The Real Homosexual Agenda Part 2




“The Overhauling of Straight America”

The following article (below) titled “The Overhauling of Straight America” was written by Marshall K. Kirk and Erastes Pill and appeared in Guide Magazine, a homosexual publication, in November 1987.

This landmark article has become a “bible” of the homosexual movement, and has since been widely re-published on the Internet and elsewhere. It outlines strategies and techniques for a successful widespread propaganda campaign to confuse and deceive the American people and demonize opponents.  Like all propaganda, their methods are based not on solid intellectual arguments, but instead upon emotional manipulation of the public in an attempt to gain widespread sympathy and approval for homosexual behavior.  

As you read this, keep in mind that it was written in 1987 — over two decades ago — and look around to see how far the homosexual movement has gotten using these techniques.

SCM Note – The article is entitled ‘The overhauling of straight America’ but really the strategies outlined in detail, have been used across the Western world. Once you have read through this, you should be left in no doubt as to what the Real Homosexual Agenda is, and how it has forced itself through subversion and manipulation to the forefront of the political spectrum, and how it is on the verge of redefining cultural morality. Nothing that is normal and natural needs to go to such lengths to be viewed as normal and natural. As you will see, everything that has been laid out in this instruction manual, has come to pass.

The Overhauling of Straight America
by Marshall K. Kirk and Erastes Pill

The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay rights. To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of with keen emotion. Ideally, we would have straights register differences in sexual preference the way they register different tastes for ice cream or sports games: she likes strawberry and I like vanilla; he follows baseball and I follow football. No big deal.

At least in the beginning, we are seeking public desensitization and nothing more. We do not need and cannot expect a full “appreciation” or “understanding” of homosexuality from the average American. You can forget about trying to persuade the masses that homosexuality is a good thing. But if only you can get them to think that it is just another thing, with a shrug of their shoulders, then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won. And to get to shoulder-shrug stage, gays as a class must cease to appear mysterious, alien, loathsome and contrary. A large-scale media campaign will be required in order to change the image of gays in America.

And any campaign to accomplish this turnaround should do six things.


The principle behind this advice is simple: almost any behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it at close quarters and among your acquaintances. The acceptability of the new behavior will ultimately hinge on the number of one’s fellows doing it or accepting it. One may be offended by its novelty at first– many, in times past, were momentarily scandalized by “streaking,” eating goldfish, and premarital sex. But as long as Joe Six-pack feels little pressure to perform likewise, and as long as the behavior in question presents little threat to his physical and financial security, he soon gets used to it and life goes on. The skeptic may still shake his head and think “people arc crazy these days,” but over time his objections are likely to become more reflective, more philosophical, less emotional.

The way to benumb raw sensitivities about homosexuality is to have a lot of people talk a great deal about the subject in a neutral or supportive way. Open and frank talk makes the subject seem less furtive, alien, and sinful, more above-board. Constant talk builds the impression that public opinion is at least divided on the subject, and that a sizable segment accepts or even practices homosexuality. Even rancorous debates between opponents and defenders serve the purpose of desensitization so long as “respectable” gays are front and center to make their own pitch. The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome.

And when we say talk about homosexuality, we mean just that. In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose inside the tent–only later his unsightly derriere!

Where we talk is important. The visual media, film and television, are plainly the most powerful image-makers in Western civilization. The average American household watches over seven hours of TV daily. Those hours open up a gateway into the private world of straights, through which a Trojan horse might be passed. As far as desensitization is concerned, the medium is the message– of normalcy. So far, gay Hollywood has provided our best covert weapon in the battle to desensitize the mainstream. Bit by bit over the past ten years, gay characters and gay themes have been introduced into TV programs and films (though often this has been done to achieve comedic and ridiculous affects). On the whole the impact has been encouraging. The prime-time presentation of Consenting Adults on a major network in 1985 is but one high-water mark in favorable media exposure of gay issues. But this should be just the beginning of a major publicity blitz by gay America.

Would a desensitizing campaign of open and sustained talk about gay issues reach every rabid opponent of homosexuality? Of course not. While public opinion is one primary source of mainstream values, religious authority is the other. When conservative churches condemn gays, there are only two things we can do to confound the homophobia of true believers. First, we can use talk to muddy the moral waters. This means publicizing support for gays by more moderate churches, raising theological objections of our own about conservative interpretations of biblical teachings, and exposing hatred and inconsistency. Second, we can undermine the moral authority of homophobic churches by portraying them as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the times and with the latest findings of psychology. Against the mighty pull of institutional Religion one must set the mightier draw of Science & Public Opinion (the shield and sword of that accursed “secular humanism”). Such an unholy alliance has worked well against churches before, on such topics as divorce and abortion. With enough open talk about the prevalence and acceptability of homosexuality, that alliance can work again here.


In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector. If gays are presented, instead, as a strong and prideful tribe promoting a rigidly nonconformist and deviant lifestyle, they are more likely to be seen as a public menace that justifies resistance and oppression. For that reason, we must forego the temptation to strut our “gay pride” publicly when it conflicts with the Gay Victim image. And we must walk the fine line between impressing straights with our great numbers, on the one hand, and sparking their hostile paranoia–“They are all around us!”–on the other.

A media campaign to promote the Gay Victim image should make use of symbols which reduce the mainstream’s sense of threat, which lower it’s guard, and which enhance the plausibility of victimization. In practical terms, this means that jaunty mustachioed musclemen would keep very low profile in gay commercials and other public presentations, while sympathetic figures of nice young people, old people, and attractive women would be featured. (It almost goes without saying that groups on the farthest margin of acceptability such as NAMBLA, [Ed note — North American Man-Boy Love Association] must play no part at all in such a campaign: suspected child-molesters will never look like victims.)

Now, there are two different messages about the Gay Victim that are worth communicating. First, the mainstream should be told that gays are victims of fate, in the sense that most never had a choice to accept or reject their sexual preference. The message must read: “As far as gays can tell, they were born gay, just as you were born heterosexual or white or black or bright or athletic. Nobody ever tricked or seduced them; they never made a choice, and are not morally blameworthy. What they do isn’t willfully contrary – it’s only natural for them. This twist of fate could as easily have happened to you!”

Straight viewers must be able to identify with gays as victims. Mr. and Mrs. Public must be given no extra excuses to say, “they are not like us.” To this end, the persons featured in the public campaign should be decent and upright, appealing and admirable by straight standards, completely unexceptionable in appearance–in a word, they should be indistinguishable from the straights we would like to reach. (To return to the terms we have used in previous articles, spokesmen for our cause must be R-type “straight gays” rather than Q-type “homosexuals on display.”) Only under such conditions will the message be read correctly: “These folks are victims of a fate that could have happened to me.”

By the way, we realize that many gays will question an advertising technique, which might threaten to make homosexuality look like some dreadful disease, which strikes fated “victims”. But the plain fact is that the gay community is weak and must manipulate the powers of the weak, including the play for sympathy. In any case, we compensate for the negative aspect of this gay victim appeal under Principle 4. (Below)

The second message would portray gays as victims of society. The straight majority does not recognize the suffering it brings to the lives of gays and must be shown: graphic pictures of brutalized gays; dramatizations of job and housing insecurity, loss of child custody, and public humiliation: and the dismal list goes on.


A media campaign that casts gays as society’s victims and encourages straights to be their protectors must make it easier for those to respond to assert and explain their new protectiveness. Few straight women, and even fewer straight men, will want to defend homosexuality boldly as such. Most would rather attach their awakened protective impulse to some principle of justice or law, to some general desire for consistent and fair treatment in society. Our campaign should not demand direct support for homosexual practices, should instead take anti-discrimination as its theme. The right to free speech, freedom of beliefs, freedom of association, due process and equal protection of laws-these should be the concerns brought to mind by our campaign.

It is especially important for the gay movement to hitch its cause to accepted standards of law and justice because its straight supporters must have at hand a cogent reply to the moral arguments of its enemies. The homophobes clothe their emotional revulsion in the daunting robes of religious dogma, so defenders of gay rights must be ready to counter dogma with principle.


In order to make a Gay Victim sympathetic to straights you have to portray him as Everyman. But an additional theme of the campaign should be more aggressive and upbeat: to offset the increasingly bad press that these times have brought to homosexual men and women, the campaign should paint gays as superior pillars of society. Yes, yes, we know–this trick is so old it creaks. Other minorities use it all the time in ads that announce proudly, “Did you know that this Great Man (or Woman) was _________?” But the message is vital for all those straights who still picture gays as “queer” people– shadowy, lonesome, fail, drunken, suicidal, child- snatching misfits.

The honor roll of prominent gay or bisexual men and women is truly eyepopping. From Socrates to Shakespeare, from Alexander the Great to Alexander Hamilton, from Michelangelo to Walt Whitman, from Sappho to Gertrude Stein, the list is old hat to us but shocking news to heterosexual America. In no time, a skillful and clever media campaign could have the gay community looking like the veritable fairy godmother to Western Civilization.

Along the same lines, we shouldn’t overlook the Celebrity Endorsement. The celebrities can be straight (God bless you, Ed Asner, wherever you are) or gay.


At a later stage of the media campaign for gay rights-long after other gay ads have become commonplace-it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified. (This will be all the more necessary because, by that time, the entrenched enemy will have quadrupled its output of vitriol and disinformation.) Our goal is here is twofold. First, we seek to replace the mainstream’s self-righteous pride about its homophobia with shame and guilt. Second, we intend to make the antigays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types.

The public should be shown images of ranting homophobes whose secondary traits and beliefs disgust middle America. These images might include: the Ku Klux Klan demanding that gays be burned alive or castrated; bigoted southern ministers drooling with hysterical hatred to a degree that looks both comical and deranged; menacing punks, thugs, and convicts speaking coolly about the “fags” they have killed or would like to kill; a tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed.

A campaign to vilify the victimizers is going to enrage our most fervid enemies, of course. But what else can we say? The shoe fits, and we should make them try it on for size, with all of America watching.


Any massive campaign of this kind would require unprecedented expenditures for months or even years–an unprecedented fundraising drive.

Effective advertising is a costly proposition: several million dollars would get the ball rolling. There are 10-15 million primarily homosexual adults in this country: if each one of them donated just two dollars to the campaign, its war chest would actually rival that of its most vocal enemies. And because those gays not supporting families usually have more discretionary income than average, they could afford to contribute much more.

But would they? Or is the gay community as feckless, selfish, uncommitted, and short-sighted as its critics claim? We will never know unless the new campaign simultaneously launches a concerted nationwide appeal for funding support from both known and anonymous donors. The appeal should be directed both at gays and at straights who care about social justice.

In the beginning, for reasons to be explained in a moment, the appeal for funds may have to be launched exclusively through the gay press–national magazines, local newspapers, flyers at bars, notices in glossy skin magazines. Funds could also come through the outreach of local gay organizations on campuses and in metropolitan areas. Eventually, donations would be solicited directly alongside advertisements in the major straight media.

There would be no parallel to such an effort in the history of the gay community in America. If it failed to generate the needed capital to get started; there would be little hope for the campaign and l little hope for major progress toward gay rights in the near future. For the moment let us suppose that gays could see how donations would greatly serve their long-term interest, and that sufficient funds could be raised. An heroic assumption.


Without access to TV, radio, and the mainstream press, there will be no campaign. This is a tricky problem, became many impresarios of the media simply refuse to accept what they call “issue-advertising” — persuasive advertising can provoke a storm of resentment from the public and from sponsors, which is bad for business. The courts have confirmed the broadcaster’s right to refuse any “issue advertising” he dislikes.

What exactly constitutes “issue advertising”? It evidently does not include platitudinous appeals to the virtues of family unity (courtesy of the Mormons) neither does it include tirades against perfidious Albion courtesy of Lyndon LaRouche); neither does it include reminders that a Mind-Is-a Terrible Thing to Waste (courtesy of the United Negro College Fund); neither does it include religious shows which condemn gay “sinners”; neither does it include condemnations of nuclear war or race discrimination–at least not in Massachusetts. Some guys get all the breaks.

What issue advertising does include these days is almost any communiqué presented openly by a homosexual organization. The words “gay” and “homosexual”‘ are considered controversial whenever they appear.

Because most straightforward appeals are impossible, the National Gay Task Force has had to cultivate quiet backroom liaisons with broadcast companies and newsrooms in order to make sure that issues important to the gay community receive some coverage; but such an arrangement is hardly ideal, of course, because it means that the gay community’s image is controlled by the latest news event instead of by careful design–and recently most of the news about gays has been negative.

So what can be done to crash the gates of the major media? Several things, advanced in several stages.


Newspapers and magazines may very well be hungrier for gay advertising dollars than television and radio arc. And the cost of ads in print is generally lower. But remember that the press, for the most part, is only read by better-educated Americans, many of who are already more accepting of homosexuality in any case. So to get more impact for our dollars, we should skip the New Republic and New Left Review readers and head for Time, People, and the National Enquirer. (Of course, the gay community may have to establish itself as a regular advertising presence in more sophisticated forums first before it is accepted into the mass press.)

While we’re storming the battlements with salvos of ink, we should also warm the mainstream up a bit with a subtle national campaign on highway billboards. In simple bold print on dark backgrounds, a series of unobjectionable messages should be introduced:




And so on. Each sign will tap patriotic sentiment, each message will drill a seemingly agreeable proposition into mainstream heads – a “public service message” suited to our purposes. And, if their owners will permit it, each billboard will be signed, in slightly smaller letters, “Courtesy of the National Gay Task Force” – to build positive associations and get the public used to seeing such sponsorship.


As for television and radio, a more elaborate plan may be needed to break the ice. For openers, naturally, we must continue to encourage the appearance of favorable gay characters in films and TV shows. Daytime talk shows also remain a useful avenue for exposure.

But to speed things up we might consider a bold stratagem to gain media attention. The scheme we have in mind would require careful preparations, yet it would save expense even while it elevated the visibility and stature of the gay movement overnight.

Well before the next elections for national office, we might lay careful plans to run symbolic gay candidates for every high political office in this country. (Such plans would have to deal somehow with the tricky problem of inducing gays and straights to sign enough endorsement petitions to get us on the ballot.) Our 50- 250 candidates would participate in such debates as they could, run gay-themed advertisements coordinated at our national headquarters, and demand equal time on the air. They could then graciously pull out of the races before the actual elections, while formally endorsing more viable straight contenders. (With malicious humor, perhaps, in some states we could endorse our most rabid opponents.) It is essential not to ask people actually to vote Yea or Nay on the gay issue at this early stage: such action would end up committing most to the Nay position and would only tally huge and visible defeats for our cause.

Through such a political campaign, the mainstream would get over the initial shock of seeing gay ads, and the acceptability of such ads would be fortified by the most creditable context possible; and all this would be accomplished before non-electoral advertising was attempted by the gay community. During the campaign all hell would break loose, but if we behaved courageously and respectable our drive would gain legitimacy in and case and might even become a cause celebre. If all went as planned, the somewhat desensitized public and the major networks themselves would be ‘readied for the next step of our program.


At this point the gay community has its foot in the door, and it is time to ask the networks to accept gay sponsorship of certain ads and shows. Timing is critical: The request must be made immediately after our national political ads disappear. Failing that, we should request sponsorship the next time one of the networks struts its broad-mindedness by televising a film or show with gay characters or themes. If they wish to look consistent instead of hypocritical, we’ll have them on the spot.

But the networks would still be forced to say No unless we made their resistance look patently unreasonable, and possibly illegal. We’d do just that by proposing “gay ads” patterned exactly after those currently sponsored by the Mormons and others. As usual, viewers would be treated to squeak-clean skits on the importance of family harmony and understanding –this time the narrator would end by saying, “This message was brought to you by –the National Gay Task Force.” All very quiet and subdued. Remember: exposure is everything, and the medium is the message.

The gay community should join forces with other civil liberties groups of respectable cast to promote bland messages about America the Melting Pot, always ending with an explicit reference to the Task Force of some other gay organization. Making the best of a bad situation, we can also propose sympathetic media appeals for gifts and donations to fund AIDS research–if Jerry Lewis and the March of Dimes can do it, so can we. Our next indirect step will be to advertise locally on behalf of support groups peripheral to the gay community: frowzy straight moms and dads announcing phone numbers and meeting times for “Parents of Gays” or similar gatherings. Can’t you just see such ads now, presented between messages from the Disabled Vets and the Postal Workers Union?


By this point, our salami tactics will have carved out, slice by slice, a large portion of access to the mainstream media. So what then? It would finally be time to bring gay ads out of the closet. The messages of such ads should directly address lingering public fears about homosexuals as loathsome and contrary aliens. For examples, the following are possible formats for TV or radio commercials designed to chip away at chronic misperceptions.

Format A – for Familiarization:  The Testimonial.

To make gays seem less mysterious, present a series of short spots featuring the boy-or girl-next-door, fresh and appealing, or warm and lovable grandma grandpa types. Seated in homey surroundings, they respond to an off camera interviewer with assurance, good nature, and charm. Their comments bring out three social facts:

There is someone special in their life, a long-term relationship (to stress gay stability, monogamy, commitment);

Their families are very important to them, and are supportive of them (to stress that gays are not “anti-family,” and that families need not be anti-gay.)

As far as they can remember they have always been gay, and were probably born gay; they certainly never decided on a preference one way or the other (stressing that gays are doing what is natural for them, and are not being willfully contrary). The subjects should be interviewed alone, not with their lovers or children, for to include others in the picture would unwisely raise disturbing questions about the complexities of gay social relations, which these commercials could not explain. It is best instead to take one thing at a time.

Format B – for Positive Associations:  The Celebrity Spot.

While it might be useful to present celebrity endorsements by currently popular gay figures and straight sympathizers (Johnny Mathis? Marlo Thomas?), the homophobia climate of America would make such brash endorsements unlikely in the near future. So early celebrity spots will instead identify historical gay or bisexual personalities who are illustrious and dignified…and dead. The ads could be sardonic and indirect. For example, over regal music and a portrait or two, a narrator might announce simply: Michelangelo (an art class), Tchaikovsky (a music class), Tennessee Williams (a drama class), etc.

Format C – for Victim Sympathy:  Our Campaign to Stop Child Abuse.

As we said earlier, there are many ways to portray gays as victims of discrimination: images of brutality, tales of job loss and family separation, and so on. But we think something like the following 30-sccond commercials would get to the heart of the matter best of all.

The camera slowly moves in on a middle-class teenager, sitting alone in his semi-darkened bedroom. The boy is pleasing and unexceptional in appearance, except that he has been roughed up and is staring silently, pensively, with evident distress. As the camera gradually focuses in on his face, a narrator comments: It will happen to one in every ten sons. As he grows up he will realize that he feels differently about things than most of his friends. If he lets it show, he’ll be an outsider made fun of, humiliated, attacked. If he confides in his parents, they may throw him out of the house, onto the streets. Some will say he is “anti- family.” Nobody will let him be himself. So he will have to hide. From his friends, his family. And that’s hard. It’s tough enough to be a kid these days, but to be the one in ten… A message from the National Gay Task Force.

What is nice about such an ad is that it would economically portray gays as innocent and vulnerable, victimized and misunderstood, surprisingly numerous yet not menacing. It also renders the “anti-family” charge absurd and hypocritical.

Format D – for Identification with Victims:  The Old Switcheroo.

The mainstream will identify better with the plight of gays if straights can, once in a while, walk a mile in gay shoes. A humorous television or radio ad to help them do this might involve a brief animated or dramatized scenario, as follows.

The camera approaches the mighty oak door of the boss’s office, which swings open, and the camera (which represents you the viewer) enters the room. Behind the oversized desk sits a fat and scowling old curmudgeon chomping on a cigar. He looks up at the camera (i.e. at the viewer) and snarls, ” So it’s you, Smithers. Well you’re fired!” The voice of a younger man is heard to reply with astonishment, “But–but–Mr. Thomburg, I’ve been with your company for ten years. I thought you liked my work.” The boss responds, with a tone of disgust, “Yes, yes, Smithers your work is quite adequate. But I’ve heard rumors that you’ve been seen around town with some kind of girlfriend. A girlfriend! Frankly I’m shocked. We’re not about to start hiring any heterosexuals in this company. Now get out.” The younger man speaks once more: “But boss, that’s just not fair! What if it were you?” The boss glowers back as the camera pulls quickly out of the room and the big door slams shut. Printed on the door: “A message from the National Gay Task Force.”

One can easily imagine similar episodes involving housing or other discrimination.

Format E – for Vilification of Victimizers:  Damn the Torpedoes.

We have already indicated some of the images which might be damaging to the homophobic vendetta: ranting and hateful religious extremists neo-Nazis, and Ku Klux Klansmen made to look evil and ridiculous (hardly a difficult task).

These images should be combined with those of their gay victims by a method propagandists call the “bracket technique.” For example, for a few seconds an unctuous beady-eyed Southern preacher is seen pounding the pulpit in rage about “those sick, abominable creatures.” While his tirade continues over the soundtrack, the picture switches to pathetic photos of gays who look decent, harmless, and likable; and then we cut back to the poisonous face of the preacher, and so forth. The contrast speaks for itself. The effect is devastating.

Format F – for Funds:  SOS

Alongside or during these other persuasive advertisements, we would have to solicit donations so that the campaign might continue. Direct appeals from celebrities (preferable living ones, thank you) might be useful here. All appeals must stress that money can be given anonymously (e.g. via money orders) and that all donations are confidential. “We can’t help unless you help,” and all that.

The Time Is Now

We have sketched out here a blueprint for transforming the social values of straight America. At the core of our program is a media campaign to change the way the average citizens view homosexuality. It is quite easy to find fault with such a campaign. We have tried to be practical and specific here, but the proposals may still have a visionary sheen.

There are one hundred reasons why the campaign could not be done or would be risky. But there are at least 20 million good reasons why some such program must be tried in the coming years: the welfare and happiness of every gay man and woman in this country demand it. As the last large, legally oppressed minority in American society, it is high time that gays took effective measures to rejoin the mainstream in pride and strength. We believe that, like it or not, such a campaign is the only way of doing so anytime soon.

And, let us repeat, time may be running out. The AIDS epidemic is sparking anger and fear in the heartland of straight America. As the virus leaks out of homosexual circles and into the rest of society, we need have no illusions about who is receiving the blame. The ten years ahead may decide for the next forty whether gays claim their liberty and equality or are driven back, once again, as America’s caste of detested untouchables. It’s more than a quip: speak now or forever hold your peace.


Two years after “The Overhauling of Straight America” appeared, the book “After the Ball — How America will conquer its fear and hatred of Gays in the 1990’s”, by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen,  was published.  After the Ball expanded on these ideas, largely from the standpoint of psychological manipulation and persuasion tactics of Americans toward the homosexual cause, complete with sample print ads to use, as well as suggestions for radio and TV spots.

The Real Homosexual Agenda


A Self-Styled ‘Gay Revolutionary’ Offers a Challenge to Straight America:


“We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, …wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us. All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our holy gods are handsome young men. …We shall be victorious because we are fueled with the ferocious bitterness of the oppressed…”

Michael Swift – Boston Gay Community News – February 15-21, 1987 (From the Traditional Values Coalition Special Report, Vol. 18., No. 10)

Clearly not everyone in the homosexual movement is an extremist. Many are solid, law-abiding citizens who make important daily contributions to our society and do not believe in confrontation or hard-line rhetoric. However, many militant homosexuals and their supporters have different beliefs. They have adopted the following tactics with the goal of forcing their beliefs on society:

• eliminating free speech by harassing and attempting to silence anyone who disagrees with them;

• preying on children by indoctrinating and recruiting them into their lifestyle;

• imposing their beliefs on others through activist judges and lawmakers requiring that everyone actively promote homosexuality in every institution (schools, workplace, churches, etc.);

• destroying marriage and undermining the traditional family in order to annihilate any moral standard of behavior;

• intolerance toward anyone who does not willingly submit to their agenda;

• fighting for a discriminatory and unconstitutional double standard of justice by demanding that crimes against homosexuals be punished more severely than the same crimes against heterosexuals through ‘hate crimes’ legislation; and

• deceptively portraying homosexuality as a harmless and victimless behavior.

The homosexual agenda is based on intolerance of anyone who disagrees with them and is a well-coordinated, well-financed, wide-ranging, intensive effort to infiltrate and influence organisations and society at large in order to spread misinformation with the goal of recruiting children.

Children are the prize to the winners of the cultural war. Those who control what young people are taught and what they experience will determine the future course for our nation. The predominant value system of an entire culture can be overhauled by those with unlimited access to children. Homosexual activists understand very clearly how important children are to their cause.

Several very interesting special reports on the homosexual movement, information not disseminated by the mainstream media, are available free of charge. There are also excellent organisations which provide information about the homosexual movement, how it affects you, what what you can do about it, which companies push the homosexual agenda and how those who desire to come out of that lifestyle can be helped.

“Tolerance” is the buzzword and central theme for the homosexual movement. However, few people understand what they really mean by “tolerance” and how they have twisted its meaning to support their agenda. As a result, most do not recognise the threat it poses to us, our children and our freedoms.

“Tolerance” means simply to recognise and respect other’s beliefs and practices without necessarily agreeing or sympathising with them. However, when many homosexuals use “tolerance,” they mean going far beyond respecting their rights; they also demand approval, praise and endorsement of their beliefs, values and lifestyle. What other group in this country could demand that? Their attitude and demands are neither fair, right nor constitutional.

Our children are being bombarded in school with the homosexual version of “tolerance.” In other words, all beliefs are equal, all values are equal, all lifestyles are equal and all truth is equal. This is the basis upon which our children are being indoctrinated by the propaganda that their beliefs and values which they learned in their home are no different from those of a homosexual, or a pornographer, or someone involved in adultery or fornication, etc. Children are being taught that all truth is relative to the individual. Knowing right from wrong doesn’t matter. To say something is right or wrong is not being tolerant. This is today’s “tolerance” pushed by homosexual activists.

It is clear that the distorted definition of “tolerance” has many dangerous implications, and unless society stands up for what is right, we will increasingly find ourselves with fewer and fewer freedoms. First, if our young people are confused about truth and believe the definition of “tolerance” they are being subjected to, they will not be able to determine right from wrong. In fact, in a national study among youth, it was discovered that children who do not accept an objective standard of truth become: 36% more likely to lie to you as a parent, 48% more likely to cheat on an exam, 2 times more likely to physically hurt someone, 2 times more likely to watch a pornographic film, 3 times more likely to use illegal drugs and 6 times more likely to attempt suicide. It is clear that how our youth think about truth has a definite effect on their behavior and the choices they make.

Second, our freedom of speech is being taken away little by little every day. We see that happening throughout society. If anyone exercises their Constitutional right of free speech and disagrees with the homosexual agenda, they are met with intolerant hatred, shouted down and called names. Homosexuals attempt to justify their actions by claiming any view different than theirs is ‘intolerant’ (using their definition) and should therefore be repressed.

Third, with the twisted version of “tolerance” comes a double standard. A few years ago, an “art” show displayed a crucifix, a Christian symbol, suspended in a jar of urine. While it enraged people of faith, it was supported by the homosexual community and others as “art.” However, why is it that displaying a homosexual symbol in a jar of urine would be considered a hate crime? Using the same criteria they use on others, then a crucifix in a jar of urine would also be intolerant and a hate crime.

The danger and hypocrisy of this distorted version of “tolerance” are clear. What they call “tolerance” is really persecution of anyone who disagrees with them. Our society is based on the free exchange of ideas and if any group is successful at taking that away and silencing the opposition, then we are all less free. What they are doing to others is exactly what they claim others are doing to them! (Josh McDowell Ministry)

The homosexual lifestyle is extremely unhealthy. First, the standards of behavior among homosexuals are far different than in the heterosexual community in terms of the depravity that is accepted and even expected. Second, the chance of contracting AIDS is significantly higher as well.

A habit or behavior is deemed unhealthy if it has been proven to have debilitating results. Smoking, drugs, alcohol abuse, overeating and other behaviors all fall into this category. But research has shown that homosexual behavior has the same results: nationally, less than 2% of practicing homosexuals live to age 65. Homosexuality deprives men and women of happiness (ask those who have walked away from that lifestyle) and lends itself to the spread of sexually transmitted diseases like AIDS, etc.

If the tobacco companies tried to get on a school campus to convince children to smoke, they would never be allowed. If the breweries shoed up and tried to convince under-age children to start drinking, parents would be up in arms. If health classes started teaching kids to overeat, or shop classes started teaching students how to build bombs, society would be outraged.

Yet pro-homosexual groups are encouraged to come to schools and teach young children how nice and normal homosexuality is. Today children are actually being indoctrinated about the benefits of homosexuality, in spite of the fact is has been proven to be an unhealthy lifestyle.

In October 1999 the Associated Press reported that “Something so unspeakable is said to have taken place in Apartment 1207 that half the neighbors have moved out.” What happened in Apartment 1207 that was so horrific? According to police, two homosexual men gagged 13 year-old Jesse Dirkhising, strapped him face down on a mattress and, while one watched, the other brutally murdered the boy by repeatedly raping him until he died. So why did the Associated Press wait several weeks before running the story, fail to mention that the two men were homosexuals, and then release the story only in local areas? Why didn’t the major news networks make that their lead story and follow it through to see whether the two men are convicted?

The media yawned and looked the other way when Jesse was murdered. Compare that with the murder of homosexual Matthew Shepard that received front-page coverage for months and well over a thousand articles nationwide. Is the rape and brutal murder of a thirteen year old boy by homosexuals any less tragic? Apparently the major print and TV news organizations think so. Once again the pro-homosexual double standard is clear. This is the climate that “hate crime” legislation fosters.

The Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN) had their annual conference in Atlanta. Their goal: train the principals, bypass the Bible, and control curriculum. According to the Concerned Women for America, G.L.S.E.N. is targeting Southern schools in particular. And this conference will address that with a host of workshops. Some of those offered include: “How To Train Your School Principals,” “Deflecting Bible Bullets,” and “Integrating Lesbian and Gay Students Into Literature Curriculum.” These are their goals, and their target group starts with kindergarten. (Center for Reclaiming America)

“Hate crimes” legislation is dangerous to us all for two reasons. First, it allows greater punishment for those who think bad thoughts while committing a crime than those who don’t. It gives the thought police the power to punish people based on what they’re thinking, which is a policy prevalent in communist countries. Criminals should be punished for their actions, not their thoughts. If we start down that road, where do we stop? Who knows, what you’re thinking right now might even be a crime! Second, it assigns greater penalties to those who commit crimes against homosexuals than those who commit crimes against heterosexuals. Not only is that un-American, it is blatantly discriminatory and unconstitutional as well because homosexuals are given greater protection under the law than anyone else. Crimes against homosexuals are just as serious as crimes against heterosexuals, and in either case perpetrators should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, but the fundamental principal in America is “equal protection under the law” as stated in the Constitution, instituted to protect all citizens equally against injustice.  Also, find out how to intelligently discuss hate crime laws, which are unnecessary and a threat to free speech as well.

One of the demands of homosexuals is protected class status as a ‘minority.’ Although they want special protection and special rights, being homosexual isn’t the same as being an ethnic minority. We choose our sexual behaviors, not our skin color. Find out why homosexuals are not a minority, but a powerful special interest group. In truth, to equate gays with any true ethnic group is a travesty of logic. Homosexuality can only be equated and compared with other sexual behaviors or fantasies, legal and illegal, like heterosexuality, sadomasochism, bestiality, necrophilia, rape and pedophilia. Why homosexual behavior should merit special treatment is a question gay extremists are hard-pressed to answer logically.

In addition, homosexuals make the claim that as an entire class they are seriously “oppressed.” However, that conclusion cannot stand when seen in light of marketing studies done by gays themselves that show them to be enormously advantaged relative to the general population.
The homosexual agenda is not an impersonal force. It touches and destroys the lives of real people everyday, like Karen. Her husband announced one day that he was leaving her and their two boys to pursue a new “lifestyle” as a “transgendered” female. Today, her ex-husband is living as a woman with a transgendered male and is suing Karen for the custody of their children. Her life has been ruined financially and emotionally. She lost a husband and their children lost a father. She has been threatened with fines and jail, but she is not giving up the fight to save her children from the poison of the homosexual agenda. (Alliance Defense Fund newsletter)

In 1999, the American Psychological Association (APA) published a report on child sex abuse saying that sexual relations between children and adults are “less harmful than believed” and might actually “be positive for willing children.” How could trained psychologists, let alone anyone in their right mind, suggest that sex between adults and children could be positive for the children? Luckily there was a huge uproar throughout society about this absurd conclusion. As a result the APA backed down and acknowledged that there was a serious problem with the study and that they should have been more careful in publishing the report in the first place. See, you can make a difference! (Family Research Council letter)

“It’s Elementary” is a pro-homosexual propaganda documentary aimed at children in grade school. The video conveys the message that homosexuality is good and those that disagree are bad. This is the Joe Camel of the homosexual movement. Only unlike Joe Camel that targets teens, this video targets children as young as five or six years old. And unlike cigarettes, there are no warning labels. The 78-minute lesbian-produced documentary shows teachers introducing pupils to homosexuality and urging its acceptance by manipulation, indoctrination, use of trusted authority figures, and peer pressure.

It’s Elementary is not about simply teaching “tolerance.” Indeed, the president of the National Education Association has declared this himself: “I’m not talking about tolerance,” says Bob Chase in support of the program. “I’m talking about acceptance.” This deceptive program has already made astonishing inroads into America’s educational, political, and media worlds. The film’s producers have bragged about the wide distribution of the film through “an extremely effective grassroots distribution campaign.” According to the producers, It’s Elementary has been shown to state legislators, all grade levels of school teachers and counselors, statewide “school safety” conferences, regional school health provider meetings, PTAs, faculty in over 200 school districts, students from high school through graduate study levels, school administrators, nearly 500 college-level teacher training programs, and many more.

It’s Elementary includes scenes from a Cambridge school’s “Gay and Lesbian Day” assembly in which teachers profess their homosexuality in front of the students. At another school, a lesbian and a male homosexual visit a social studies class to talk about homosexuality – and, according to the principal, “to be role models for gay students.” Such teaching, says the principal, “should be mandatory.”

According to Family Research Council’s website, “teacher after teacher in the film present homosexuality as normal and resistance to the lifestyle as bigotry  to children as young as first grade.” Lies about the biblical view of homosexuality appear to be part of the fabric of this film. There is no balance of any other views offered anywhere in the film.

Some quotes from the video: Debra Chasnoff has this to say about her video, “What’s clear in the film is that the younger the kids, the more open they were. …If we could start doing this kind of education in kindergarten, first grade, second grade, we’d have a better generation.” The principal of an elementary school says on the video: “I don’t think it’s appropriate that values only be taught at home. There are social values as well, there are community values.” was planning to make available an “e-Card” mocking the Iwo Jima memorial. The “gay” celebratory card pictured men, including one in high heels, planting a homosexual rainbow flag instead of Old Glory on Mount Suribachi. However, due to public outrage the card has been canceled. Unfortunately, there are other “gay” “e-Cards” still available, including some that mock women with bisexual philandering husbands. A card called “The Bathhouse” has a women telling her friend, “I hope everything’s OK. Tony’s been in the bathhouse for over an hour.” (Washington Watch – Family Research Council)

Another new pro-homosexual group called Just the Facts Coalition has issued a slick pro-homosexual “fact sheet” which they mailed to every school superintendent in the 15,000 public school districts across the country with the goal that children will be taught to accept and promote homosexuality. This coalition includes the National Education Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Psychological Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Association of School Psychologists, American Federation of Teachers, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance and others.

The document, entitled “Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation and Youth – A Primer for Principals, Education & School Personnel” is a 12 page booklet which confuses providing a safe environment for all students with saying that homosexuality is good, normal and healthy. They demand that homosexuality be accepted as the moral and legal equivalent of heterosexuality and present their one-sided view. (Traditional Values Coalition)

Produced at the urging of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), the booklet denigrates groups that help and support people who want to leave the homosexual lifestyle. It incorrectly portrays heterosexuality as a “religious” viewpoint and homosexuality as “scientific.” It warns of potential harm to young people and includes a threat to schools of legal action if they do no censor views which do not agree with theirs. (Impact – Coral Ridge Ministries)

“This is another attempt by the homosexual lobby to silence any views on homosexuality but its own. The primer does not acknowledge the unhealthy consequences of homosexuality. It presents a one-sided case that promotes homosexuality by advocating censorship for information in schools about the opportunity of individuals to experience a healthy change and leave the homosexual lifestyle.” (Janet Parshall – Family Research Council)

The real potential for harm here is that this misinformation leaves kids with no way out. They need to hear the truth that there is an alternative to this propaganda. If the homosexual community has nothing to hide and the truth is really on their side, why are they so afraid of other viewpoints and open dialogue? Guard your children from the unhealthy consequences of homosexuality and protect your right of free speech. Call your local school superintendent or school board member and voice your opinion about this harmful booklet.



Barbara Spectre, Paideia and the Genocidal cultural indoctrination of White Europeans


In ancient Greek, Paideia meant a system of broad cultural education.

We dont often use Wikipedia as a reliable source, but here is what it says about the ancient Greek term Paideia:

In the culture of ancient Greece, the term paideia (Greek: παιδεία) referred to the rearing and education of the ideal member of the polis (City or Citizenship). It incorporated both practical, subject-based schooling and a focus upon the socialization of individuals within the aristocratic order of the polis. The practical aspects of this education included subjects subsumed under the modern designation of the liberal arts (rhetoric, grammar and philosophy are examples), as well as scientific disciplines like arithmetic and medicine. An ideal and successful member of the polis would possess intellectual, moral and physical refinement, so training in gymnastics and wrestling was valued for its effect on the body alongside the moral education which the Greeks believed was imparted by the study of music, poetry and philosophy. This approach to the rearing of a well-rounded Greek male was common to the Greek-speaking world, with the exception of Sparta where a rigid and militaristic form of education known as the agoge was practiced.

The Greeks considered paideia to be carried out by the aristocratic class, who were said to have intellectualized their culture and their ideas; the culture and the youth are then “moulded” to the ideal of kalos kagathos, “beautiful and good.”
This idea is similar to that of the medieval knights, their culture, and the English concept of the gentleman.

Greek paideia is the idea of perfection, of excellence. The Greek mentality was “to always be pre-eminent”; Homer records this charge of King Peleus to his son Achilles. This idea is called arete. “Arete was the central ideal of all Greek culture.”

The Encyclopedia Britannica describes Paideia as follows:

Paideia, (Greek: “education,” or “learning”), system of education and training in classical Greek and Hellenistic (Greco-Roman) cultures that included such subjects as gymnastics, grammar, rhetoric, music, mathematics, geography, natural history, and philosophy.

Now this may seem like a noble ancient Greek cultural custom of an age long since gone, but how many people know, that one of the biggest advocates of the genocide of the white European people, is a Jewess who has adopted the term Paideia for an institute which is now known as the European Institute for Jewish Studies in Sweden which receives funding from the Swedish government.

Here is a description of what Paideia now means in Sweden from their own website:

Paideia – The European Institute for Jewish Studies in Sweden is a non-denominational academic framework that was established in 2000 with funding from the Swedish government.

Dedicated to the revival of Jewish culture in Europe, Paideia educates leaders for Europe – academicians, artists and community activists – towards fluency in the Jewish textual sources that have served as the wellsprings of Jewish civilization. [Leadera for Europe? Community activists?]

In renewing interpretation of Jewish text, Paideia is reviving a European Jewish voice long silenced by Communism and post-Holocaust trauma (laughable) – **a voice that can contribute to a culturally rich and pluralistic Europe.**

Here is a quote from Barbara Spectre you may have read and heard before, remember that this Jew is the figurehead of a Jewish group funded by the Swedish government that uses the term Paideia, an ancient Greek term for cultural education, for its organisation. And which is committed to ‘reviving Jewish culture in Europe.’ A group which also advocates the implementing of a multiracial agenda designed only for Europe. Why doesn’t the Swedish government fund an organisation that revives Swedish culture in Sweden?


“I think there’s a resurgence of antisemitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural, and I think we’re gonne be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies that they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the center of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode, and Jews will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role, and without that transformation, Europe will not survive.”

A little bit more on Barbara Spectre:

Barbara Lerner Spectre✡ (born ca. 1942) is a US-born Jewess who is most noted for waging a racial campaign against Swedish people in particular and European people in general through the promotion of Cultural Marxism and demographic genocide. She is a hardline Zionist and supports Jewish-racial chauvinism in occupied-Palestine, and is head of Paideia – The European Institute for Jewish Studies in Sweden, an organisation funded by the Swedish government and the Wallenberg Foundation to promote Jewish ideology. Through an organisation called One Sweden, which she heads, she promotes multiculturalism (cultural Marxism) against Europeans in their own homeland.

What business has this Jewess in determining not only the demographic and cultural future of Sweden, but Europe as a whole?

Why is it acceptable for her to openly state the genocidal Jewish aim for Europe, and for there to be no outrage and no calls for the banning of this group that supports the demographic displacement and therefore genocide of the white European people?

Maybe it is because it is a plan widely supported by the so called ‘elite.’ Why do the vast majority of white Europeans not know about this and why do so many of them not care?

Media and academic brainwashing of the white European, (Jewish form of Paideia not Greek) has led to mass apathy across the continent and a nihilistic belief system in which white Europeans have been moulded to believe that they do not exist as an ethnic group, have no interests as a group, and that their own identity is a social construct based on ‘racism’ and ‘colonialism,’ told that it is something to be ‘ashamed’ of and to feel ‘guilty’ about. Despite white Europeans being brainwashed to believe they do not exist as an ethnic group, they are still referred to as white when Jews and leftists want to accuse us of having ‘white privilege’ or when they say the ‘white power structure.’ If there is no such thing as the white race as they like to say, then surely there can be no ‘white privilege’ and no ‘white power structure.’ They say they are anti-racist, what they are is anti-white. Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-white European.

Could you imagine a group, funded by any Western government, that campaigned for, and sought a Europe that was to return to an homogenous continent of white Europeans? It would never happen. Could you also imagine, the Israeli government funding a group inside Israel, that said white Europeans were to play a leading role in making Israel non-Jewish? Again, it would never happen.

Lets return to the term Paideia and its meaning.

Paideia as we have seen, was an ancient Greek form of cultural education and learning that taught people the very best of Greek values and knowledge. No doubt educating the Greeks of that time, in the Greek traditions and customs. Im pretty certain that Paideia was not an education system based on subverting the Greeks to accept their own genocide, but in Sweden today, the term Paideia has been hijacked by anti-white Jewish supremacists and now represents a form of ‘education’ and ‘learning’ that is aimed at the subjugation of the Swedish and European people.

Cultural Marxism, like communism, aims at creating a new man, or a new way of thinking that is opposed totally to the nation, and is opposed to the ethnic and cultural heritage of the nation. To do this, cultural marxism especially, has used the education system as a form of ideological mind manipulation, a new Jewish inspired education and learning.  The opposite of what Paideia initially meant to the ancient Greeks, but nevertheless, Paideia now in Sweden means a broad system of cultural indoctrination and subversion, turning Swedes against themselves just as cultural marxism has done to Europeans across the continent.

Jewish supremacists such as Barbara Spectre, have understood the ancient meaning of Paideia and what it originally meant to Greeks, and they know that most Swedes will not know of the meaning of it, or what the term Paideia meant before it was adopted as a term that aims to culturally indoctrinate a whole continent.

Greece, widely acknowledged as the cradle of Western civilisation, would have wanted to instill pride in the country, loyalty, and a sense of cultural and ethnic duty and Paideia to them would have been the system in which to do it. It is the worst kind of affrontary now for anti-Western Jewish supremacists to turn the term upside down, to mean something totally alien to its ancient Greek meaning. And which rather than being run by Swedes and bringing out the best of the Swedish people, is run by a Jew who is not Swedish and who desires an end to Sweden and Europe by using cultural indoctrination to bring out the worst of people and mass immigration to slowly kill them off.

Greek paideia is the idea of perfection, of excellence, ‘Jewish’ Paideia is the idea of destruction.

Here is a video of this wretch of a woman calling for the genocide of the European people and admitting that Jews will have a “leading role”  in enforcing multiculturalism upon us until it eventually succeeds in making us the ethnic minority on our own continent aswel as globally.

Barbara Spectre, Paideia and the Genocidal cultural indoctrination of White Europeans


In ancient Greek, Paideia meant a system of broad cultural education.

We dont often use Wikipedia as a reliable source, but here is what it says about the ancient Greek term Paideia:

In the culture of ancient Greece, the term paideia (Greek: παιδεία) referred to the rearing and education of the ideal member of the polis (City or Citizenship). It incorporated both practical, subject-based schooling and a focus upon the socialization of individuals within the aristocratic order of the polis. The practical aspects of this education included subjects subsumed under the modern designation of the liberal arts (rhetoric, grammar and philosophy are examples), as well as scientific disciplines like arithmetic and medicine. An ideal and successful member of the polis would possess intellectual, moral and physical refinement, so training in gymnastics and wrestling was valued for its effect on the body alongside the moral education which the Greeks believed was imparted by the study of music, poetry and philosophy.
Continue reading “Barbara Spectre, Paideia and the Genocidal cultural indoctrination of White Europeans”

The Sinking of the German Refugee Ship Wilhelm Gustloff by the Communists in January 1945



The Sinking of the Wilhelm Gustloff

Dr. William Pierce

What’s said to be the most expensive motion picture ever made was released a few weeks ago and has been earning record money at the box office. The film, of course, is Titanic, and it’s about the sinking of the ocean liner RMS Titanic on April 15, 1912, with the loss of 1,513 lives, after the ship struck an iceberg in the North Atlantic. There are many superlatives in the film. The Titanic was the largest ship ever built at the time. It also was the most luxurious ship, intended to provide high-speed trans-Atlantic transportation in comfort for the rich and pampered. The implication of the film is that the sinking of the Titanic was the greatest maritime disaster of all time. I’m sure that the great majority of the American public believes that to be the case, but it isn’t. Everyone has heard about the sinking of the Titanic, and very few have heard about the sinking of the S.S. Wilhelm Gustloff, which was the greatest maritime disaster.
Continue reading “The Sinking of the German Refugee Ship Wilhelm Gustloff by the Communists in January 1945”

Harry Hay – ‘Father of Gay Liberation,’ Communist, and supporter of NAMBLA the Paedophile Advocacy Group


Harry Hay was the Communist founder of a group known as the ‘Mattachine Society,’ the first gay rights organisation in the US in the 1950s. He was also a supporter of the paedophile advocacy group known as NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association). He was a member of the Communist Party USA, and wanted to model the Mattachine Society on the cell organisation being used by the Communist Party of the United States.

Here we have an example of a radical Communist and militant homosexual, who was a supporter of a militant paedophile advocacy group.
Continue reading “Harry Hay – ‘Father of Gay Liberation,’ Communist, and supporter of NAMBLA the Paedophile Advocacy Group”

The Frankfurt School, Western Subversion by Design


The Frankfurt School might not have been based in the most prestigious of buildings, and most people might never have heard of it or known what its original inhabitants intentions were, but what came out of that building has had a major impact on our way of life and how our socities and culture have drastically declined. To understand our nations and society today, we have to understand the strategies to be employed and the ethnic/ideological motivations behind those who created the Frankfurt School.

The decline would appear to many as having begun in the 1960s, but it started much earlier than that. We have to go back to WW1 to find the source of the problem that infests our society today.

Continue reading “The Frankfurt School, Western Subversion by Design”