene researcher Dr. Dean Hamer and gay activist brain researcher Dr. Simon LeVay now reject the idea that homosexuality is solely rooted in biology.

 

Other compelling scientific studies of monozygotic or identical twins who have identical genes fail to show any overwhelming biological factors which induce homosexuality.

 

Outside of rape, all sexual behaviour is voluntary involving a conscious choice but the existence of such desire does not justify the act. Otherwise, adultery, incest, polygamy, paedophilia, extreme sadomasochism and bestiality would be acceptable. So it is right that certain harmful desires be suppressed.

Gays claim they have a sexual orientation towards someone of the same sex, a lesbian towards other women, a bisexual to both sexes, a transsexual, transvestite or transgendered towards the opposite inner sex. In doing so, they deliberately exclude an unlimited number of other sexual orientations because questions would shift from a recognition of orientation to one of conduct and it would quickly become a serious public health and safety issue which society would want to regulate and control. Indeed, homosexual activists are permanently engaged in a grotesque, bizarre masquerade in stressing their sexual orientation, but the fact remains - it is not who they are (identity), but what they do (tendency) that really counts.

Therefore, a distinction must be drawn between a person’s orientation and their conduct – the desire and the action. Conduct, more especially that which is addictive, has serious health implications, whereas orientation or desire, if not acted on, is less harmful to society. This explains why gays feel it necessary to distance homosexuality as much as it can from paedophilia and many other really damaging sexual activities.

Additionally, it’s interesting to note that the decision by the American Psychiatric Association to reclassify homosexuality in 1973 was not done on the basis of medical science. It was achieved through political persuasion and the power of winning a vote that it was not a mental disorder. Again, nebulous persuasive politics ascends the rigour of methodological science. Nevertheless, transsexualism, or to give its current appellation. Gender Identity Disorder (GID) or gender dysphoria remains still classified as a psychological disorder.

Such alarming doom-laden and apparently outlandish claims deserve particular attention.

Hence, the intended purpose of this website is to counter the substance of the many assertions made by homosexuals or their apologists. It is to reveal the sheer duplicity and orchestrated falsehoods that accompany the overstated assumptions made by homosexual men and women.

For that purpose, this non-religious, non-commercial and wholly independent website draws together a collation of serious resource material. Indeed, much of the evidence to test several issues about homosexuality comes from the gay community itself.

This first part is a commentary that covers the current position within a British context. The remainder consists of a series of reference materials that reflect a wider dimension in stating the case against homosexuality. These same sources have also helped shape and inform this current critique.

What are the consequences for the individual person as well as the wider community and why is it no longer a medical disorder? Certainly, medical science has never rigorously established that it is not, so what explains the current scientific assessment? Although a great deal has been documented about homosexuality, crucial efforts by the scientific community to establish its aetiology have been consistently rejected. Apart, that is, from flawed ‘research’ by homosexual practitioners/scholars, or their apologists, who clearly have an axe to grind. This despite the medically established fact that homosexuality involves life-threatening behaviour with an addictive component which has serious health implications.

A subsidiary aim of this website is to defend our common ideals about the traditional family which radical homosexuals find threatening and offensive. There is little doubt they intend to destroy it. More important, since much discourse within the homosexual community involves an increasing concern for children's ‘human rights’ within the context of a fabricated homophobic victimhood, particularly in schools, there is a pressing concern that this should also be properly addressed.

Recognising that not all homosexuals are so disposed, we have an important duty of care to protect innocent children from the advances of predatory gays who see youth as their greatest prize. Even Jack Straw MP when Home Secretary said in 1998 that he did not favour gay adoption and that homosexual couples should not be ‘awarded’ children merely to enhance their status. “We should not see children as trophies”,  he telling said in a remarkable admission.

Notwithstanding, four years later he was instrumental in forcing through gay adoption. Subsequently, as the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor he boasted before Parliament of major legislative changes embracing homosexual rights. He rejected the view that ‘...people who were gay or lesbian were told by the state that they had dangerous tendencies.’ This change amounted to a political and moral upheaval. It was a calamitous betrayal against the welfare of children of today and tomorrow.   Straw simply endorsed the bumf and puffery of homosexual fiction that had long abandoned the respected tradition of established medical science.   

We need to examine the nature of this sudden shift in opinion because the ‘dangerous tendencies’ claim most certainly has a congruence within the homosexual context and always has. Why? It’s exactly what homosexuals tell us no less, quite apart from the substance, validation and methodological rigour of voluminous scientific findings and research.

Moreover, according to British health experts, homosexuals suffer significant mental health problems. Research carried out by the Royal College of Psychiatrists in 2004 found that 43 percent of homosexual men and women had mental disorders. Problems included sleep disturbance, panic attacks, depressive moods, compulsive behaviour or obsessive thoughts. Thirty percent had attempted suicide.   

 

Imagine for a moment, if these sombre findings were attributable to the work-place or other social institution it would quickly be closed down.  Instead, the problem is not only ignored, its causation is supported in the name of human rights.

 

Homosexuals like to indulge in more inventive fabrication here by claiming their psychiatric problems result from general hate filled antipathy by the ‘heteronormative breeders’ or normal heterosexuals members of society who indulge in critical homophobia.  However, in common with many other international studies, this research can find no causal link between the problems associated with homosexuality and public discrimination.   Indeed, important separate independent epidemiological research elsewhere has unequivocally demonstrated that homosexuals in gay-friendly countries such as Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and New Zealand suffer just as much mental health problems as those living in the USA where homosexuality is questioned.

 

Remarkable that we now add to that stress by permitting gay adoption. This could add to their problems and intensify the vulnerability of children’s health who will experience tangible psychological harm, increased maladjustment and sexual confusion. Evidence for this is validated by a preponderance of sound empirical research carried out throughout the world which the liberal political elite ignore.  In their collective delusion they apparently have more love for homosexuals than they do children. This amounts to a clear abandonment of responsibility.  

The purpose here, however, is not to scold but to inform and educate. But when necessary, criticism should rightly be responsible, reasonable and resolute. The aim is clarity not cloudy thinking – truth not truculent intolerance!

By infiltrating our religious, civic and state institutions, the gay lobby has created a universal super hoax. Using stealth and deception they claim that homosexuality is a normal healthy alternative life-style. In society's rush not to offend homosexual behaviour, most well-meaning people fail to recognize that every advance for the homosexual agenda comes at the expense of rapidly shrinking freedoms of religion, speech, press, conscience and association.

Indeed, we currently face a pernicious sexual revolution that is solely conditioned by an unstable set of hazardous sexual cravings of a minority interest. The magnitude and scale of this challenge is unsurpassed in human history. Reason enough, it might be suggested, to look forebodingly to the future with palpable trepidation.   But before we do that, we need to look at the past to understand, how it is, that we have arrived at the current position.  We first need to look at the consequences of neo-Marxist ideology.

 

Political Correctness is Cultural Marxism

Briefly put, Marxist theory held that when a general European war came, the working class of different nations would rise up in unison and violently overthrow their bourgeois governments on the basis they had more in common with each other than the ruling class in their own country. It never happened because the worker/soldier rallied to their flag patriotically to fight one another during the Great War. However, these revolutionary Marxists believed the theory was right because of their experience of the Russian revolution.

In spite of this, they now reasoned that the workers will never see their true class interests until they were freed from Western culture, particularly the Christian religion – “the opium of the people”, which blinded them to their true class interests. Therefore, to create a Marxist paradise the culture of Western civilisation had to be destroyed. This was to be done through cultural Marxism.

Political correctness has its origins in cultural Marxism – that is Marxism translated from the economic into the cultural term. Its history goes back to the 1920’s and the writings of Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci.

He had travelled to the Soviet Union after the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and made some accurate observations that caused him to conclude that Western workers due to their Christian souls could not bring about a Bolshevik-style uprising.

His advice to the intellectuals was to begin a long march through the educational and cultural institutions of the nation to create a new Soviet man before there could be a successful political revolution. Subsequently, this blueprint for mind and character change made Gramsci a hero of Revolutionary Marxism in American education and paved the way for creation of the New American Child in the schools by the education cartel.

At a secret meeting in 1923 of revolutionary Marxists in Germany, leading Marxist theoretician Georg Lukacs proposed the concept of inducing “Cultural Pessimism” to increase the state of hopelessness and alienation as a necessary prerequisite for revolution. We witness this phenomena of pessimism when spoilt rich kids from middle and upper class backgrounds adopt extreme Leftist ideologies and resort to bloody violence. Think of the American Patty Hearst, heiress, socialite, actress and bank robber for the Symbionese Liberation Army, a left-wing urban guerrilla group, as a good example

This led to a group of Marxist and Communist inspired psychologists, sociologists and other intellectuals to establish an institute in Germany devoted to making the transition from economic to cultural theory. It was modelled after the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow, yet hid its Marxist theoretical base. The Institute of Social Research, later known as the Frankfurt School was founded deliberately to undermine Western culture.

It blended Marxist and Freudian psychoanalytic theory that stressed the centrality of sex to personal and social development and added the study of linguistics to create Critical Theory and “deconstruction”. These later influenced education theory that gave birth to political correctness

Cultural Marxism, or political correctness shares with classical Marxism a vision of a classless society – a society of equal opportunity and equal condition. This vision contradicts human nature since people are different and end up unequal regardless of their starting point. So equality has to be enforced. It is therefore totalitarian in nature. This explains why political correctness aims to control freedom of thought, speech and the press.

Cultural and economic Marxism share a single-factor explanation of history. Classical Marxism states history is determined by the ownership of production. Cultural Marxism says history is explained by which groups have power over other groups and these are defined by sex, race and sexual normality or abnormality. Classical Marxism defines workers and peasants as virtuous and the bourgeoisie or middle class and other capital owners as evil. Cultural Marxism defines blacks, feminist women, homosexuals and other minority groups as virtuous and white men as evil. It is a system for punishing dissent and aims to stigmatise what it perceives as cultural heretics.

Economic Marxism intended the expropriation of property from the bourgeoisie and handing it to the state as “representatives” of the worker. Cultural Marxism gain power by laying penalties on white men and others who disagree with them and give privilege to groups they favour. Affirmative action and multiculturalism is an example. Both varieties of Marxism use methods of analysis designed to show the correctness of their ideology. One is economic the other is linguistic – deconstruction. Deconstruction proves any “text” that illustrates the oppression of blacks, women and homosexuals regardless of their meaning. It is a flawed analysis that twists evidence to preordained conclusions.

The Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci and Hungarian Marxist Georg Lukacs contributed the most to this new cultural Marxism. Antonio Gramsci worked for the Communist International during 1923-24 in Moscow and Vienna. In his view, a new “Communist man” had to be created before any political revolution was possible. This led to a focus on the efforts of intellectuals in the fields of education and culture. Gramsci envisioned a long march through the society’s institutions, including the government, the judiciary, the military, the schools and the media. He also concluded that so long as the workers had a Christian soul, they would not respond to revolutionary appeals.

He urged his fellow Marxists to form popular fronts with Western intellectuals who shared their contempt for Christianity and bourgeois culture.

Lukacs was the son of a wealthy Hungarian banker who began his political life as an agent of the Communist International. His book History and Class Consciousness gained him recognition as the leading Marxist theorist since Karl Marx. He promoted sexual licentiousness among women and children as a means of destroying the family, the core institution of Christianity and Western culture.

Lukacs believed that for a new Marxist culture to emerge, the existing culture must be destroyed. He said, “I saw the revolutionary destruction of society as the one and only solution to the cultural contradictions of the epoch,” and, “Such a worldwide overturning of values cannot take place without the annihilation of the old values and the creation of new ones by the revolutionaries.”

When he became Deputy Commissar for Culture in the Bolshevik Bela Kun regime in Hungary in 1919, Lukacs launched what became known as “Cultural Terrorism.” As part of this terrorism he established a radical sex education programme in Hungarian schools. Hungarian children were instructed in free love, sexual intercourse, and the archaic nature of middle-class family codes, the out-datedness of monogamy, and the irrelevance of religion, which deprives man of all pleasures. Women, too, were called to rebel against the sexual mores of the time. Lukacs’s campaign of “Cultural Terrorism” was a precursor to what political correctness would later bring to the West.

Members of the Frankfurt School fled Germany in 1933 when the Nazi’s came into power. Most came to the United States to continue their work at the New York Columbia University. Now they concentrated their efforts on American society. It had many fronts: the relaxation of moral codes, the destruction of the traditional family, promotion of sexual promiscuity and perversion, denigration of religious belief, political correctness, and re-education by taking control of the university campuses. They wrote mostly in German thus concealing the real aims.

Interestingly, a version of the Frankfurt School was established at the Birmingham University Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in England. It was closed down in 2002.

The Frankfurt School combined Marxist analysis with Freudian psychoanalysis to criticise Western culture which included Christianity, capitalism, authority, the family, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, sexual restraint, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism, heredity, ethnocentrism, convention and conservatism. These criticisms were known collectively as Critical Theory.

Critical Theory incorporated sub-theories which were intended to chip away at specific elements of the existing culture, including “matriarchal theory,” “androgyny theory,” “personality theory,” “authority theory,” “family theory,” “sexuality theory,” “racial theory,” “legal theory,” and “literary theory.” Put into practice, these theories were to be used to overthrow the prevailing social order and usher in social revolution.

Marx had criminalised the capitalist class, the Frankfurt School criminalised the middle class. Truth did not matter for Marxist ideologues and only they defined it.

The belief that matriarchy was the solution to patriarchy flows from Marx’s comment in The German Ideology, published in 1845. Marx advanced the idea that wives and children were the first property of the patriarchal male. The Frankfurt School’s matriarchal theory and its near-relation, androgyny theory, originated from these sources.

Critical theorists recognized that traditional beliefs and the existing social structure would have to be destroyed and then replaced. The patriarchal social structure would be displaced with matriarchy; the belief that men and women are different and properly have different roles would be replaced with androgyny; and the belief that heterosexuality is normal would be replaced with the belief that homosexuality is equally “normal.”

American student revolutionaries in the 1960’s were also strongly influenced by the ideas of Herbert Marcuse, another member of the Frankfurt School. One of the more infamous is Angela Yvonne Davis, currently a controversial university professor who teaches Critical Resistance, concentrating on race, gender, equality, gay rights and prison abolition.   She was involved in a 20-year campaign to end the ‘Prison-industrial’ complex to free black inmates.  A life-long devoted communist, she has furthered the cause of the most oppressive blood-soaked regimes in recorded history for which she received the Lenin Prize from East Germany.  She is another lesbian that was closely associated with the notorious Black Panther Party. This group was formed in the mid-1960’s and composed of African-Americans who were devoted to Black Power. They espoused socialist and Communist doctrines and were the icon of the counterculture. However, brutal militancy and violent tactics overshadowed their political goals.

Davis was also heavily involved in the American Civil Rights Movement and was a prominent member and political candidate for the Communist Party. She initially studied Critical Theory under Marcuse who described her as “my best student”, and then travelled to Germany to study under Theodor Adorno. She thus served to link Cultural Marxism with the American New Left in the 1960’s. Davis was involved in the armed courthouse trial escape of two panthers when they took the judge as a hostage with a shotgun taped to his neck. He was fatally shot. The gun was registered in Davis’s name. She appeared on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted Fugitives List before she was eventually arrested. She was acquitted of all charges at the subsequent trial.

Marcuse preached the “Great Refusal,” a rejection of all basic Western concepts, sexual liberation and the merits of feminist and black revolution. His primary thesis was that university students, ghetto blacks, the alienated, the asocial, and the Third World could take the place of the proletariat in the Communist revolution.

In his book An Essay on Liberation, he proclaimed his goals of a radical eroding of values; the relaxation of taboos; cultural subversion; Critical Theory; and a linguistic rebellion that would amount to a methodical reversal of meaning. As for racial conflict he wrote that white men are guilty and that blacks are the most natural force of rebellion.

He may be the most important member of the Frankfurt School in terms of the origins of political correctness, because he was the critical link to the counter culture of the 1960’s. His objective was clear: “One can rightfully speak of a cultural revolution, since the protest is directed toward the whole cultural establishment, including morality of existing society…” His means was liberating the powerful, primeval force of sex from its civilized restraints, a message preached in his book, Eros and Civilization, published in 1955.

Marcuse became one of the main gurus of the 1960’s American teenage sexual rebellion; he himself coined the expression, “Make love, not war.” With that role, the chain of Marxist influence via the Frankfurt School was completed: from Lukacs’ service as Deputy Commissar for Culture in the Bolshevik Hungarian government in 1919 to American students burning the flag and taking over college administration buildings in the 1960’s.

He was the pied piper of sixties radical youth, feminists, black militants, homosexuals and the alienated and asocial. He openly encouraged sex and drugs and introduced the idea of “polymorphous perversity” where all moral and cultural order is rejected. He also called for a “repressive tolerance” but this was to be applied only to the Left.

Previous societies had been subverted by the written word, but Marcuse believed that sex and drugs were infinitely superior weapons. He became a cult figure in North America and Europe. For example, during the student revolt in Paris in 1968 they carried banners proclaiming “Marx, Mao and Marcuse”.

Today, many of these same colleges are bastions of political correctness, and the former student radicals have become the faculties.

In 1950 The Authoritarian Personality was published. Written by another revolutionary Marxist, Theodor Andorno, it substantially influenced American psychologists and social scientists whose concern was with “self esteem” and “self actualisation” thus displacing the emphasis on “the common good”. It suggested that Christianity, capitalism and the patriarchal/authoritarian family created prejudice, which, if not eradicated, would result in another Holocaust. It provided the basis for political correctness. It conformed to Critical Theory in every respect because it was  anti-God, anti-Christian, anti-family, anti-nationalist, anti-patriot, anti-conservative, anti-hereditarian, anti-ethnocentric, anti-masculine, anti-tradition and anti-morality.

The Frankfurt School introduced the idea of psychological conditioning as a means of changing culture to fit their warped image. Anyone with middle class, conservative or Christian value was labelled a racist and a fascist. It was a libellous indictment of western values. They infiltrated American society to subvert it by saturating the existing culture with a destructive ideology of lies.
 

University campuses were turned into raucous boot camps for a new generation of political radicals, utopian socialists and psychedelic epicureans, who sought social change in the form of rampant drug addiction, anarchic turmoil and rebellious rioting, done in the cause of liberation and freedom.

Cultural radicals have successfully pushed an agenda of moral relativism, militant secularism, sexual and social “liberation”. Recall an icon of the 1960’s counter-culture, Timothy Leary who, promoting the benefits of LSD said, “Turn On, Tune In, Drop Out”. At the time, President Nixon labelled him the most dangerous man in America. Another member of the Beat Generation (beatniks) who rejected mainstream American values, experimented with drugs and alternative sexual lifestyles was the celebrated poet Allen Ginsburg. He played a leading role in the 1965 protest of the Vietnam war which was attacked by a motor cycle gang of Hells Angels yelling “Go back to Russia you fucking bastards.” He was closely associated with Communism and as a homosexual defended the freedom of expression of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) of which he was a member.

Perhaps no greater example of treachery can be found than that of the ultra-feminist, pro-Communist and three-times married Hollywood actress, Jane Fonda. She campaigned across America colleges agitating against the Vietnam war. In 1972 she travelled to Hanoi where she was famously photographed on a North Vietnamese Army anti-aircraft gun, alleged to have shot down American fighter jets. She was subsequently labelled as “Hanoi Jane” and compared to Tokyo Rose the Japanese propagandist in WWII.

We matched the American experience in what became known as the Swinging Sixties or the Counterculture movement of the 1960’s that celebrated unrepentant hedonism and conspicuous drug abuse. It was “Flower Power” and “Free Love” which directly challenged previous sexual norms eased with the eventual introduction of the contraceptive pill which would have a profound effect upon society. The cultural standards of the day was drastically cast aside and traditional modes of authority were challenged. Far-reaching changes were brought about with calls for social justice and anti-war demonstrations were organised to “Ban the Bomb”.

At this time we saw the rise of not just feminism but lesbian feminism and the development of hippie communes. We witnessed the emergence of Punk Rock whose subculture promoted rebellion, anarchy and revolution. Sometimes Punk Rockers indulged in violent protest and mass public disorder involving Skinheads (hippies without hair) Mods, Rockers and the criminally inclined oxymoronic Hell’s Angels.

There was a loosening of censorship in the arts and a corresponding increase in the distribution of pornography. Immigration increased and with it the multicultural strains of deteriorating race relations that would eventually explode in massive public violence and disorder in several of our cities. Conventional marriage came under increasing attack and church attendance started to decline.

 

The Blair/Brown Labour Government’s indifference, hostility even, to traditional marriage, results in the lowest rate of marriage since 1862.  The latest figures from the Office For National Statistics for 2008 showed 232,900 weddings, the fewest in a year since 1885, when the population was just 30 million against around 57 million today.  Moreover, between 2000 and 2007 more than a dozen girls aged ten became pregnant as did an alarming 60,000 pregnancies to children under 16.  A scheme is now run encouraging schoolgirls as young as 11 to request the morning-after-pill by text message on their  mobile phone.

 

At the same time the crime statistics began to surge and society became more violent as it lost it former homogeneity and respect for authority. For example, there were 2,900 crimes of violence in 1939, 23,470 in 1964 and a staggering 1,158 million in 2008. Violent crime has soared by 77% since Labour came into power. Indeed, the Blairite doctrine on being tough on crime and its causes has long been abandoned in a sewer of conceit. A 2009 Home Office study reveals that Britain now has 1.6 million hardened criminals committing dozens of offences each year and a householder is attacked by a violent burglar every 30 minutes.  Disturbingly, 250 women are arrested every day for violent crimes and £31 million is spent each year on Ritalin to treat unruly children to counter poor discipline and inadequate parental control.   A fifth of youngsters under 16 are now formally diagnosed with one or more behavioural disorders.  The 2009 British Crime Survey revealed for the first time that a child is a victim of a violent attack every 20 seconds, mostly by other children and that child victims are three time more likely than adults to be assaulted.  Little wonder, then, that 80,000 pupils from primary and secondary schools were suspended for attacking teachers or schoolmates, some as young as four-years-old.

 

Now, every British bank note is contaminated by cocaine within weeks of entering circulation.  The police have stopped testing notes for traces of the drug in criminal investigations as the contamination is so widespread.  According to the Forensic Science Service the results are now meaningless as every note tests positive for cocaine.  Moreover, our nations economic health could be gauged by the fact that 21 percent of the working population is not earning a living.  That amounts to an unprecedented 8.08 million people who are economically inactive.

It is worth noting that Roy Jenkins MP, was the Home Secretary in a Labour Government. (1965-67) when he was instrumental in the most wide-ranging reforms to the law. The birching of prisoners was stopped and capital punishment suspended. He was also involved in major changes relating to divorce, which became easier, the abolishment of theatre censorship and he supported legislation introducing abortion and the decriminalisation of homosexuality. These far-reaching changes epitomised for him a civilised rather than a permissive society. He did, nevertheless, see homosexuality as a disability rather than disease.

It should be observed that it was omnisexual Lord Boothby a Conservative Party politician; later notoriously associated homosexually with the criminal gangland killers the Kray twins; who put pressure on the Home Secretary Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, to appoint the Wolfenden Committee to decriminalise homosexuality because, in truth, they were being blackmailed by current and former gay lovers. Incidentally, Boothby was twice married, had fathered three children with two other wives and was the long-time lover of Sarah Macmillan, wife to Prime Minister Harold Macmillan.  At one time it was reported that the Sunday Mirror was about to expose Boothby’s homosexual relationship with gangster Ronnie Kray.  However, no names were printed but Boothby threatened to sue.  The newspaper backed down, sacked its editor, apologised and paid Boothby £40,000 in an out of court settlement.

The Wolfenden Committee considered three important points.

 

• Is homosexuality a menace to the health of society? (They found no evidence for this)

• Did it damage family life? (They were undecided).

• Might homosexuals prey on boys? (The evidence was overwhelmingly against and suggested greater protection if the law was changed)

 

What is probably not generally known is that fraudulent sex researcher Alfred Kinsey made a hush-hush visit to England as a sex science advisor to Wolfenden.  His name does not appear on the list of witnesses to the Wolfenden Report (1957).  Nevertheless, Kinsey’s false homosexual data was relied on and his bogus research was extolled as credible.  The Wolfenden Committee relied heavily on Kinsey’s revolutionary books Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953).

 

The Wolfenden Report was published in 1957 and recommended that homosexual behaviour between consenting adults in private should not be a criminal offence.  It went against popular opinion and it was a decade before the law was changed. Whatever the legal, medical or moral evidence of the day, It may be suggested they faced a contradiction.  They recognised that the law had a function in preserving public order and decency, but that it had no place in intervening in the private lives of citizens. This neatly reflects the overstated and misleading opinion that the state has no part to play in the bedroom.  A view firmly enshrined within homosexual politics because is exonerates them from moral opprobrium and public censure.  It also facilitates their encroachment into the bedroom of the unsuspecting.

 

Professor Roger Scruton, has cogently observed that, “Moral norms, generated collectively, must also be collectively imposed.  Sexual morality provides a particular clear and important case in point.  Sex is the bond of society and also the force that explodes it.  Properly managed, sexual feelings lead to lasting marriages, stable families, children with vigilant parents and the handing down from generation to generation of the precious store of social capital.  Mismanaged, they lead to a  society - perhaps one should say ‘society’ - of casual encounters, jealousies and aggressions, in which they are neither lasting commitments nor sacrifices on behalf of children.”

 

Putting aside, for a moment, the fact that today European law permits homosexual behaviour between multiple consenting adults in private, and that adultery and fornication are not subject to the criminal law, though they may have consequences for civil law, and ultimately the state with the cost of family breakdown, where does that leave other sexual behaviours that takes place in private? Incidentally, family breakdown currently costs £41.7 billion annually, or £1,350 for each taxpayer.

 

The state certainly intervenes in some cases of sadomasochism involving men or women; it quickly responds to the slaying of one person by another in the heat of sexual passion and it moves rapidly in cases of incest or paedophilia. Today, there is an ironic twist to this idea of the sanctity of bedroom privacy.  

 

Observe the eagerness of the Labour Government to impose gay bedroom politics into the classroom, even for children as young as five.  Defying common sense and an indivisible and coherent duty to protect the young, Children’s Secretary, Ed Balls, MP, intended to ban the teaching of homophobia, which decoded means anything unfavourable to homosexuality.  Instead, children would be instructed positively to compare unhealthy pathologically abnormal sexual practices with life enhancing conventional ones, as if they were morally and culturally equivalent.  To the great relief of most parents, the sex and relationship education plans were eventually scuppered with the dissolution of parliament prior to a general election.

 

History teaches that when the morality of society breaks down the first thing the state does to recover is to reinforce strict measures to strengthen conventional or traditional mores.  The state particularly concentrates on sexual conduct ignoring any difference between private or public behaviour.  Adultery, divorce and abortion become more difficult and homosexuality criminalised.  We will encounter examples of this later.

 

It is entirely misleading to suggest that private sexual acts do not affect society.  They do so, and on a significant and overwhelming scale.  Conventional private sexual acts lead to the procreation of society thus ensuring its continuance into the future.  This is wholesome and efficacious for the nation.  

 

Unconventional sexual acts inhibit this process resulting in a range of unintended consequences which debilitate both the individual and the state.  Gay sex involves extreme risk taking which has a significant impact on medical services and public finances.  It will be necessary to examine this claim closely.

 

Wolfenden, on the other hand, seems to have recognised that some unpleasant consequences result from street prostitution, which is associated with ‘community instability’ and the ‘weakening of the family’.   Therefore it seems astonishing that they failed to recognise the harm relating to homosexuality, although it is necessary to consider that some of their evidence came from questionable homosexual sources.

 

Privately, it appears that Wolfenden largely condemned homosexuality.  He was certainly troubled by the fact his son Jeremy Wolfenden (1934-1965) was an openly, if not outwardly camp gay man.  He kept his distance from him fearing it would become public knowledge.  Jeremy was a brilliant Oxford scholar, a British spy for MI6 at the height of the Cold War based in the USSR, manically depressed with a passion for sex and drink.  Compromised by the Russian KGB in a homosexual incident, he was turned into a double-agent.  He married a Russian nanny in the hope of attaining emotional stability but continued to drink heavily and hardly ate.  Eventually, he died suddenly probably due to liver failure at the age of 31.

 

The Women’s Liberation Movement was formed to push feminist rights. Much more radical was the “Family Communes” of lesbian feminists’ whose aim was to smash the nuclear family. All children born within the group would bear the name “Wild” in an attempt to eliminate perceived patriarchal oppression.

It is said that the Women’s Liberation Movement owes its origins to Betty Friedan who wrote The Feminist Mystique (1963). Friedan was a long-time functionary of the Communist left in America. In fact she was a political activist and professional propagandist for the Communists for ten years before the publication of her book. According to Professor Ruth Wisse of Harvard University the “…women’s liberation, if not the most extreme then certainly the most influential neo-Marxist movement in America, has done to the American home what communism did to the Russian economy, and most of the ruin is irreversible. By defining between men and women in terms of power and competition instead of reciprocity and cooperation, the movement tore apart the most basic and fragile contract in human society, the unit from which all other social institutions draw their strength.”

Friedan was an important contributor to political correctness and her book reflected Friedrich Engels work The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State first published in 1884. It popularised the current feminist belief that deep-rooted discrimination against the oppressed female sex was a function of patriarchy and the belief that matriarchy was the solution. This idea flowed from Marx’s comment in The German Ideology published in 1845. The Frankfurt School’s matriarchy theory and androgyny theory originated from these sources.

The Gay Liberation Front

The London based Gay Liberation Front (GLF), now defunct, was an extension of the American GLF which was created following a police raid on a Mafia controlled gay bar in New York in 1969. Black and white gay queens, homosexuals, lesbians and rent boys fought the police and destroyed property in a three day riot. It became a seminal moment in gay history despite the fact we can trace American homosexual movements as far back as 1919.

Another movement was the Mattachine Society, which had been created by Communist homosexual Harry Hay in 1948. Abused as a young boy of 14 by a 24-year-old homosexual, Hay is considered the founding father of the American gay movement. The riot led to this organisation becoming more influential despite the fact that Hay was distanced from it because he endorsed pederasty and the GLF wished to present a more acceptable and respectable image.

Two students at the London School of Economics (LSE), Aubrey Walter and Bob Mellor, founded the British GLF in October 1970 when a small group of 19 men and women met in the basement. At the time the LSE was considered to be a hotbed of revolutionary activists in the country. One popular slogan was “Two, Four, Six , Eight - Copulate and Smash the State.”

Walter and Mellor had previously visited New York and met members of the Blank Panther Movement who supported gay rights on the basis they considered that homosexuals were oppressed. Walter had also joined a gay commune in San Francisco where, “I met Konstantin Berlandt who had dragged up (in a red sequined dress and long blonde wig) to disrupt the American Psychiatrist Convention. Walter would have picked up the politics of queer theory and the components of practical activist organisation and resistance. Cultural Marxism would be at the heart of this and form its essential foundation.

Within a month of the creation of the GLF one of their first targets was the police. They held their first ever public demonstration to protest against “pretty policemen” who were arresting them for public indecency and other sexual offences. They also created the slogan “Gay is Good” and “Gay is Angry”. The latter was a coded reference to the Angry Brigade whose members were also involved in the GLF.

Shortly after they were joined by an 18-year old Australian immigrant from Melbourne named Peter Tatchell. He had escaped to the UK to avoid conscription in the army and being drafted to the Vietnam war, which he had actively opposed.

Writing of the time Tatchell observes, “Our idealistic vision involved creating a new sexual democracy, without homophobia, misogyny, racism and class privilege. Erotic shame and guilt would be banished, together with compulsory monogamy, the nuclear family and rigid male and female gender roles.” This was indeed a radical and uncompromising challenge to straight society. It also effectively mirrored the extremist philosophy of the Frankfurt School, which is hardly surprising since he had studied Gramsci.

He has publicly stated his admiration for two American political movements. First, the Black Panthers because they were sympathetic to gay liberation movements and second, the Students for a Democratic Society. These students were radical political firebrands involved in violently protesting civil rights and demonstrating against the Vietnam war. This group eventually spawned into the Weathermen, a secret underground organisation who used black liberational rhetoric to advance a classless society and world communism. In the mid 1970’s they embarked on a violent campaign of bombing government buildings and banks. They also helped Timothy Leary escape from jail and transported him to Algeria.

It now transpires that the GLF was closely associated with a group called the Angry Brigade. This group terrorised the heart of the British Establishment in a series of bombing attacks across the country which was aimed to maim or kill government ministers, their families and conservative party officials in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s.

Dr. Lucy Robinson of the University of Sussex has written an interesting academic treatise entitled “Carnival of the Oppressed: The Angry Brigade and the Gay Liberation Front.” It explains how members of both organisations related to one another between 1970 and 1972.

The GLF expressed its objective when they declared, “come out, come together, unite with the revolutionaries of the world.” This mimicked the Marx/Engels call for workers of the world to unite. Robinson observes, “The Front and the Brigade were connected through some individuals who were involved in both groups.” She further quotes a leading member who remarks, “Well, were part of the same general movement really. We were all part of a large inchoate revolutionary movement that would change society from without and within.”

Reference is made of the Wolfenden Report that encouraged homosexual law reform by campaigners such as The Albany Trust and the Homosexual Law Reform Society. She reveals they were front organisation for homosexuals, “They masked their homosexual membership behind a façade of being concerned professionals.” Accordingly, they wanted homosexuality to be seen as “respectable”. The GLF, on the other hand, rejected any idea of respectability and wanted homosexuality to be a direct threat to the status quo.

 

Homosexual Tony Dyson, a gifted literary lecturer at the Bangor University of North Wales, established the Homosexual Law Reform Society (HLRS) in 1958.  His aim was to stimulate public debate about homosexual reform.  Anthony Grey, a pseudonym of Anthony Edgar Gartside Wright became the treasurer and secretary and by 1962 had established the Albany Trust.  He was a prolific writer/activist who campaigned tirelessly for reform of the law as suggested by the 1957 Wolfenden Report.  His efforts led to the promotion of a Bill through parliament sponsored by the flamboyant and pretentious Labour MP Leo Abse, until the law was eventually changed in 1967.

 

Similarly, Allan Horsfall, a colliery clerk and his gay partner, Harold Pollard, a primary school head teacher, created the Campaign for Homosexual Equality (CHE) in 1964 in Manchester.  Ray Gosling became the life-long honorary vice-president.  He caused a sensation in 2010 when he openly claimed on television that he had smothered to death an acquaintance suffering from AIDS to release him from ‘terrible, terrible pain’.  The revelation was made at a very sensitive time when controversial proposals were being touted to permit assisted suicide.

 

The objectives of the CHE were to achieve a radical change in the law prohibiting homosexual practices.  It led to a membership of some 3,000 to 5,000 persons and it had political cells and social networking groups in all parts of London and other towns and cities.  They sought greater equality for gays and lesbians.  It was hugely supported over the years by several notables including, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, Humphry Berkely, Bridgid Brophy, Margaret Drabble, Martin Ennals, Peter Hain, David Hockey, Peter Maxwell Davies, George Melly, Dr. Jonathan Millier, Richard Neville, Tony Smyth and Peter Wildeblood.

 

Currently Horsfall and Gosling continue to promote the CHE now mostly confined to an Internet website that highlights how gays continue to be exploited and blackmailed by younger men previously involved in sexual encounters.  They think most of the allegations are false because they are motivated by monetary compensation.  Some come from drug addicted rent boys.

 

It is said that this organisation was the precursor of Stonewall that achieved ‘most favoured status’ with the Labour Government.  Peter Tatchell’s group, Outrage, on the other hand, is seen as emanating from the more confrontational Gay Liberation Front/Angry Brigade which reflects an international dimension.

 

Robinson writes of Marcuse who argued that there is a policeman in all our heads that must be destroyed. This is given effect when the Angry Brigade indulges in “theatre terror” as a home-grown terrorist group that embarrassed the Heath government. Similarities with the American Weathermen and Germany’s Baader-Meinhof gang are drawn.

In January 1971 Special Branch raided the Brigade’s flat in Amerhurst Road London. Several people, later identified as the Stoke Newington Eight, were arrested. Among that number was Angela Weir, who on marriage would change her name to Mason. She is identified as a member of the GLF. She was also accused of being “Rosemary Pink” with connections to international gun smuggling. At the subsequent trial, Weir was found not guilty but others received hefty prison sentences.

According to reporter Martin Bright, “Those arrested fitted perfectly to the Establishment picture of dissolute middle class revolutionaries plotting to undermine civilised values.” Others saw them as middle class interlopers into working class politics.

The relationship between the GLF and the Brigade is described in both parasitic and reciprocal terms. Once established, the London GLF grew rapidly in national workshops and commune based structures modelled on Maoist-influenced support groups. Their liberational targets were the Family, Schools, Church, Media, Language, Employment, The Law, Physical Violence, Psychiatry, Self-Oppression and ultimately, The Revolution.

The Media Group, for example, ran into six groups aimed at attacking the Psychiatric Establishment, which they believed was based on Christian prejudice and Bible authority. A youth Group was aimed at lowering the age of consent.

Branches of the GLF grew throughout the country and included the Gay Switchboard, Bethnal Rouge, The Brixton Faeries, theatre companies like Bloolips and Gay Sweatshop, Body Positive, Jewish AIDS Trust, Icebreakers, Outrage and Stonewall. They also sought to dominate public attitudes about the emerging spread of HIV/AIDS. Following clues from their American cousins they promoted AIDS as an equal opportunity virus, thus concealing the nature of the epidemic.

The London group also spawned similar groups in Paris, France (FAHR) and Italy (FUORI).

Like that of the American, the source of today’s British gay movement owes its credentials to cultural Marxism. Its root is from Marcuse and Adorno to Angela Davis and Black Power and then to the London based GLF, and then to Europe.

This has a definite political perspective to it that undermines the genetic theory of so-called biologically determined homosexuality. Considering this history, it is not surprising that Tatchell should also reject the gay gene idea. Indeed, Duncan Gallowell, another GLF member has stated, “Gay Lib started in ‘69. The wonderful thing about it was that it had nothing to do with sex. Politicised gay life is not a sexual thing.” He also observed, “But Gay Lib was nothing to do with sex, it was to do with political banners. It’s even more a lesbian thing which has nothing to do with the hunger of women to satisfy each others lust with each other much more to do with trying to live a life in which they’re not going to be eaten up by men.”

As we have already established, another member of the GLF/Angry Brigade was Angela Weir. Born in 1944 she took the name of Mason from her marriage to William Mason in 1971. They later divorced. She “came out” and began a relationship with Elizabeth Wilson, another member of the London GLF and is now the mother of a daughter following artificial insemination in 1985. A lawyer by training, she is a life-long lesbian activist, the former chief of the homosexual lobby – Stonewall and currently chair of the Fawcett Society which promotes radical feminism. . She has previously worked for Camden Council and then as an adviser on lesbian and gay rights to the Mayor of London - Ken Livingstone. She received an OBE for services to homosexual rights in 1999. Between 1987 and 2001, Wilson had been a Marxist lecturer in cultural studies at the University of North London.

In November 2005, radical veteran feminist politician Patricia Hewitt MP, when Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry, appointed Mason as a £80,000 a year director of the Women’s and Equality Unit. This was a government department that was steering far-sweeping legislation through that is indulgently sympathetic to homosexual rights.

The Flower Power generation is now in the commanding positions in the media, education, the church and politics. It might be said that no better example of a preoccupation for political correctness can be found in Harriet Harman MP, formerly Leader of a Labour Government. Coincidentally, at one point the Deputy Leader was homosexual Chris Bryant, MP for the Rhondda. Her interests in minority rights are well established. She is seen as being ultra-concerned with women’s rights, gays, lesbians, bisexual, transgendered, disabled and black people. Formerly Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry she took over from Patricia Hewitt to supervise Angela Mason.

Hewitt and Harman, both radical feminists, hold entirely sympathetic opinions about homosexual men and women, more surprising is the knowledge they also supported paedophiles in the 1970’s.

NAMBLA and PIE

Useful parallels can be drawn regarding the emergence of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) and their British counterpart, the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE). Both groups were hatched from their respective Gay Liberation Fronts. These pederast movements advocate the liberalisation of laws against sexual relations between adults and boys in a consenting relationship. However, all too often it seems, they were simply ‘respectable’ fronts whose real aim was to abuse boys.

To a remarkable degree, the developments of each reflect an historic congruity of common purpose. More telling, however, is the sensitive and sometime contradictory position of the respective GLF’s to their fledglings in NAMBLA and PIE. This is motivated by the real need to keep a respectable distance between the gay movement and paedophilic influences as a means of protecting gay interests more generally.  According to homosexual propagandists Kirk and Madsen, this distance is maintained, not because homosexuals have an aversion for man/boy love, but rather that homosexual pederasts will never look like ‘victims’ in the same way gays can.  So the victim status of gays has to be protected above all else.  The position is contradictory because homosexual culture and history are replete with pederastic practices,

 

Moreover, it cannot be denied that homosexual behaviour in ancient Greece and Rome were heavily influenced by pederastic motivations. This also holds true for other primitive cultures throughout the world. The same sexual persuasion was also widespread in Hitler’s Nazi movement. Today, repeated surveys and research show a substantial number of gays attribute their homosexuality directly to predatory molestation by older men. It is a very disturbing background but the link is evidentially compelling.

Following an early association between paedophile and homosexual organisations on both sides of the Atlantic, gays have now publicly distanced themselves from man/boy pressure groups. This demonstrates the contradiction of a political sexual philosophy because it undermines cultural Marxism. It goes against the thrusting essence of their counter-culture - if it feels good, do it, resulting in polymorphous perversity. It seems that homosexuals do at least show a calculated measure of self-restraint in their higher passion to survive as a separate body. They continuously strive  to sanitise both the image and substance of homosexuality.

Currently, the NAMBLA website extols the virtues of Harry Hay as a courageous activist in the cause of personal sexual liberation. He is seen as a vocal and fearless supporter of intergenerational sexual relationships. Although it has to be observed, many prominent gay organisations have sought to erase his radical and Communist connections. Hay was a life-long Communist party leader, a homosexual/pederast and cross-dresser and he was acquainted with the Zoologist Alfred Kinsey. Hay also supported violent gay activism but never got personally involved. In 2007 he died aged 90. It should also be observed that Daniel Tsang observes in The Age Taboo (1981) “Gay liberationists in general and boy lovers in particular, should know Kinsey’s work and hold it dear... Implicit in Kinsey is the struggle we fight today.”

It is interesting to note that the ultra-liberal pro-homosexual American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has given support to NAMBLA who sought legal advice and representation in an appeal before an American court. This was the case of Curley v NAMBLA in 2000. Two pederasts, with established casual connections to NAMBLA, had stalked, tortured, mutilated and murdered 10-year-old Jeffrey Curley. Both were convicted of rape and murder in 1977. The boys parents then unsuccessfully sought an action against NAMBLA arguing it was a training ground for adults wishing to seduce children. In April 2008 the lawsuit was dropped when the judge ruled a key witness was not competent to testify.

NAMBLA had emerged from the Gay Liberation movement of the 1970’s and was formally established as a group in 1978. This followed the conviction of 24 men; described as the tip of the iceberg; in a sex ring who were charged with the rape of 100 boys aged 8 to 15.

Gay rights groups attempted to block NAMBLA members from their gay pride parades which prompted Harry Hay to march in 1986 wearing a slogan defiantly declaring, “NAMBLA walks with me”.  Hay was outraged at the hypocrisy of the self-appointed gay establishment which declared a section of the gay community as unrespectable.  So he publicly defied them.

NAMBLA was soon isolated and today almost all gay groups disavow any ties to it. Gregory King of the Human Rights Campaign said that NAMBLA was no gay organisation and repudiated that paedophilia was in any way related to homosexuality. NAMBLA responded that “man/boy love is by definition homosexual”, and that “man/boy lovers are part of the gay movement and central to gay history and culture.” They said that homosexuals denying that it is not gay to be attracted to boys is just as ludicrous as heterosexuals saying, “..its not heterosexual to be attracted to girls.”

Today, NAMBLA appears, on the face it it, to have disappeared, maintaining an internet website showing addresses in New York and San Francisco. The website offers the sale of publications and a bulletin.

The British PIE, on the other hand, became an affiliated member of The National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL) the forerunner of Liberty today, during the 1970’s. The general secretary of NCCL at that time was Patricia Hewitt and the leading legal advisor was Harriet Harman. Their concern for human rights overlooked the fact that PIE was a front organisation which was preoccupied with getting laws changed to make it easier for their members to get access to children to abuse them.  Rather shockingly, Harman attempted to help in this process.  When confronted with this evidence in 2009, her spokesman gave the most fatuous and appallingly limp response.

Pie was initially established in Scotland in 1974 but within 12 months it relocated to London where there was a greater demand for services. Keith Hose was its first chairman. He had connections to the South London Gay Liberation Front and it was from this source that the Paedophile Action for Liberation Front developed. It later merged with PIE. The Sunday People newspaper exposed this group and many members faced intimidation and lost their jobs.

PIE has largely drawn a low profile while at the same time attempting to influence public opinion and push for legislative change though their “Contact Page”, but this eventually resulted in a prosecution for ‘conspiracy to corrupt morals’.  In 1976, Mary Whitehouse, a Christian moral reformer, stated that public funds were being used by the Albany Trust working in tandem with PIE, to produce a booklet on paedophilia. The Albany Trust, as we have previously observed was a front organisation for homosexuals and it was sponsored by government grants. It felt obliged to reject PIE’s publication.  The following year PIE published “Childhood Rights” which was subsequently assimilated into “Magpie”.

A full-scale police operation was pitted against PIE committee members in 1978 resulting in several prosecutions for promoting indecent acts among adults and children. Former chairman, Tom O' Carroll was convicted of conspiracy charges and sentenced to two years jail. In 1984, two former committee members were convicted on child pornography charges and while out on bail, they skipped the country. During the same year the PIE Bulletin was closed down.

 

It is worth mentioning the pernicious influence of another pederast who openly advocated sexual relationships with minors and secretly disclosed his active involvement in sexual abuse,

 

Peter Righton, an openly gay man, believed that children were not harmed in a loving and caring relationship with an adult and this is reflected in his book Perspectives on Paedophilia.  The book candidly condones sexual relations between children and adults.

 

His influence is not to be dismissed lightly.  His career spanned some 30 years.  He had worked variously as a probation officer, a teacher and then lecturer in social work.  By the mid 1970’s he had become the director of the National Institute of Social Work and as a consultant for the National Children’s Bureau.  He also taught social service managers at the Open University and was widely respected as an expert in residential care.  In the 1980’s he became a consultant for the New Barnes School in Gloucestershire for emotionally disturbed children.  Richard Alston, his gay lover, ran the school.  

 

He got to the very heart of the social work establishment posing as a respectable professional man while leading a secret life as a child abuser.  He was brazen enough to disclose to homosexual contemporaries how he was having sexual encounters with boys.  Some of these, he later recounted, went on to marry and live normal lives implying, of coarse, that their sexual encounter had little or no effect.  He groomed colleagues in the same way he groomed innocent children in order to abuse them.

 

During his long career, he had been well connected with people in the child care circles, some of whom were themselves subsequently convicted of sexual abuse against boys in care.  One such example was that of Rod Ryall who was the director of social services at Calderdale Council in West Yorkshire.  Ryall was given six years jail for sexual assaults on two young boys.

 

Righton was quoted in Social Work Today in 1977 saying that sex between workers and residents in homes was okay, ‘Providing there is no question of exploitation, sexual relations freely entered into by residents – including adolescents – should not be a matter of automatic enquiry.’

 

Although the police launched an investigation against Righton suspecting he was a long-time active paedophile they were only able to prosecute him for the lesser offence of importing child pornography from Amsterdam.

 

Another former member, David Joy, 66, appeared before Leicester Crown Court in 2007 where he admitted 11 counts of downloading indecent images of children. He was given an indeterminate prison sentence. The trial judge, Judge Michael Pert, QC, intimated he might never see freedom again. Detective Richard Morgan of Scotland Yards Paedophile Unit said Joy’s conviction was “... The last piece in the jigsaw” in dealing with PIE.

Harriet Harman, MP, one time Leader of the House and Minister for Women and Equality and who sat on a Cabinet committee on young people’s welfare, joined the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL) as a new qualified solicitor to become the legal officer in 1978. The General Secretary at the time was Patricia Hewitt, who, as we have already observed, would go on to become the Minister for the Department of Trade and Industry which included the Women’s Equality Unit, in the Labour Government.

The NCCL fully supported PIE and the Paedophile Action for Liberation group. They even complained to the press watchdog about the way the press were treating these pederastic groups stating “We support any organisation that seeks to campaign for anything it wants within the law. They have that right.” Harman’s role in the matter was fully disclosed by Martin Beckford, Social Affairs Correspondent for The Telegraph in 2009.  His article was headed, “Harriet Harman under attack over bid to water down child pornography law.”.

Following renewed public concern about adults preying on children, the Government introduced a Bill for the protection of children. It was intended this would tighten child pornography laws by banning indecent images of children under 16. The NCCL’s formal response signed by Harman in April 1978 to the Government proposals to reform sex laws dubbed a “Lolita’s Charter” was quite remarkable. She argued that, “...childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage.” She claimed that a child suffers more from having to retell their story in court or to the press. It is suggested here that this statement neatly parallels the paedophile case. She went on to suggest that pornographic photos or film of a child should not be considered indecent unless it could be shown that the child suffered, and that prosecutors would have to prove harm rather than paedophiles having to justify themselves.

 

Her submission went on to state: “Although this harm may be of a somewhat speculative nature, where participation falls short of physical assault, it is none-the-less justifiable to restrain activities by photographer which involve placing children under the age of 14 (or, arguably, 16) in sexual situations.”

 

“We suggest that the term 'indecent’ be qualified as follows: – A photograph or film shall not for this purpose be considered indecent (a) by reason only that the model is in a state of undress (whether complete or partial); (b) unless it is proved or is to be inferred from the photograph or film that the making of the photograph or film might reasonably be expected to have caused the model physical harm or pronounced psychological or emotional disorder.”
 

It adds: “Our amendment places the onus of proof on the prosecution to show that the child was actually harmed.”
 

Miss Harman left NCCL in 1982 when she was elected MP for Camberwell and Peckham, by which time several members of PIE had been jailed for conspiracy to corrupt public morals.

 

When confronted with this evidence in 2009 a spokesman for Miss Harman said: “She has always opposed child pornography and has never supported PIE and to suggest that she did is untrue and misleading.”

 

“NCCL’s approach to the protection of children’s bill was to argue for clear definitions in the bill to make sure the law was precise so that it was about child protection and not about censorship.”
 

The spokesman added: “PIE had been excluded from the NCCL before she became legal officer.”
 

Beckford responded that press cuttings from 1983 make it clear that it was still considered an “affiliate group”
 

The facts are not quite what Harriet Harman would have us believe.

 

When she joined the NCCL, PIE and the Paedophile Action for Liberation Front had already been affiliated to the NCCL for three years. Earlier, in 1975, when Patricia Hewitt was the General Secretary. The NCCL attempted to gag the People newspaper from publishing the name of NCCL Executive member Jonathon Walters when it printed an expose of the Paedophile Action for Liberation Front. Eventually, the story was published but it did not name Walters.

 

In 1975, Patricia Hewitt joined the Campaign for Homosexual Equality (CHE) in the same year Keith Hose of PIE addressed the NCCL Annual Conference. He moved a motion of censure on the Conference Organising Committee for relegating paedophilia to ancillary status in conference. Trevor Locke, as a NCCL Executive Council member, seconded the motion which stated, ”An awareness and acceptance of the sexuality of children is an essential part of the liberation of the young homosexual.” The motion was approved.

 

Jack Dromey, one time Treasurer of the Labour Party and now the 2010 Labour MP for Erdington and husband to Harriet Harman, also served on the Executive Committee of NCCL from 1970 to 1979. During this period the two paedophile groups were invited to affiliate. The NCCL also established a gay rights sub-committee at the same time. This included prominent paedophiles Peter Bremner (alias Roger Nash), Michael Burbridgge, Keith Hose and Tom O’Carroll.

 

Within months of Harriet Harman resignation from the NCCL to take up a post as an MP, PIE went underground.

 

Hewitt, Harman and Dromey need to explain what they were doing supporting the rights of paedophiles? Why did they invite PIE and the Paedophile Action for Liberations Front to affiliate to the NCCL and why did they permit paedophiles to dominate the Gay Rights Sub-Committee? And what were they doing advancing the interests of rabid convicted molesters?

 

There is another interesting question about the purpose of the CHE, because Liberty director of operations, Raj Chandarna, terminated their affiliated membership of Liberty on the eve of their 40th anniversary in 2009.  It is not unreasonable to ask if CHE was now being run by former members of PIE, because its demise rested on matters relating to child sex.  Chandarna's letter to the CHE spoke of “significant” concerns about CHE and the “appropriateness of continued affiliation to Liberty.”  It critically added, “In particular, your motion on child sex abuse is also clearly contrary to the objectives of Liberty...”

 

A contentious CHE motion read, “We urge the government to introduce a Statute of Limitations which would debar any criminal prosecution in respect of alleged child abuse unless the matter was brought to the attention of the police within five years of the complainant reaching the age of majority.”

 

This was being done on the basis that, “... In cases of historic abuse, evidence or acknowledgement of an accused man being gay can damage his chances of acquittal due to homophobia and confusion between homosexuality and paedophilia.”

 

If these sentiments had been brought into law then very many incidents, quite often of serious cases of child molestation would not have been brought.  Allan Horsfall, life president of CHE said he was going to appeal in order to, “...drag out of them” the reason for the disaffiliation.

 

It is worth pondering, however, that the disaffiliation of the CHE from Liberty took place within four months of Martin Beckford’s disclosure in The Telegraph about the role of Harriet Harman. Did members of PIE simply stay on in Liberty by transferring over to the CHE because we find this group still preoccupied with matters concerning child sex.  If so, Liberty appears to have acquiesced to their presence only disaffiliating them totally some four months after Beckford’s revelations.

 

It may be a fact that PIE has been totally dismantled, but what is evident today is that separate sex rings are now appearing independently in which small groups of men sexually abuse children. The most recent is the clique of eight Scottish homosexuals recently sentence in Edinburgh. Details of this and other groups can be found on the Gay Molestation/Murder page.

 

What has been clearly demonstrated here is the incontrovertible link from the depredating philosophy of cultural Marxism and the emergence of contemporary organised homosexual movements directly into the heart of American society. From there it inexorably spread to the rest of the world. It is also clear that the Gay Liberation Fronts evolved as a political and not sexual motivation and was inspired by an inherently destructive dogma seeking to undermine moral values and civic virtue. Too often, it seems, homosexuality has been involved in revolutionary violence,

These linkages have had their greatest effect here in Great Britain under Prime Minister’s Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, because they eagerly capitulated to delusional homosexual demands in legalising and enhancing reprehensible unstable and addictive behaviours that are harmful to the health of both the individual and society at large. Blair’s duplicity, in particular, was most mischievously anti-democratic when he entered a secret shifty deal to legitimate sleazy salivating sexual conduct, arrogantly pushing aside the well-worn traditional values of the common man. What is more alarming, however, is that all political parties now accord homosexuality with a tangible measure of approval and respectability. The pink ‘camel’, so celebrated by American homosexual propagandist’s Kirk and Madsen in their book After the Ball, is firmly in our living room.  It is now merely a question of time before it is also in the nursery room.

The intention here is not to suggest that all homosexuals are crypto-Marxists. That would be foolish because we have already recognised that some are drawn into the lifestyle following childhood molestation. It is more complicated than that in which other environmental forces play a part. Deficiencies in parenting and other developmental disorders are also identified as playing a part in stimulating homosexual tendencies. It is nevertheless clear that the current homosexual movement was initially firmly based on political considerations as opposed to any genetic determinism. Indeed, according to Doctor Whitehead quoted earlier, orthodox geneticists have abandoned  idea of the gay sex gene 30 years ago.

What are the implications here for homosexuality today? It is to observe that proponents of the Frankfurt School viewed homosexuality entirely negatively and were prepared to support it in order more quickly to extirpate societal values as a forerunner to a cultural revolution. They wished to harness its destructive qualities. Willi Munzenberg, a leading Communist activist declared their aim was to “...organise the intellectuals and use them to make Western civilisation stink.  Only then, after they have corrupted all its values and made life impossible, can we impose the dictatorship of the proletariat.”  A philosophy more damaging than the Bolshevik Revolution itself.  

 

It is interesting to note that during the Second World War anti-homosexual propaganda between Stalin and Hitler reflected an element of historical realism, contradiction and farce.  For example, Stalin had said, “...eradicate homosexuality and fascism will disappear.”, while Hitler considered homosexuality a “communist degeneracy.”

 

Homosexuals, who proclaim themselves as sexual subversives, as does the leading gay activist Peter Tatchell, join forces with cultural Marxism to defeat family values that have served our nation well for thousands of years. Little wonder, that his three historic heroes are Magnus Hirschfeld, Harry Hay and Oscar Wilde, all homosexuals.

 

It is important to note that members of the Frankfurt School would have been familiar with events in Russia at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917.  The first thing they did was to undermine the authority of the Russian Orthodox Church, the second was to abolish the ‘oppression’ of the traditional family.  Moral law was discarded, wives and mothers were forced into factories, abortions were made free, and divorce was simplified.  Indeed, one Russian woman wrote, “When the Bolsheviki came into power in 1917, they regarded the family ...with fierce hatred and set out ...to destroy it.  One must live in Russia today, amid the atmosphere of torment, disgust and disillusionment that pervades sex relations, the chaos, uncertainty, and tragedy that hover over the Russian family ...Some men have twenty wives, living a week with one, a month with another ...Abortions cover our villages with shame.  Formerly we did not even hear of them.”

 

The Bolsheviks took control of schools and using a perverse propaganda told children that God is dead.  The children were psychologically manipulated to spy on their families which brought devastation and fear.  In the interests of ‘equality’ homosexuality was proclaimed natural. They declared, “Concerning ...sodomy, and various other forms of sexual gratification, which are set down in European legislation as offenses against public morality - Soviet legislation treats these the same as so-called ‘natural intercourse.’”

 

What resulted from these drastic changes was that as the family started to fall apart, so did the culture which would eventually threaten the economy of the state.  The social order was near collapse and a tidal wave of corruption and crime were unleashed accompanied with sexual debauchery and chaos.

 

When he came into power, Stalin took immediate steps to revive order.  Family ethics were restored, abortion and divorce were made more difficult and the criminal law against sodomy was reconstituted.

It is interesting to note that the 1985 “Labour Gay Rights Manifesto” in its pursuit of emancipation and equality neatly reflects a real danger to the traditional family and the well-being of children. As we will see, it amounts to a paedophiles charter and effectively mirrors the essence of the Frankfurt School.

 

Looking back to the time of the Wolfenden Report, celebrated historian Paul Johnson observes that the public generally regarded homosexuality as a great moral evil.  Others, motivated by a concern to right a long-standing injustice and a hope that homosexual demands would be met if the law was changed pressed on to decriminalise homosexual acts within defined limits.

 

According to Johnson, decriminalisation made it possible for homosexuals to organise openly into a powerful lobby from which to launch more demands not only for greater equality but also for distinct privileges.  This took the form of homosexual quotas in local government, and the censorship of anything critical in school textbooks, curricula, and university courses, special rights to proselytise including the elimination of legal restraints on radio and television.

 

He cogently observes, “Thus we began attempting to right what was felt as an ancient injustice and we ended with a monster in our midst, powerful and clamouring, flexing its muscles, threatening, vengeful and vindictive towards anyone who challenges its outrageous claims, and bent on fundamental – and to most of us horrifying – changes to civilized patterns of sexual behaviour.”

 

It is true to say that in the last 50 years, gay rights have made a sudden and rapid rise to prominence. It now assumes privileges that trump Christian theology that is being increasingly marginalised by the State. All this can be explicated simply by reflecting on the initial corrupt intentions of a handful of revolutionary intellectuals. We have conspired with a perverse ideology to corrupt a culture that has stood the test of time.

Equally alarming, aside from the influence of cultural Marxism, we will shortly explore the emergence in America of homosexuality as a lifestyle following the defeat of Nazism in 1945 that was imported from the very heart of the Third Reich itself.
 

Political Correctness

There are real dangers In any democratic society where criticism has to be stifled absolutely. The alarming history of that outrageous process has already begun within the British Parliament, which, in recent times, has attempted to shutdown free speech and criticism of homosexuality per se. Hence attempts to introduce hate speech crimes. Dedicated professional gay activists continue to pursue the prohibition of public discussion that fails to support the contrived political rights of homosexual men and women.

This bizarre new gay gospel not only reflects a self-indulgent narcissism but it also masks the inherent histrionics of an irrational destructive sexual identity. As a consequence it obfuscates more than it discloses about homosexual behaviour to an extent that it serves to distract from the reality of gay politics and conduct.

Political correctness is  about wielding power in the fullest civil and ethical sense, a matter central to the homosexual heart. This is pursued with a dogmatic intimidation and rigid subversion of established cultural, ethical and religious values. It is their intention to dominate political discourse and to determine events and issues and they are organised in small groups but in a big way to do this.

The hostility of political correctness is demonstrated by its lack of alternatives as it inverts logic, truth and reality. So, for example, gays conceal the fact they are in greater danger of molestation, rape and murder by other homosexuals, when the facts establish the opposite. It thus also exposes its intimidatory and intolerant nature.

What frightens people is that it is more negative that positive! And they have not yet woken up to the simple fact that political correctness is primarily about smoke and mirrors because its function is to distort.

Perhaps more disturbing is the fact that political correctness is ingrained in many of the institutions of science, academia and government. Indeed, psychology, psychiatry, social science and social work have been captured by the ultra-liberal agenda of cultural Marxism. Witness the unedifying preoccupation with political correctness, sensitivity and diversity. The professionalism of science and academia has capitulated to this questionable phenomenon. This will be examined in detail here.

 

If you want to experience cultural Marxism today, you couldn’t do worse that tune in to the BBC, now a pre-eminent cultural institution in Britain.  Its influence is profoundly all-pervasive as it casts its relentless probing gaze on the Church, the Monarchy, the State and all the functions of government.  Institutions like the police, the courts and parliament are subject to remorseless scrutiny.  It dwarfs every other media outlet in the country and has a huge international audience.  It is the largest employer of journalists in the world and 93% of the population use BBC services at least once a week.  Generously subsidised by public taxation to the tune of £3 billion plus each year, it has no real competitor.  Insulated from public enquiry it is arrogantly self-serving and scathing of any criticism.  Auntie knows best!  It deceitfully pretends to be independent and impartial.

 

In his seminal book ‘Can we trust the BBC?’ (2007), former prominent BBC journalist Robin Aitken documents how the BBC has transformed from strictly reporting news to the more insidious concern of shaping and defining opinion and value.  

 

He asserts that people at the top of the corporation are the baby-boomers of the late 1940’s and 50’s – our Flower Power and Free Love generation.  They championed an intoxicating explosion of youth culture, strident individualism, and material acquisitiveness as they challenged established authority.  They rejected traditional sexual mores and adopted a liberal morality. Today, they control a powerful institution that tends to report less news but more manipulation of political and cultural value. Aitken documents, among other things, how undeserved support was given to the IRA and largely withdrawn from the Unionist during the battle against Republican terrorists.  The impartiality of some leading news and current affairs programmes is questioned and the cosy relationship between the BBC and Labour is outlined.  Currently, several prominent politicians previously worked for the BBC that reflected a left-leaning gay-friendly view of society.

 

Aitken tellingly observes, “The BBC is passionately against racism, in favour or ‘human rights’, supportive of internationalism, suspicious of traditional British identity and consequently pro-EU, it is feminist, secular and allergic to established authority whether in the form of the Crown, the courts, the police of the churches.”

 

Dominated by the young, feminists, homosexuals and those from the ethnic minorities it suffers from a deep-seated institutional bias that deliberately favours the liberal-left.  It is anti-Christian and pro-Islam, anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian, anti-American and pro-Arab. One BBC member describes its core values as anti-racist, pro-abortion, pro-women’s and gay rights, pro-Un, pro-EU, pro-union and anti-big business, pro-high taxation, pro-government spending, anti-private education, anti-private health care, pro-local democracy, pro-multiculturalism and ethnic minorities, pro-foreigner, especially left-wing governments, anti-American, anti-monarchy and anti-prison.  Another views their job, not as impartially reporting the news, but as directly brainwashing the population.

 

The BBC also came in for heavy criticism from Paul Dacre of the Daily Mail in 2007. Under the heading, “The BBC’s cultural Marxism will trigger an American-style backlash”, he charged them with intolerance waging a Orwellian campaign against British values. He accused them for their anti-conservative stance, its hostility to British history and values, unionism, Europsceptism, capitalism and big business, the countryside, Christianity and family values. On the other hand he observed they were sympathetic to Labour, European federalism, the state and state spending, mass immigration, minority rights, multiculturalism, alternative lifestyles, abortion and progressiveness in the education and justice systems.

 

The attitude of the BBC to the Israel/Palestinian problem which is notoriously reported in favour of the latter's cause, may be a political correct reinstatement of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s political expedient assessment of the Middle East problem.  Known as the ‘Camel Corp’ following its historical open sympathy for the Arab cause, the FO has never had much time for Israel which may increasingly have something to do with the fact it does not have an oil.  The leading British historian Andrew Roberts make the remarkable observation that no member of the Royal family has ever been on an official visit to Israel  Whereas the FO has managed over the years to send the Queen on state visits to Libya, Iran, Sudan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, The United Arab Emirate, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Jordan and Turkey.  Some of the worst countries in the world regarding freedom of speech, religious tolerance and democratic value.

 

Acclaimed author and social commentator Melanie Phillips has remarked, “Over a vast range of issues — big business, Conservatism, family values, America, Europe, Northern Ireland, the Middle East, climate change, abortion, multiculturalism — the BBC fails to be dispassionate, objective or truthful.”

 

It’s fair to ask therefore, Is the BBC the covert propaganda arm of the Foreign Office and thus, ultimately, the government of the day?  If so, this has serious implications for the well-being of our liberal democratic society?

 

Then came the revelation in 2010 of a Left-wing scriptwriter and an actor who had been hired by the BBC in the 1980’s to inspire a ‘Tardis revolution’ by injecting political propaganda into the television series Doctor Who to undermine Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.  In one series she was portrayed as a vicious egotistical alien ruler who used a secret police to oppress dissidents.  Other thinly veiled plots supported the miner’s strike and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.  At the time, Norman Tebbitt, Tory MP,  claimed the corporation was in the hands of a ‘Marxist mafia’.

 

Former ‘Time Lord’ actor, Sylvester McCoy admitted, “The idea of bringing politics into Doctor Who was deliberate, but we had to do it quietly... We were a group of politically motivated people and it seemed the right thing to do.”  Andrew Cartmel, the script editor, said he was quite open about his plans to mock Mrs. Thatcher when interviewed for the job.”

 

A BBC spokesperson subsequently explained bafflement, “The BBC’s impartiality rules applied just as strongly then as they do to programmes now.”

 

It would be a foolish mistake, however, to think that cultural Marxism is simply confined to the Labour or Liberal Democratic parties.  Aspects have been secretly absorbed by David Cameron and the Conservative Central Office.  

 

In February 2002, a confidential blueprint was drawn up in secret by Michael Gove, MP, current Secretary of State for Schools and Dean Godson, a director of the favoured think-tank Policy Exchange.  Their aim was to impose more women, gays, Muslims and ethnic candidates for future elections.  The explosive six-page document entitled, “Action Plan for Candidate Selection in Safe Seats” proposed the use of subterfuge to end the white, heterosexual, male and middle class image of the Conservative Party.  The idea was to get rid of its demeaning description as the ‘Nasty Party’. Some considered this group as political ‘Dinosaurs’ and later in the shire constituencies as the ‘Turnip Taliban’.  

 

The report fully accepted that most of the talented candidates where white males because they were the best available.  They proposed a radical change to include a greater cross-section of society even though they may be inferior.  They argued that their findings should remain secret and that changes be introduced by stealth.  They observed. “The more the profusion of women, black, Asian or gay candidates appears to be the result of spontaneous open-mindedness on the part of the grassroots activists the greater will be the accolades.”  Gove deceitfully observed, “Like a conjuror, we’ll get more applause If the audience cannot see how the trick is performed.”  The underlying assumption to this is that women, gays and ethnics are by their very nature progressive and liberal which should reflect well on the party.  Reality suggests they can be just as reactionary as anyone else.

 

In January 2010, David Cameron took ‘emergency powers’ which allowed him to impose short-lists of ‘suitable’ candidates on reluctant local party activists.  This draconian Marxist measure has subsequently incensed local party members up and down the country.  Now a so-called Central Office ‘A-list’ is fast-tracking women, ethnic and gay candidates, most of whom are politically inexperienced with little local constituency knowledge.  The result is mutiny, tears and resignations by the party faithful that have rocked Cameron.  Rows erupted throughout the country and he has been warned that this controversial measure is alienating tens of thousands of activists.

 

Then there is the sinister and troubling behaviour of the police who have been taken in by the pink politics of the gay parade, even to the extent of proscribing behaviour outside the law. Admittedly, some laws regarding homosexual behaviour are now legal, but the police exceed themselves and embrace gay rights with an overwhelming gusto. The unnecessary and undignified arrest and charge, or its threat, of social commentators and others in society has led to an insidious groundswell of fear deep within the heart of the community. Gays keep recklessly pushing at the parameters of public discourse by feigning insult, injury and injustice in a relentless effort to smash any criticism. Equally, precipitous, presumptuous and prejudicial investigations by the police have resulted in stifling public opinion on any issue involving homosexuality. This, as will be detailed here, has drawn cutting censure from both Houses of Parliament.

Whether they like it or not, the police are unwittingly embracing a false moral panic about gay victimhood by demonising traditional values and concerns and by exaggerating societal homophobia and violence without tangible data. In doing so, they abandon their historical role as impartial guardians of law and order and, instead, enter a world largely determined by sexual politics. Enough to make their founder Sir Robert Peel, turn in his grave!

Interestingly, a survey of 2,000 British men in 2008 found that two thirds ‘felt handcuffed’ by political correctness and that it was safer to conceal their opinions. More than half thought society was turning them into ‘waxed and coiffed metrosexuals’.

So, as far as Joe the Plummer is concerned, it is safer to say nothing.

Recall for a moment the Frankfurt School notion that the white male was to be singled out as evil or bad. Now consider this! Over the last few decades laws have been enacted in the UK which protects certain groups who are seen as victims of discrimination. According to David Green of Civitas, these groups include women (51%) of the population, ethnic minorities (4%), the disabled (11%) male pensioners (5%) and homosexuals (2%). Minority groups thus represent 73% of the population. Unprotected, the hapless white male is now in a miserable minority of its own.

This does not cater for potential multiple discriminations. So, for instance, a one-legged black lesbian could claim discrimination for being disabled, a woman, black and homosexual in one foul swoop. When multiple discriminations are considered they amount to a total number which is greater than the whole population. It is right to point out that contemporary victimhood is antithetical to our traditional notion of equality before the law, which in turn undermines liberty and democracy. It’s not quite that obvious yet, but the best intentions of our politicians have paved the way to a future hell especially when, with increasing frequency, free speech becomes hate speech.
 

The shallow callow face of political correctness can now be witnessed within the corridors of power at Westminster.  In November, 2009, controversial plans were revealed by the House Of Commons Speaker’s Conference (on Parliamentary Representation) which recommended plans to force political parties to make Parliament less white, male, middle-class and heterosexual.  The intention is to make all political parties publicly declare how many women, ethnic minority, gay and disabled applicants they reject as potential Parliamentary candidates.  Former Tory Minister Ann Widdecombe MP described the proposals as ‘insulting’.

 

It is astonishing, in one sense, how people will totally ignore, or even deny knowledge of the self-harm some people do to themselves. The effect of this is that destructive behaviours are overlooked in a conspiracy of silence.

For example, the singularly pernicious sexual debauchery of Hollywood superstar Marlon Brando, whose instant sexual gratification with men and women is well publicised in glossy magazines, has entirely escaped public censure. Similarly, the insatiable sexual appetite with gay men of flamboyant Freddie Mercury of the Queen pop group was of no significance other than the fact he died of AIDS. Indeed, recent events involving Boy George and George Michael; both here and abroad; hardly warrant attention once sensational media reporting has died down.

Leading actors and comedians of stage, film and television, classical and pop musicians, influential members of business and entrepreneurial captain’s of industry are constantly ‘coming out’ – disclosing their homosexuality and no one bats an eyelid. Why should they because it’s now respectable? This holds true for prominent politicians and Ministers of State, including at least one who, elevated with a peerage, is HIV positive. Indeed, some MP’s have been exposed by the press for furtively using rent boys and in one case, another was found scantily dressed soliciting for anonymous gay sex on a homosexual dating website. Contrast that with the case of one MP who quickly resigned following disclosures of a ‘moment of madness’ on Clapham Common. Notwithstanding, he may subsequently have thought his resignation was unnecessary and so he unsuccessfully tried desperately to get back into national politics. None of this has, however, hindered any political career In contrast, Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, who admitted an extra-marital heterosexual affair was demoted from his ministerial position in the local government and communities department.

Instead, we ignore their sexual deviations because in the public’s view, sheer inspirational artistic talent or self-determination outmatches their narcissistic self-indulgent behaviour. And when numerous homosexual Minister’s of State enter into gay marriage we rush to congratulate them for their sheer bravado.

They In turn, and with increasing frequency, tell us that being gay is great and that those who think otherwise are detestable dogmatists who declare deceitful doctrines that are destructive and dangerous. In the new order of things, these critics are the real deviants who should be ostracised from the communion of public discourse. Hence the potential for hate speech crimes!

This is evidence of an attitudinal revolution in sexual mores whose source is directly related to the sexual rebellion of the Sixties. The Free Love movement, of men who loved women, is now exacting an unintended consequence of men who love men and the emergence of widespread catastrophic incurable diseases in the form of multi and coinfections. Gays thus irresistibly embrace an unambiguous deathstyle, which explains their addiction. More remarkable, indeed disturbing, are those known as ‘bug chasers’ who actively pursue it In a grotesque death-defying danse macabre with ‘gift givers’ at gay HIV positive parties.

Yet, even here, society is largely in denial about the emergence of these calamitous infections because they readily embrace the toxic source of its vulgar pathological cause. This is crass stupidity! It is like encouraging a person suffering with lung cancer to continue smoking, or giving whiskey to an alcoholic in the hope of sobering him up.

Nevertheless, without public or political opprobrium, the deadly inexorable embrace of Mother Nature has determined the painful and prejudicial parameters of Gay Pride. For the Grim Reaper is the ultimate arbiter that stubbornly mocks at the fortress-like door of the primeval pagan temple of strutting hedonistic gay hubris and self-indulgent human rights, for disease and death are doggedly a function of gayness that is far from carefree and merry.

The gay conspiracy is real. It involves political objectives in an effort to establish the supremacy of homosexuality and its related lifestyles in our society and culture. Sexual orientation policies like gay marriage, adoption, theology and the introduction of hate and speech crime neatly point to a future homosexual-dominated social order. Homosexuals define their personal identity by their sexual urges and desires. This causes them to believe that advancing the gay agenda is a fight for life. Their emotional urgency about their agenda, combined with a sense; fostered by their own propaganda; of being victims of injustice allows them to justify the use of any political tactic against those they perceive as enemies.

The homosexual lobby in the United States and Western Europe has achieved most of its political objectives over the last 60 years. The only major institution that currently stands as a threat is the Christian church. A key tenet of a liberal society is that it grants religious organisation the freedom to practise their religious faith. Any measure that prevents this is profoundly illiberal and oppressive.

The creation of a British Equality Commission is a reflection of Labour’s ideological agenda to eradicate prejudice. It also exposes Labour’s intolerance to the Christian church which is demonstrated by the fact they propose to force religious organisations to employ homosexuals even in cases where such groups view it as a sin.

Sadly, we observe a deliberate decline into decadence and cultural genocide.

Finally, during this discourse we will encounter many types of denial that characterise the culture of homosexuality. It will be observed that gays deceitfully create falsehoods to win over public opinion. This battle of wits is not entirely successful though, which explains why the exercise has to be repeated ad nauseam.  They aim to desensitise public opinion with repeated expressions of gayness-in-your-face - gay pride events, gay history months, gay pride awards, gay safe spaces, gay holding-hand events and memorial days for gay holocaust victims.  They really want you to ‘Get over it’ because if do not - your' re homophobic.

 

This is another good reason why their distortions should be challenged and exposed.

Myths and Methods

This website will expose homosexual myths and methods by directly challenging their deceit and propaganda. It is also controversial simply for revealing the duplicity surrounding homosexual issues and intentions. What does history tell us and what are the facts about the condition of being gay? Has it been a historical mistake for mankind not to nurture, let alone tolerate homosexuality and are all the worlds’ major religions wrong to reject it?

If you observe homosexual activism carefully, you will find their agenda deliberately spotlights two pillars of contention. First, is that of equality, which is a function of politics! Starting almost 150 years ago, homosexuals have increasingly been drawn into notions of human rights as a front for pushing their cause. We will examine how this has evolved over the years. The second consideration is that of developing a victim status to disarm opposition and thus garner support. This, again, draws them into politics that is revealed by the many formal/informal organisations they have created to pursue their aims within both Church and State.

There is another important aspect to this that should not go unrecognised. Riding tandem with the idea of human rights and notions of victimhood and inexorably bound by them are the perception that science is also irrevocably involved. They had to capture the professions and thereby science as their only hope of eventually defeating the arch-enemy - Christianity.

An early example of this is the 1957 Hooker study which homosexuals/pederasts connected to the Mattachine Society compromised.  Having done so they then went on to use it to get the American Psychiatric Association to declassify homosexuality as a normal variant of human behaviour. This will be more fully discussed later. Nevertheless, human rights and scientific research combined increasingly to generate sympathy in a hostile world.

We find early evidence of this in Germany as the homosexual culture developed starting in the mid-Nineteenth Century. By the 1930’s it was firmly entrenched throughout German society. The same pattern was later replicated in America and later in Great Britain and Europe.

For the first time psychiatry which championed itself as ‘enlightened’ and ‘scientific’ challenged the historical Christian paradigm of homosexuality as a sin and freed it from moral evaluation. It now became, among others, a mere recreational alternative emancipated from any negative value-judgements. It was different but not inferior. Such is the grip of “scientific enlightenment” today that Christian opinion is now ignored or denounced as fanatical religious bigotry.

Since then and with increasing vigour, sexual rights and homosexual research by gays has coincided to intensify the notion of victimhood to such an extent that it has become a rapacious shibboleth just short of a sacred apotheosis. Seemingly born of compassion, a new morality has emerged which embraces gay aspirations as never before. Queer science has proven superior to theology, and now dominates political discourse to the extent that any challenge is treated with defiant derision deserving of censure and scorn. Leading homosexuals now emboldened label a new emergent Christianofascist and heretically declare that “gay is good, gay is Godly”.

More recently homosexuals have deceitfully aligned themselves with the idea their condition is innate and immutable like that of race. Thus, by associating homosexuality with the race issue it serves to emphasise the lie they were born that way. So, they argue, if this is the result of nature they cannot be held accountable for what they do? Of course, this is a manifest falsehood based on propaganda and distortion that will be exposed later.

Further, race is primarily a non-emotive condition that is entirely heritable, absolutely immutable, principally non-behavioural and inherently benign. Homosexual ‘orientation’, on the other hand, is defined by changeable sexual urges at a given time in a person’s life. It is an exotic impulse that is not heritable for which no purely deterministic mechanism has been established. This explains why the gay gene is as illusive as ever. It still has not been identified and remains confined to its theoretical base.

Indeed, if we adopt the Kinsey seven point scale of gradations of heterosexuality (0) to homosexuality (6) we identify the raising or lowering of homosexual urges that are subject to variation and change. This is irreducibly behaviour that cannot be regarded as inherently benign. Consider another taxing dilemma, that further complicates the sexual enigma. More confusing would be a bisexual gene because it would have to characterise the capricious and uncertain nature of the condition.

It should be observed that homosexual conduct is not comparable to other characteristics usually protected by civil rights laws. So, for example, race, colour, sex or national origins are historically protected against discrimination on the basis they are inborn, involuntary, innate and immutable. Homosexuality does not share these traits, despite the fact in recent years the condition has become decriminalised. Indeed, it is a remarkable testimony of persistence and resolution by gays that current laws protect and thus encourage aberrant and self-destructive behaviour.

But as we will discover, no amount of psychotherapy can change a person’s race, but it can successfully deal with sexual orientation. The gay response to this conundrum is to reject the efficacy of therapy. In doing so, they deny both fact and reality! A common feature of gay politics.

More remarkable; even though still regarded as a homosexually based pathological disorder; transsexuals who feel emotionally drawn to the opposite sex to that in which they were born, now have the legal sanction to lie about it and formally assume that sex. Should others disclose this fact, they breach the criminal law.

Indeed, the primacy of homosexuality within the criminal law is such that a hate murder of a gay is treated more harshly than a homosexual who murders for lust. Yet, as we will see, the latter is more frequent than the former. Equally, the law has thus less regard for those who murder for fun, malice or greed. Inequality is thus inbuilt into English law because all victims do not share the same legal status. The principle that all men are equal before the law has now been abandoned. This new provision breaches Article 7 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights that confirms, “All are equal before the law.”

Denial as a Defence Mechanism

Most of us have a view on homosexuality, but few express it openly. There is a natural reticence to this, because it’s about perceived abnormal behaviour, which features a prominent sinister dark side. If homosexuality is menacing why should we not want to know more. So, why is there an element of denial here?

Denial, in psychological/psychiatric terms, is a defensive strategy to minimize anxiety. It is defined and conceptualised in several ways, which differ according to theory. In classical Freudian terms, denial is a defence mechanism invoked by a person when there is a danger that he or she will become aware of or act on unconscious primitive impulses that are unacceptable. We defend against such impulses, it is said, by unconsciously limiting our awareness of them, or perhaps attributing them to others.

Simply put, an unconscious defence mechanism is characterised by a refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts or feelings. This is evident with many soldiers who, on their return home, refuse to speak of their war experiences.

Equally, gay people engage in defence mechanisms as well. This insulates their consciousness from the deleterious consequences of their dysfunctional behaviour. But what about heterosexuals limiting their awareness of gay impulses? Now that is another story because it involves self-delusion of a different kind.

In short, people are intimidated from critical thought or discourse because of the assumed or perceived hostile consequences of falling foul of political correctness that masquerades as the new morality. Notice how quickly gays brand opponents as bigots filled with irrational hate. It’s ever so subtle, but the aim is shame-reversal.

The accusation of homophobia suppresses rational thought in an attempt literally to intimidate critics. It is an exercise in manipulative malice aimed at censorship through bullying. The totalitarian aim is to bend-minds. This grotesque phobic invention is an effort to win arguments by default by the trick of equating visceral hatred of individuals with reasoned opposition to the homosexual agenda. It is used as a catch-all label to discredit disagreement with any aspect of gay rights. It adopts a pseudo-scientific grammatical form by parodying the language of medicine and psychiatry that defines real problems. Yet, in all this, there is no such thing as clinical homophobia.

Ultimately, it is the totalitarian use of language designed to oppose gay orthodoxy as irrational. As we saw in Soviet Russia, the end-point came when ‘irrational’ political dissidents holding unacceptable opinions were banged-up in mental institutions. One might argue that our current pursuit of political correctness regarding gay rights has nothing to do with the former Soviet Union. That would be patently misleading since the dogma of political correctness has its origins in Marxist theory. Until recently it used to be called the New Left,  Left-wing lunacy, the loony Left or social engineering.

 

When in government, Harriet Harman MP, usefully described as a Labour-politburo Commissar let slip at a Labour-only meeting that they had ‘sleeper ministers’ in various government departments monitoring ‘gay rights’. This had sinister echoes of the Stasis police of former Communist East Germany. It was but another cynical attempt to fast track and enhance pink politics. And watch out for any remark made at work that appears to challenge homosexual politics. Supposed offenders have compulsorily to attend ‘equality and diversity’ classes, or face the sack. It’s not difficult to separate this from Marxist classical brainwashing theory through re-education.

 

That was yesteryear, but what happens today and tomorrow?

 

 

 

Now under active reconstruction, this is a dynamic website that is constantly revised with new information.
 

 

Copyright     |     Contac t Us     |      Top     |     Next

 

 

                                                                                                                              

 

 

The status of homosexuality is a political question, representing a historically rooted socially determined choice regarding the ends of human sexuality.

 

It requires a political analysis.

 

        Prominent pro-homosexual American Psychiatrist Ronald Beyer